U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services Image of United States Department of Justice seal EIS GUIDE Strategies for Intervening with Officers through Early Intervention Systems: A Guide for Front-Line Supervisors Authors: Samuel Walker, Ph.D. Stacy Osnick Milligan with Anna Berke EIS GUIDE For More Information: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 To obtain details on COPS programs, call the COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770 or visit: www.cops.usdoj.gov e01060004 Strategies for Intervening with Officers through Early Intervention Systems: A Guide for Front-Line Supervisors This study of early intervention systems (EIS), conducted by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), was supported by grant #2003 HS-WX-K046 by the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office). Points of views or opinions contained in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice or members of PERF. The opinions expressed are generally those based on the consensus of participants in interviews, site visits, or expert panel meetings. However, not every view or statement presented in this report can necessarily be attributed to each individual participant. Websites and sources listed provide useful information at the time of this writing, but the authors do not endorse any information of the sponsor organization or other information on the websites. Published by the Police Executive Research Forum U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services Police Executive Research Forum Washington, DC 20036 United States of America February 2006 ISBN: 1-878734-93-8 Cover Design by Michael A. Sogunro, Aspen System Corporation, contractor to U.S. Department of Justice COPS Office Table of Contents Acknowledgments..............................................................v Foreword...................................................................vii Introduction.................................................................1 About this Guide.............................................................2 Guiding Principles ..........................................................4 Organization of the Guide .................................................. 5 Knowing the System and Conveying the Message ............................... 9 Knowing the System ..........................................................9 Educating Officers about EIS ...............................................11 A Note on Supervisors’ Terminology .........................................13 The New Role of the Supervisor .............................................17 Proactive Supervision and “Early-Early Intervention” .......................18 Supervisors as Data Analysts ...............................................20 Managing Paperwork .........................................................22 Intervention Follow-Through ................................................23 Interventions ..............................................................27 Intervention versus Discipline .............................................27 Engaging Officers in an Intervention .......................................28 Choosing Interventions .....................................................29 Interventions Based on a Problem-Solving Approach ..........................30 Intervention Programs and Services .........................................31 Integrity and Other Benefits of EIS ........................................39 Providing Oversight ........................................................39 Dealing with Hostility and Morale Problems .................................40 Conclusion..................................................................43 References..................................................................45 Appendices..................................................................49 Appendix A: Participating Agencies .........................................49 Appendix B: Telephone Survey Participants ..................................51 Appendix C: COPS Office/PERF Staff .........................................52 About the Authors/Contributor ..............................................55 About the Police Executive Research Forum...................................59 About the PERF Center on Force and Accountability ..........................63 About the COPS Office ......................................................67 Acknowledgments This guide is a culmination of the valuable contributions, keen observations, and hard work of many individuals. We would first like to extend a special thanks to the chiefs and sheriffs of the agencies we visited who so willingly gave their time and resources to help us better understand their unique and successful early intervention systems: Sheriff Leroy Baca (Los Angeles County [California] Sheriff’s Department), Chief Robert Davis (San Jose [California] Police Department), Chief Charlie Deane (Prince William County [Virginia] Police Department), Chief Edward Guthrie (Pocatello [Idaho] Police Department), Chief Stephen Hogue (Tampa [Florida] Police Department), Chief Sidney Klein (Clearwater [Florida] Police Department), Chief Ken McGuire (West Jordan [Utah] Police Department), Chief Robert McNeilly (Pittsburgh [Pennsylvania] Bureau of Police), and Sheriff William Young (Las Vegas [Nevada] Metropolitan Police Department). We also thank the staffs of these agencies who participated in our interviews and provided invaluable information about their EIS, as well as those who assisted the PERF team in organizing and scheduling these visits. Of course, this guide and project would not have been possible without the generous support of the COPS Office. Director Carl Peed and COPS staff have demonstrated a real commitment to the issues surrounding integrity, accountability, and the role of EIS in law enforcement agencies. We appreciate the incredible efforts of our Project Manager, Amy Schapiro, who provided stellar guidance and support throughout the project. We thank Michael A. Sogunro for his artistic design and layout of this publication. In addition to the site visits, PERF convened an exceptional group of individuals from both the law enforcement community and the private sector who have expertise in EIS and/or supervision and leadership. This group of very busy individuals graciously agreed to spend one day discussing how law enforcement agencies could improve supervision within the context of an early intervention system. This discussion later became the basis for some of the recommendations included in this guide. For their participation and thoughtful insight, we would like to thank Commander Linda Barone (Pittsburgh Bureau of Police), Lieutenant Tim Canas (Arlington [Texas] Police Department), Michael Cortrite (UCLA), Captain Joan Dias (Tampa [Florida] Police Department), Mollie Haines (Vice President, D.C. Chamber of Commerce), Assistant Sheriff Rod Jett (Las Vegas [Nevada] Metropolitan Police Department), Gail Kettlewell (George Mason University), Lynn Leavitt (George Mason University), Chief Ken McGuire (West Jordan, Utah, Police Department), John Markovic (International Association of Chiefs of Police), Chief Robert McNeilly (Pittsburgh [Pennsylvania] Bureau of Police), Commander Catherine McNeilly (Pittsburgh [Pennsylvania] Bureau of Police), Chief Bill McSweeney (Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department), Toye Nash (Phoenix Police Department), Lieutenant Larry Oliver (Austin [Texas] Police Department), Sergeant Mike Schaller (New Jersey State Police), and Deputy Superintendent Ellen Scrivner (Chicago [Illinois] Police Department). At the start of this project, PERF staff contacted a great many law enforcement agencies to learn from their experiences. Based on the results, PERF staff identified a smaller number of agencies that appeared to have significant success. Staff also conducted telephone interviews with more than 30 law enforcement agencies. We thank them immensely for their time and candor. A full listing of these agencies may be found in Appendix B. A team of PERF staff and expert consultants deserve special recognition for their hard work. Executive Director Chuck Wexler granted us this opportunity to study EIS and provided us with his valuable thoughts and critique on the final product. We thank Lorie Fridell for her incredible insight and overall support of this project, and Josh Ederheimer for all of his efforts to keep the project on time and on budget. We also thank Anna Berke for helping this project to run smoothly. She truly went above and beyond what was asked of her and did so with great professionalism. Thanks to Camille Preston and Alison Kendall for their assistance on site visits, and Jason Cheney for his superb management of the telephone interviews. We also thank Martha Plotkin for her assistance in helping to move this guide toward publication. Thank you as well to Nathan Ballard for his overall support and his never-ending enthusiasm to provide assistance on projects. Foreword Supervisors, especially first-line supervisors, occupy a critical position within law enforcement agencies. They are asked to fill many roles such as community problem solver, teacher, and leader; and they are asked to conduct themselves as role models for the officers whom they oversee. Despite these demands, perhaps the most difficult challenge facing supervisors is managing officers who engage in behavior that reflects poorly on their department and themselves. These officers might be small in number, but the repercussions of their actions can be considerable. Agencies have traditionally looked to their supervisors to identify these individuals and address any problematic behavior, usually through disciplinary means. Now, many agencies are adopting early intervention systems to provide support for their supervisors in identifying, addressing, and potentially preventing any harmful behavior from occurring. This report, supported by the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services and prepared by the Police Executive Research Forum, is meant to be used as a resource by supervisors who use EIS. While EIS have been used in some agencies for more than 25 years, more recent advancements in such systems have reoriented agencies away from merely “warning” supervisors about “problem officers.” Instead, more and more EIS are designed to help officers. These systems rely heavily on enhanced supervision techniques and a variety of intervention options that address the underlying causes of such behavior. Indeed, the role of the supervisor and access to a broad array of resources for addressing the difficulties facing officers are the two most important elements of a successful early intervention system. The PERF study on which this guide is based has revealed that agencies that have refocused their efforts on helping instead of disciplining officers feel they can dramatically improve accountability, integrity, and the overall health of the officers and organization. Supervisors in particular believed this approach can also reduce onerous paperwork in the long term and improve job satisfaction. This guide details the elements the PERF study found to be the most critical in making an early intervention system successful: supervisors knowing the intricacies of their agency’s EIS, supervisors being proactive in identifying potential problems, and supervisors following up with officers after an intervention. Recommendations are provided throughout to help summarize key points as they relate to these elements. Other recommendations address how supervisors can help make EIS successful, how they can support officers within the framework of their system, and how they can improve accountability and integrity within their agency. PERF and COPS have released a companion guide written specifically for chief executives. That document provides recommendations on the chief executive’s role within an early intervention system, as well as how they can plan for, develop, implement, and maintain such systems.* The COPS Office and PERF are pleased to bring you this guide to help enhance the health of this nation’s law enforcement agencies and the well- being of the officers who serve our communities. Image of signature of COPS Director Carl R. Peed Director, COPS Image of signature of PERF Executive Director Chuck Wexler Executive Director, PERF * The first guide, Supervision and Intervention within Early Intervention Systems: A Guide for Law Enforcement Chief Executives, is available on the PERF and COPS websites at www.policeforum.org and www.cops.usdoj.gov. INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION Within law enforcement agencies, supervisors, especially first-line supervisors, occupy a critical position— asked to be community problem solvers, managers, counselors, teachers, and leaders all at once. Their ultimate responsibility, however, is to serve the public by ensuring that the actions of officers on the street are appropriate, ethical, and in accord with department policies and procedures. The vast majority of officers conduct themselves with the utmost professionalism and dedication to their job. Yet, there remains a small number of officers who engage in inappropriate conduct, which must be addressed at the earliest opportunity. In many cases it is the first-line supervisor who is in a position to first identify and address potentially problematic behaviors. These supervisors need the tools and support to effectively prevent and address such behaviors. Many law enforcement agencies of all sizes and types are adopting early intervention systems (EIS), which are a more formal tool to assist supervisors in identifying officers at risk of engaging in conduct that can be harmful to the officer, agency, or public. Depending upon the agency, however, the overall purpose of an early intervention system can differ significantly. For example, some agencies implement EIS to help identify officers who may be experiencing personal or professional problems that are manifesting themselves in unacceptable performance on the job. These agencies may use system information to help direct resources (e.g., training or counseling) to the specific needs of an officer. These types of systems generally focus on helping officers and providing intervention in a nonpunitive and nondisciplinary fashion. Other agencies adopt an early intervention system to help manage personnel—using the data for performance evaluations, assignment decisions, and improvements in accountability between officers and supervisors. These types of systems tend to focus on positive as well as negative behavior, providing a means to track commendations, awards and other merits, and to recognize the efforts of these officers appropriately (e.g., in positive evaluations or special assignments). Still other departments implement EIS for more proactive reasons, such as identifying officer performance problems early on to foster officer well-being and to avoid future inappropriate conduct, complaints, or even lawsuits. While there are differences in how agencies use their early intervention system, typically the systems are designed similarly. For example, while some agencies use paper files to track EIS usually take the form of an electronic database that collects specific pieces of information about officer behavior. However, some agencies find paper files just as effective. Also, many agencies collect the same kinds of data regarding officer behavior. Some of the more common data elements collected by EIS include an officer’s use of sick leave and the number and type of community complaints or use-of-force incidents involving the officer. Regardless of the types of data collected or the reasons for implementation, EIS can be powerful, multifaceted tools for law enforcement agencies. About This Guide The information presented here is based on a study of EIS conducted by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) in partnership with University of Nebraska–Omaha Professor Samuel Walker, and supported by the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office). The study examined how law enforcement agencies that are leading the field in EIS handle the issues surrounding supervision and intervention, and how they innovatively tackle the challenges they face. Throughout the guide recommendations are provided that address the role of supervisors and the intervention process when an officer reaches a threshold.1 The primary audience for this guide is law enforcement supervisors, including first-line supervisors—primarily sergeants in the field—and commanders holding midlevel management positions who seek practical advice about EIS. It explains their special role in EIS and how that role differs from supervisors’ traditional responsibilities.2 1 The threshold is the point at which a sufficient number of incidents have occurred to warrant a formal inquiry into the behaviors of an officer. 2 A companion guide has been written for police leaders. Supervision and Intervention within Early Intervention Systems: A Guide for Law Enforcement Chief Executives highlights the chief executive’s role and responsibilities within an early intervention system. That guide also provides practical recommendations for the planning, development, and maintenance of EIS. It is available on the PERF website (www.policeforum.org) and on the COPS website (www.cops.usdoj.gov). Methodology Police professionals’ practical experience with EIS provides the basis for this guide. The PERF project team initially contacted approximately 50 small, medium, and large law enforcement agencies known to have well-functioning EIS and asked them to participate in telephone interviews about their systems.3 Through these interviews the team identified nine agencies to examine more closely for their approaches to supervision and/or intervention.4 These sites (see Table 1) include various types of agencies that have adopted successful EIS, including several small, medium, and large agencies; a sheriff’s department; and agencies from different parts of the country. One of the reasons for choosing a relatively diverse group of sites was to explore how law enforcement agencies differed in their approaches to EIS depending on their size, jurisdiction, and geographic location. Project team members visited these sites and interviewed personnel from all ranks of the department, including the chief executive and a number of nonsworn personnel, to find out how first-line supervisors are incorporated into the early intervention system process, how agencies handle officers who have reached a threshold, and how agencies navigate the intervention process. 3 The project team chose individual agencies by reviewing relevant literature (both academic and practitioner-focused) and using a snowball sampling technique whereby practitioners and others with expertise in EIS identified agencies that they felt had exceptional systems. 4 The agencies chosen for site visits are examples of the different types of EIS adopted by law enforcement agencies. These examples are meant to characterize the range of systems in existence with a particular focus on strengthening supervision and/or intervention. Table 1: List of Agencies Participating in Site Visits Agency State Number Sworn Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department California 8,500 Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Nevada 2,353 San Jose Police Department California 1,400 Pittsburgh Bureau of Police Pennsylvania 1,100 Tampa Police Department Florida 1,002 Prince William County Police Department Virginia 493 Clearwater Police Department Florida 264 Pocatello Police Department Idaho 86 West Jordan Police Utah 80 Finally, for this study the PERF team also convened a one-day panel composed of law enforcement practitioners with expertise in EIS and private-sector experts in leadership and supervision. The members of the expert panel discussed innovative ways to train, engage, support, and oversee law enforcement supervisors who work within the structure of EIS. The project team learned a great deal from the interviews, site visits, and expert panel, including a number of best practices that other agencies can adopt, as well as how agencies handled some initial obstacles and unexpected problems. One of the most important lessons learned from this study is the crucial element of leadership on the part of supervisors. Guiding Principles This guide reflects five basic principles. The first principle is that first-line supervisors are really the linchpin of EIS. In most cases, they are the first to observe potentially problematic behavior among their officers. Typically, they are involved in the intervention process once an officer has reached an early intervention system threshold. The second principle is that because supervisors fill such a vital role within EIS, they will be required to handle responsibilities that previously may not have been considered part of their job (i.e., analyzing early intervention system data, proactively engaging officers about potential personal and professional problems that may be affecting their work, and assessing and pairing intervention options with officers’ needs). The third principle is that for EIS to be effective, supervisors will need intervention options that vary to meet the wide range of officers’ needs. By providing some flexibility in the types of intervention options, an agency can increase the likelihood of improving officer performance. That is, targeted or specialized interventions are more likely to help the officer achieve needed improvements. It is also important to provide supervisors with the ability to commend officers for positive behaviors such as receiving complimentary letters from the community or by receiving an award for going above the call of duty. The fourth principle is that an early intervention system should be part of an agency’s larger approach to supporting officers. In the past, EIS (previously referred to as “EWS,” or “early warning systems”) were associated with disciplinary systems, which made buy-in from law enforcement personnel and union representatives difficult. EIS, however, function most effectively when they are used to help identify and address problems before officers get into serious trouble that results in disciplinary action, formal complaints, or lawsuits. The key is to view and promote the system as nondisciplinary. In fact, EIS are most successful when the agency as a whole reinforces a culture that supports both the community and the officers who protect and serve the community. Again, focusing on positive as well as potentially problematic behaviors is an important component for the success of EIS. The fifth and final principle is that EIS are valuable administrative tools that can enhance accountability and integrity in a law enforcement agency. They can identify officer performance problems and provide the means for correcting them. EIS can also enhance the quality of routine supervision throughout the agency, which, in turn, may reduce incidents such as unnecessary officer- involved shootings, inappropriate use of less-lethal force, and other problems. EIS can reduce costs arising from civil litigation and improve relations with the community. And they can help improve the well-being of officers and their families. Organization of the Guide This guide is organized into four overarching sections. The first section outlines the importance of supervisors knowing well the intricacies of their agency’s early intervention system. Once supervisors understand the system, it is important for them to help educate their officers and be able to answer the many questions officers may have about the system. The second section outlines the new role of the supervisor. Much responsibility is placed with the supervisor within an early intervention system. One of the new roles supervisors may be asked to adopt involves being proactive in their supervision duties—helping to identify potential problems even before a threshold is reached within a system. A supervisor will also likely be asked to analyze system data and manage paperwork associated with the system. Finally, supervisors will also be asked to follow up with officers once an intervention has occurred. The third section outlines a number of elements surrounding interventions. For example, this guide highlights the importance of distinguishing between intervention and discipline. This section also provides guidance on how to identify and approach an officer who may need an intervention as well as how to choose an intervention to meet individual needs. A detailed list of promising programs is provided. The fourth and final section touches upon the role EIS play in enhancing officer integrity. EIS provide the means for supervisory oversight to identify officers who may be trying to avoid reaching a threshold within the system. This section also addresses the potential hostility and morale problems that may arise with a new early intervention system. KNOWING THE SYSTEM AND CONVEYING THE MESSAGE A number of law enforcement practitioners who participated in the study agreed that EIS can strengthen both organizational and officer behavior. While each agency tailors an early intervention system to meet its specific needs, the reality is that in most agencies first-line supervisors overwhelmingly assume responsibility in these systems because they spend so much of their time observing and interacting with officers on the street. And because of the nature of their work and the close contact they have with the community, officers on the street are generally the group that most frequently reaches thresholds within EIS.5 In order for an agency’s early intervention system to be successful, supervisors must first become knowledgeable about the system and its intricacies. Then they must educate their officers. Knowing the System Having supervisors fully comprehend their agency’s early intervention system will make them more efficient and effective in their own job and will enable them to answer the multitude of questions that officers are likely to ask. While this may seem obvious, the study found that one of the biggest mistakes departments make with their early intervention system is not fully informing their personnel (especially line personnel) about the system and its workings. In fact, whenever possible, agencies should involve supervisors and officers from the very beginning, including being involved in developing the system itself. This type of involvement can ensure that supervisors and officers will be more knowledgeable about their early intervention system. In cases where a system has existed for some time, it will be necessary to help educate supervisors and officers about the system. The PERF team found that when there was a lack of information it generally resulted from insufficient training in the system’s functions. The PERF team’s interviews also revealed that agency personnel desire additional resources for early intervention system- specific training. Some chiefs indicated that they are giving early intervention system updates at each roll call and have started to circulate department-wide memos on their systems to ensure that all personnel are informed and updated. 5 This may not always be the case, however. Other personnel in an agency may in fact reach thresholds more frequently than an officer on the street. For example, the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department found that officers who work in custody intake units or with inmates who have a history of assaulting law enforcement personnel reached thresholds within their EIS more frequently. In any case, supervisors will need answers to the following questions before they can implement an agency’s early intervention system. What data are in the system? • What performance indicators are included in the early intervention system? • Why are these included? • How are they to be used? (For example, many systems include use of sick leave time. Why is this included? How does it relate to an officer’s overall performance?) Who has access to early intervention system data? • Who has access to the database? • How secure is the system? • Do individual officers have access to their own data? Can officers challenge data they believe are incorrect? • Can officers challenge or correct data they believe are not correct?6 When and where can the data be accessed? • What computers are available with access to the early intervention system? • Is access convenient for supervisors? • Are there obstacles that will make it difficult for supervisors or officers to use the system effectively (if officers are allowed to view their records)? Is there a formal protocol that outlines supervisors’ responsibilities within EIS? • What are the formal responsibilities of supervisors at each rank under the early intervention system? • Are they clearly spelled out in a protocol? • What actions are expected of each rank? Does the department currently offer the resources that supervisors will need to perform their responsibilities under the early intervention system? • Do a range of programs currently exist in this department? If not, is there a plan to develop them? 6 The PERF project team found several departments where they can. The people interviewed said this approach was important in allaying fears that the system was a mysterious big brother-type system. The departments observed in the PERF study offer diverse options and services that supervisors can access in response to an officer with performance problems. They are described in detail later in this report. Educating Officers about EIS Once supervisors have answers to these questions, they may want to discuss the early intervention system with their officers, explaining their supervisory responsibilities within the system and their expectations for their officers. During site visits, the project team found that some agencies experienced misunderstandings about the system, its purpose, and how it operates. Some rank and file officers and union representatives said the system had never been explained to them. One officer told us, “I have been here 15 years and didn’t know we had an [early intervention system] until recently. It was not made known unless you actually needed it. It seems to me that no one is allowed to talk about it.” Another officer described his confusion when asked to report to his command staff’s office for a problem with his behavior: “My main issue with the process is that I wasn’t told about it and what its purpose was. Because I didn’t understand that there was this process, I didn’t know why I was there. There isn’t a protocol of how to explain it to us officers.” EIS represent a change in the entire system of supervision and accountability. Supervisors’ responsibilities, especially as they relate to officer interactions, may change more dramatically in some departments than in others. For example, officers may begin to see supervisors out on calls for service more frequently; they may notice their supervisors holding regular conversations about officer performance (other than during formal evaluations); and officers may see increased attention paid to off-duty assignments, use of sick leave, or other variables that could be affecting the quality of an officer’s performance on the street. Whatever the extent to which supervisors’ roles and responsibilities change, it is imperative that supervisors inform officers about these changes and especially how they may impact future interactions between supervisor and officer. Agencies and supervisors need to communicate not only the nature of the system, but also what the agency expects of people, including officers at all ranks. “I was so confused,” one officer reported, “I wondered if I was doing something wrong. I felt that I was doing my job, and I didn’t understand why I had to meet with my supervisor.” When supervisors explain their expectations of their officers, they reduce this type of confusion, show that they want to support their officers, and help prevent future problems. Supervisors should also clearly explain that the department expects the highest standards of professional service from everyone. An early intervention system is a tool to help achieve that goal. Simply explaining the system will go a long way toward preventing resistance to it. In one department, project team members were told that there was an “initial fear of EIS” when it was introduced, but “that fear has been dissolved and most are comfortable with the system and its purpose.” A commander in the internal affairs unit at one site commented, “It was a struggle for acceptance in the early years, but I think we have worked out both respect and quality.” These departments are proof that, over time, agencies can succeed in changing their culture. “Twenty years ago,” one officer recounted, “there were strong walls built around individual officers.” But now, with the implementation of an early intervention system, “people are more willing to talk and be open.” It is recommended that supervisors become familiar with their early intervention system structure and processes, including knowing the data that are captured in the system, how the data are used, their responsibilities within the system, and the spectrum of resources available to help officers. Supervisors should also have candid conversations with their officers about their supervisory responsibilities and what they expect from their officers. Supervisors may explain how these expectations are tied to the early intervention system. A Note on Supervisors’ Terminology It is important to get the terminology of EIS right. Supervisors must set the right tone from the beginning. When EIS first appeared about 25 years ago, they were usually called early warning systems. Many agencies still use that term, although it does not convey the right message. “Warning” has a punitive, negative tone, implying that it is a precursor to discipline. The PERF study revealed that the best EIS emphasize assisting officers, not punishing them. These systems typically include a range of programs designed to help officers recognize and deal with their performance problems because, time and again, it was discovered that performance problems are rooted in stress and personal and family problems. As a result, the more positive term early “intervention” system is preferred. The systems examined are known by such names as Early Intervention Program, Performance Assessment and Review System, and Performance Support Alert. Similarly, an early intervention system addresses “officers with performance problems,” not “problem officers.” The term “problem officer” implies that there is something inherently bad and unchangeable about that officer; “officer with performance problems” suggests a specific problem that, with proper attention, can be corrected. It is recommended that supervisors and agencies use terms such as “intervention” and “performance problems” instead of “warning” and “problem officers.” This will help convey the message that the system is meant to help officers, not punish them. THE NEW ROLE OF THE SUPERVISOR THE NEW ROLE OF THE SUPERVISOR During the site visits, the PERF project team heard a great deal about how supervisors’ roles changed as a result of their agency’s early intervention system. For departments that did not have a strong system of accountability already in place, implementing the early intervention system was a challenge. Supervisors in some of these agencies perceived the early intervention system as a means for scrutinizing and monitoring them at all times. Others felt that they were now responsible for maintaining, interpreting, and analyzing large amounts of data collected by their system, which can be daunting and time consuming. In departments with a longer history of institutionalized accountability measures, however, the early intervention system appeared to be fully integrated into the culture of the department and its routine activities, including supervisory activities. Supervisors in these agencies noted only small changes in their role with the early intervention system. Overall, site visits revealed four broadly defined categories that capture the types of changes experienced by many supervisors as a result of implementing an early intervention system: proactive supervision, data analysis, paperwork, and intervention follow-up. These tasks required supervisors to acquire new skills and take a new approach to supervision. The project team found examples of supervisors resisting changes related to EIS. However, the study also revealed that in those agencies with strong EIS, supervisors and command staff believed that in the long run an early intervention system helps improve supervision. The latter believed that such a system gives supervisors the tools they need to help officers improve their performance. These tools promote better police service to the community and fewer citizen complaints and excessive force incidents. Eventually, these changes translate into fewer headaches for supervisors, fewer questionable incidents, fewer difficult investigations, and less paperwork. Proactive Supervision and “Early-Early Intervention” EIS databases can help supervisors identify patterns of behavior that raise questions about an officer’s well-being and performance. Often, however, these patterns are evident long before an officer reaches a threshold within an early intervention system or before there is a major incident. Findings from the study revealed that department personnel (of varying ranks) in many of the agencies visited felt that the keen eye of the supervisor can identify these patterns early on. Experienced commanders at several sites told project staff, “It really shouldn’t get to the early intervention system. You should spot those problems before they reach that point.” In the Tampa Police Department, a commander told the project team, “Good supervisors know what is happening to their officers without the [system.]” In the Prince William County Police Department, supervisors said they “know their officers” and can prevent patterns of inappropriate conduct from developing in the first place. In general, supervisors explained, they really do not need a computer or a database; they can spot problems in the making. One chief said, “If the officer gets to [the early intervention system], the department has failed to supervise the officer.” This approach to supervision may be referred to as early-early intervention. Under this approach, departments view EIS essentially as a backup to responsible and effective ongoing supervision. One commander characterized his agency’s system as “a good checks and balances system.” Directing officers under this intervention approach can be done formally or informally. For example, the Prince William County Police Department’s general orders outline supervisory responsibility in terms of “early, early intervention.” “The early intervention system does not alter the responsibility of supervisors as the primary source for monitoring performance and behavior of personnel on a daily basis. Supervisors shall continue to be alert to, and monitor, the strengths and weaknesses of members assigned to them and may detect a need for EIS in this way.” The Pittsburgh Bureau of Police requires that supervisors meet with their officers quarterly, or more frequently if needed. In the Pocatello Police Department’s system, supervisors are notified if an officer is approaching a threshold so that they may meet with that officer. Supervisors might even take some immediate steps to find out what is going on by asking for an impromptu, informal meeting with the officer when they notice inappropriate behavior. If supervisors are monitoring officer behavior closely, what exactly should they be looking for? The PERF project team asked many supervisors, “What do you see? What do you look for that indicates an officer might be having problems?” Although the departments were different in many ways, the answers were similar: • An outgoing officer is suddenly quiet and withdrawn, or vice versa. • The usual joking among officers suddenly has an edge, with a note of hostility just below the surface. • The quality of an officer’s paperwork has declined. • An officer begins avoiding responsibilities in small ways. • An officer is going through a difficult divorce, or one of the officer’s children is having serious problems. The emphasis on early intervention has taken hold in some departments and has begun changing the way supervisors do their jobs. One supervisor in San Jose described how the implementation of an early intervention system has heightened standards and expectations: “This has changed the way we do business. You hear something on the radio and you think, ‘Hey, maybe I should go and be there with my officers because there is some potential for a problem there.’” Proactive supervision is similarly important in identifying officers who are exceeding expectations in their job performance. Just as supervisors should be identifying potential problems early on, they should also be noticing when officers under their command engage in positive behaviors that may warrant formal recognition such as a letter in an officer’s file or a department award. In all, proactive supervision is imperative to both the health of the organization and individual officers however, formal EIS are still necessary for accountability purposes and to document interactions and interventions with officers. It is recommended that supervisors attempt to identify and address performance problems before they reach a threshold within the early intervention system. This early awareness requires supervisors to observe their personnel’s attitudes and behaviors and check in with them about changes that are out of the ordinary. Supervisors as Data Analysts One of the biggest changes in the role of supervisors is that under an early intervention system they will become data analysts. Guided by predetermined thresholds, supervisors should understand how to look at and interpret the early intervention system data, how to look for patterns of behavior, and how to make decisions about what kinds of patterns require an intervention. When analyzing data, supervisors must consider the context for the officer’s behavior and determine the reason for the officer’s actions. To develop an accurate understanding of the situation, supervisors should assess system data daily, or at least regularly. The Pittsburgh Bureau of Police requires its supervisors to review early intervention system data daily. The data contained in an early intervention system can also help supervisors determine what type of intervention is needed for a particular officer. The PERF team learned that determining whether an intervention is necessary and what type of intervention is appropriate is a multistep process. As one commander in the West Jordan Police Department explained: It is our job to determine whether or not somebody needs minor intervention or if it is something bigger. When I begin to sense a problem with an officer I take that person in immediately to discuss the problem behavior. I [continually] monitor it. If [the problem] behavior is still observed, I sit down with them to set up a way to eliminate [the] behavior, and for the most part, that takes care of it. If not, I talk to other supervisors at our staff meetings and review the binder of the past evaluations. This allows us to evaluate each officer over that year so that we can start to see if there is a pattern developing. Then we can decide which direction to take. Another supervisor described the various levels involved in thoroughly reviewing an officer’s file to decide if intervention is necessary and, if so, to select the best intervention for the given situation. Most supervisors take this role very seriously and feel responsible for “promoting healthy employees and keeping the organization ethically responsible to the community” through review, analysis, and interpretation, as a supervisor from the Prince William County Police Department stated. In addition to analyzing and interpreting early intervention system data, supervisors also have a responsibility to provide accurate information to be entered into the system for record-keeping purposes. An early intervention system is only as good as the data it contains; therefore, it is essential to ensure the integrity of that data. This requires continuous monitoring of use-of-force reports, citizen complaint data, and other performance indicators used by EIS. Supervisors should closely monitor the quality of reports completed by officers under their command. Use-of-force and traffic stop reports, for example, need to be reviewed carefully to ensure that they are complete, accurate, and legible. An early intervention system does not replace traditional supervision. It reinforces the basic principles of good supervision and supplements them with new practices and tools. For example, traditional supervision has not involved analyzing a database, looking for patterns of behavior, and making critical decisions about what kind of patterns require intervention. Although some supervisors may feel uncomfortable with these new tasks, they are critical to the success of EIS and simultaneously help improve overall supervision in law enforcement agencies. One of the supervisor’s responsibilities within an early intervention system is to use the information in the database to assess potential problems. It is recommended that supervisors be very familiar with the data and know how to interpret them, how to look for patterns, and when to intervene. It is recommended that supervisors take great care in reviewing the quality and accuracy of information produced about their officers that will be included in the early intervention system database. These data eventually may be used to save an officer’s health or career, or save the department from a costly lawsuit. Managing Paperwork In many departments, an early intervention system will result in significant changes in supervisors’ day-to-day responsibilities. A study of the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police’s consent decree, conducted by the Vera Institute of Justice in 2002, found that the introduction of an early intervention system and other accountability mechanisms resulted in a radical shift in how first- line supervisors spent their time.7 Specifically, supervisors began spending a lot more time at their desks and less time out in the field, in part because they were managing the increased amount of paperwork that resulted from the initial learning curve with their new early intervention system. As mentioned earlier, this kind of change will be more dramatic in some departments than in others, depending upon the degree to which an agency already has some accountability structures in place. For those agencies that incorporate positive behavior into their early intervention system, paperwork associated with commendations and awards could be just as time-consuming for supervisors. Again, the degree of change will be more dramatic in some agencies than in others, and will likely decrease as these efforts are more seamlessly incorporated into supervisors’ routine activities. Supervisors in some of the agencies visited were initially skeptical or even hostile to the prospect of an early intervention system because of a fear that the system would require burdensome paperwork. First-line supervisors in particular may think they will not be able to do any real supervision. This is an understandable fear, and although these systems do involve additional paperwork in the short term, the study found that an effective early intervention system means less paperwork in the long run. 7 Davis et al., 2002. Commanders at one of the sites visited were adamant on this point: “If you do the extra paperwork demanded by an early intervention system now, you will have less work in the long run,” stated one commander. As he explained, identifying performance problems and intervening early will result in fewer problematic incidents in the field later, and a lot of time saved that otherwise would have been spent investigating complaints. Educating supervisors about the benefits of EIS can go a long way toward allaying their fears and decreasing their resistance to this useful management tool. It is recommended that supervisors become acquainted with their new roles and responsibilities, as well as how their daily activities will change with the implementation of an early intervention system. This could be done in the course of routine training for supervisors on their early intervention system or during in-service training. Intervention Follow-Through A critical element in supporting officers is follow-up with those who have participated in an intervention, ensuring that relevant issues have been addressed. This is a key responsibility of supervisors within an early intervention system. As such, there should be a system of accountability to ensure that supervisors within an officer’s chain of command follow through. In Pittsburgh, for example, the chief and other command staff meet quarterly to thoroughly review the activity of the early intervention system. This department also requires supervisors to conduct an informal meeting with each officer identified by their early intervention system, giving the officers a chance to ask questions. The supervisors then report back to their commanders on when, where, and what was discussed at each meeting. The chief is kept informed about these meetings between supervisors and officers. Other departments require supervisors to maintain logs, notebooks, or journals on officer behavior, and these written records are reviewed regularly by immediate supervisors and, in the case of any issue of special concern, by command officers. The project team also visited departments where challenges remained concerning methods of follow-through. In one department the early intervention system unit tasked with generating reports about officers with performance issues noted that it would not hear back from supervisors about whether any action was taken. The department personnel reported having “no way of knowing” what sort of intervention the officer participated in, or what resources were made available to that officer. As it turns out, that system is entirely voluntary and does not mandate intervention or action. Another system the PERF team observed, also voluntary, did not track follow-up actions or outcomes. These types of systems may not reinforce the message that the agency truly wants to help its officers. In fact, these approaches may lead officers who are experiencing problems to feel isolated. Even worse, such approaches may help some officers circumvent the system altogether. The true impact of voluntary systems is not known because no records are kept on how many officers have taken advantage of interventions and have been helped. This approach is not as effective as it could be. If meaningful interventions and follow-up do not occur, the entire system is compromised. Follow-through is the essential ingredient of a successful early intervention system, in which officers with identified performance problems receive the help they need. During site visits, the PERF team talked with a number of officers about their personal experience with the system. One remarked, “I wouldn’t be here today if it hadn’t been for the help I got.” Meaningful interventions communicate the message that the department is serious about professional conduct and helping officers improve their performance. It is recommended that supervisors follow through with an officer’s intervention—ensuring that it was the appropriate option and that the officer gained sufficient help to address the performance problem. Supervisors should recommend a different intervention if the first was unsuccessful. INTERVENTIONS INTERVENTIONS Findings from site visits revealed that what makes EIS effective is supervisors’ access to programs and services that meet officers’ needs. Particularly important is the availability of a range of intervention alternatives. Officer performance issues stem from a wide variety of causes. Some officers are too aggressive, while others may be doing too little police work. Serious family issues affect some officers, while others have simply forgotten what they learned in training. In the West Jordan Police Department, a supervisor described his approach as one of “customized interventions”—identifying the best course of action for a particular individual. Interventions are not really anything new in policing. Many supervisors have always conducted interventions—monitoring officer performance and informally handling potential problems. But traditionally individual supervisors have acted on their own good judgment, or common sense, or from their own experience with a good supervisor. What is new under an early intervention system is that the department adopts a formal system of interventions as a department-wide approach to improving officer performance. Intervention versus Discipline As discussed earlier, successful EIS are a nondisciplinary approach to officer performance problems. Consequently, they are intended to be separate from the formal disciplinary system. Establishing an early intervention system, however, does not mean that a department is going to be soft on discipline. Officers will be punished for violations of law or department policy through the formal disciplinary system. Essentially, an early intervention system can be viewed as a complementary nondisciplinary component of an agency’s personnel management toolbox. EIS can be viewed even more broadly and used to reward positive police behavior. For example, the chief at the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police found that his early intervention system could also be used to identify officers who are taking the most initiative. These officers are recognized for their hard work. The relationship between EIS and an agency’s disciplinary system raises two key questions for supervisors. (1) Is it clear to everyone that the early intervention system is separate from the formal disciplinary system? (2) Is the distinction clearly spelled out in the early intervention system protocol? If the answer to either of these questions is no, then steps need to be taken to correct the problem. It is recommended that supervisors make sure their officers understand that the early intervention system is a separate entity from the disciplinary system and has the purpose of helping officers instead of punishing them. Engaging Officers in an Intervention Perhaps one of the most difficult adjustments supervisors will face when an early intervention system is introduced is learning how to engage officers about their performance problems, given that an EIS intervention is different from the traditional discipline-oriented supervision they know. With EIS interventions, supervisors no longer rely solely on the standard operating procedures manual. Instead, supervisors may draw primarily on the various resources available to them for assisting their officers, including referrals to the agency’s on-site chaplain and/or psychologist, to a peer mentor or peer counselor, to the employee assistance program (EAP), or to training opportunities. Also, supervisors will be expected to engage officers proactively and use informal ways of assisting them to improve their performance. These might include going out on calls with officers, keeping a daily log, monitoring officers, and being flexible, available, informal, and consistent until officers are back on track. One supervisor at the San Jose Police Department commented, “it is my job to do everything in my ability to make sure that my officers are okay.” It is reasonable to expect, however, that when supervisors approach officers about conduct that needs improvement, they will uncover deeper personal or professional issues underlying the officers’ behavior. Although this would be an excellent opportunity for supervisors to ask some probing questions to help link an officer with an appropriate intervention, some supervisors may not be comfortable handling this type of interaction. Some supervisors may feel uneasy discussing personal problems “on the job.” It is also possible that supervisors (especially newly promoted supervisors) may not be ready to lose their peer status among officers. Some new supervisors interviewed during the study felt that friendships that had been formed when they were officers were placed at risk when they were promoted. As a result, many were reluctant to use the system for former peers. Departments should provide training on supervision and leadership, especially as these relate to supervisors’ new responsibilities within EIS. This training should address how to handle sensitive topics as well as general professional responsibilities with peers. It is recommended that supervisors be prepared to address officer performance problems in new and innovative ways that differ from the formal disciplinary system. It is also recommended that departments offer, and supervisors seek out, training to help make the transition to their new early intervention system responsibilities smooth, including how to handle sensitive personal issues on the job. Choosing Interventions The responsibility for choosing the right option is the supervisor’s, but it is often a good idea to consult with others while maintaining appropriate confidentiality. In one intervention system visited during the study, lieutenants regularly talked with captains about particular officers. And captains regularly talked with the chief. Again, the overall focus of these conversations entailed identifying appropriate interventions to help support the officer. Captains also talked with the psychological services provider about situations, asking how serious a situation sounded and what the psychological services provider thought the department should do—for example, act immediately or wait to see how things go. It is recommended that when choosing an intervention, supervisors consider discussing the performance problems and the available intervention options with others in the officer’s chain of command or the EAP. Interventions Based on a Problem-Solving Approach Interventions within an early intervention system can be implemented using a problem-oriented policing (POP) approach.8 An officer’s performance issues are just that—a problem to be solved. POP employs the Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment (SARA) model, which is widely used by police to solve community problems. In an early intervention system, the scanning and analysis coincide with the information-gathering stage. As a sergeant with the New Jersey State Police observed, when faced with an officer performance problem a supervisor should “do what cops do best: investigate.” This means getting more information about the exact nature of the problem. The early intervention system database can provide valuable information about which areas of performance are problematic. It can help identify specific patterns and performance issues that provide clues, such as the following: • The officer’s citizen complaints mainly arise from traffic stops. • The officer’s use-of-force incidents mainly involve young males. • The officer has a suspiciously high number of complaints from women. • The officer’s performance took a dramatic turn for the worse about eight months earlier. • The officer has a pattern of use-of-force incidents and resisting arrest charges.9 The response phase could be considered the intervention itself, including an informal meeting with a supervisor, retraining, or referral to a counselor. The assessment phase is the follow-up that supervisors should conduct to ensure that the intervention addressed the proper issues. This is discussed in more detail below. When thinking about EIS, it is recommended that supervisors use a problem-oriented policing approach to help guide them in identifying the problem, addressing the problem, and ensuring that the intervention is successful. 8 More information about problem solving can be found at the POP Center website: (www.popcenter.org). In addition, the following titles may be helpful, Problem- Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing Crime and Disorder through Problem- Solving Partnerships and Crime Analysis for Problem Solver in 60 Small Steps. Both can be found at (www.popcenter.org) or (www.cops.usdoj.gov). 9 There may also be legitimate reasons for an increase in use-of-force incidents and resisting arrest charges, such as special assignments. These data should still be examined routinely to ensure appropriate officer behavior. Intervention Programs and Services Throughout the study the project team identified a number of proactive programs that supplement formal EIS but also exist independent of them. These services are available and offered to officers even when they have not reached a threshold within their early intervention system. Proactive supervisors seeking to identify potential problems early on will have these in their arsenal to help meet officers’ needs. Successful intervention programs observed during the study are outlined below. Counseling by an Immediate Supervisor Counseling by an officer’s immediate supervisor is the most common intervention. These informal counseling sessions take many forms. Some occur long before anything has appeared in the early intervention system database. Usually, they are informal conversations, often occurring immediately after an encounter with a citizen where the supervisor observed a need for improvement. In one agency, these are sometimes referred to as trunk meetings, as in “meet me by the trunk of your patrol car.” The Tampa Police Department mandates that supervisors conduct informal meetings with an officer who reaches a trigger point. More formally, supervisors in the West Jordan Police Department meet with officers, and if a performance problem is identified, the officer signs a performance improvement contract that outlines a plan for improvement. The San Jose Police Department uses intervention counseling sessions to speak with officers who have reached a threshold as a result of their actions and to discuss how they could improve. The Prince William County Police Department uses a similar technique, called performance review, which precedes a formal intervention such as training or a referral to an EAP. In the latter two departments, higher-ranking officers also take part in the sessions. During the site visits, many supervisors and commanders agreed that some officers simply need a wake-up call. In these instances, they are good officers who, for some reason, have lost perspective on quality police work. Often they only need someone to tell them they are on the wrong track and are jeopardizing their career. Training Training is a common form of intervention. An officer may simply need refresher training on traffic stops or on the use of force. One of the most interesting findings from the site visits was the extent to which officers were vigorous advocates of continuing training. Again and again, officers expressed a demand for more training. In one department where budget cuts had reduced training opportunities, officers were very concerned about maintaining quality standards. In another department, “self-initiated” officer requests for retraining were common, reflecting a well-developed culture of accountability in the department. It means that the department holds its officers to high standards, that officers have internalized those expectations, and that the department makes the programs and services necessary for improving performance available to the officers. Professional Counseling on Personal or Family Problems Referral to professional counseling was an option in all EIS examined during the study, but there were important differences in how it worked. In several departments, officers expressed deep suspicion of their EAP. Some were not confident that their participation would remain confidential, while others apparently felt that going to the EAP was a sign of weakness or failure. In departments with strong peer officer support programs (see below), project staff did not observe the same distrust of EAP or other forms of professional counseling. It may be that the peer officer support program helps to create a culture in which it is acceptable to admit that an officer is having problems, either on the job or at home. Similarly, a chief executive’s commitment to EAP services can increase their use. In explaining his approach to EAP, one chief asked, “Who hasn’t been to a psychologist at one time or another?” There are times when officers may want to see someone with spiritual authority. Distressed officers may find that a department chaplain can speak to the issues distracting them from their responsibilities to the department. Counseling from a member of the clergy can help officers get through the suicide of a close family member or fellow officer, for example, or through other difficult times. The effectiveness of professional counseling programs depends in part on the scope and cost of the services available. The West Jordan Police Department, for example, has a strong family orientation. Its chief was adamant that one cannot separate the employee from the home, and that what happens at work affects the family, and vice versa. Consequently, this department has made professional counseling services available to anyone dependent on the employee’s income. This includes spouses, children, and elderly parents who live with the employee. Peer Officer Support Program Several departments maintain a peer officer support program. This program designates a few officers in each precinct or unit as peer support officers and gives them specialized training. In some cases, the peer supporter comes from a neighboring agency, creating an environment of heightened confidentiality and comfort for the troubled officer. In most cases, peer supporters receive extensive hours of training. Peer support programs allow officers to talk frankly with individuals of the same rank who might have had similar experiences. During the site interviews it became apparent that because they were fellow officers, the peer support officers had immediate rapport and trust. Among agencies visited during the study, those that maintain peer officer support programs at this writing include the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, the San Jose Police Department, the West Jordan Police Department, the Clearwater Police Department, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, and the Prince William County Police Department. During some of the site visits, the project team interviewed both officers who counsel in the peer support program and officers who had received assistance from their department’s program. Officers who received assistance felt very positive about their programs and were grateful for being provided one-on-one support, a good listener, and compassion during a difficult time. Crisis Intervention Teams Many departments maintain a crisis intervention team (CIT) that responds to critical incidents such as officer-involved shootings or excessive use-of-force incidents. In some cases, CITs include officers from several area departments. The officer can talk in confidence with a CIT member who has been in a similar situation. The Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department has worked out an arrangement with the homicide unit to allow a CIT member to sit with the involved officer while the officer is waiting to be interviewed about the incident. This provides officers the opportunity to share this stressful time with someone who has had a similar experience. The only stipulation is that neither party can discuss the underlying incident; the peer support officer may explain the process to the officer or discuss other issues as the officer desires. The San Jose and West Jordan Police Departments also have CITs. Project team members were impressed by how strongly officers who participate in these programs felt about the value of their programs. Virtually all felt that the programs conveyed a message of support and concern to officers who were involved in critical incidents. Reassignment and Relief from Duty Reassignment is another intervention option. The Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, for example, conceptualized this approach as an acknowledgment of the different stresses associated with particular assignments and an attempt to reduce the risk factors for certain officers. In other words, this kind of intervention recognizes that law enforcement assignments differ—patrol duty is different from traffic enforcement, and both are very different from narcotics work. Some officers simply have problems coping with the special demands of certain assignments. The Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department decided that, if intervention strategies do not succeed or are not available, it is in everyone’s interest to transfer an officer to an assignment where particular problem situations are less likely to occur. Importantly, monitoring and follow-up should continue in this new arrangement. Similarly, an intervention found useful during site visits involved temporary relief from duty. In the Los Angeles and West Jordan departments, sergeants have the authority to relieve an officer from duty for a short time, sending that officer home when it is clear that the officer is under stress and not fit for duty that day. In most cases, the officer in question is having some serious but temporary personal crisis. PERF project team members inquired about such a duty status change, and learned that the practice was not a formal personnel action or disciplinary action, nor was there any loss of pay for the officer. It is simply a way to provide supervisors with the flexibility to handle short-term personnel problems. This approach requires that a sergeant pay close attention to their officers, including their attitudes and behavior, and notice anything out of the ordinary. This type of intervention also reflects a supportive work environment, but it should be used only in rare instances, since there is potential for abuse (if, say, a supervisor gives friends time off with pay). Overall, study findings indicated that neither supervisors nor officers in the sites visited abused the duty status intervention option, and that the benefits outweighed potential problems. There are a wide variety of interventions from which to choose depending on the needs of an officer. It is recommended that supervisors be aware of and evaluate the various options available to them. Similarly, supervisors might look beyond the options available in their department as permitted. There may be other viable interventions depending on the department’s available resources and commitment to choosing innovative, effective interventions. INTEGRITY AND OTHER BENEFITS OF EIS INTEGRITY AND OTHER BENEFITS OF EIS Another way to view EIS is as a valuable administrative tool for ensuring integrity in a law enforcement agency and helping supervisors oversee their officers. EIS provide supervisors with richly detailed information about what their officers are doing out on the street and how they are interacting with citizens. As one commander described it, the early intervention system gives a global picture of behavior. Providing Oversight Early intervention system data can reveal patterns of unacceptable behavior and provide indicators of potential problems that need correcting. This is one level of oversight aimed at improving both officer performance and the quality of supervision in an agency. Supervisors might also use early intervention system data to learn more about officers recently transferred to their unit. In some instances the PERF team identified officers who engaged in overt “supervisor shopping”—that is, requesting transfers or shifts to work with a particular supervisor. Some officers were found to be “jumping supervisors”—transferring to a new supervisor who knows little if anything about their history—in the hopes of avoiding an early intervention system trigger or intervention. By using early intervention system data supervisors become more informed about their staff and are better equipped to help address future problematic behaviors. Finally, some departments and supervisors use EIS for overall performance evaluations of officers, including identifying top- performing officers. “The biggest asset to our EIS,” one chief explained, “is finding the most productive officers . . . .” In addition to rewarding officers for their excellent service, the chief, in part, uses system data to organize his staff. He tries to link officers with assignments that will be most effective and efficient for the department and the community. It is recommended that supervisors use their early intervention system to help provide a level of oversight. This includes monitoring data daily and addressing any potential problems early on; reviewing data on newly transferred officers; and using data, in part, to place officers in the assignments where they are most likely to succeed. Dealing with Hostility and Morale Problems An early intervention system can represent a departmental shift to a new culture of accountability, which may bring hostility or morale problems. Some commentators have reported “de-policing” in response to EIS or consent decrees that mandate changes in accountability systems. Research has not supported these assertions. The Vera Institute of Justice conducted two extensive evaluations of the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police, which implemented an early intervention system as part of a consent decree.10,11 The evaluations found no evidence that officers reduced their activity level because of the system or any of the other changes. Nonetheless, there may be talk among rank-and-file officers about doing less police work because of the early intervention system. Supervisors will need to monitor this situation carefully, making it clear that deliberately avoiding work is unprofessional and will not be tolerated. In agencies where an early intervention system tracks positive performance, it may be a smoother process of transition and acceptance since there will be a focus on something other than just potential performance problems. If officers feel that the department is equally concerned about providing positive reinforcement, hostility and morale issues relating to the early intervention system will likely be less of an issue. Supervisors may witness hostility or low morale in response to initial implementation of an early intervention system. It is recommended that supervisors restate the purpose of the early intervention system and reassure officers that the system is not punitive and is there to help them. 10 Davis et al., 2002, 2005. 11 In this case, a consent decree is an agreement between the U.S. Department of Justice and the law enforcement agency that stipulates various reforms that must be undertaken by the law enforcement agency. Typically, a monitor is appointed to oversee the compliance of the department with the decree. CONCLUSION & REFERENCES CONCLUSION Supervisors are the linchpin of EIS. Their roles and responsibilities within such systems are significant and should be treated as such. In most cases, supervisors are the first to become aware of potentially problematic behaviors by officers, and they are the ones most frequently involved in identifying appropriate interventions. The success or failure of an early intervention system, therefore, hinges on the supervisor. It is imperative that supervisors know their early intervention system well and are able to convey the purpose and the mechanics of the system to their officers. Supervisors able to share their knowledge can garner much-needed officer support for the system. Perhaps the most significant change for supervisors involves working more closely with data, including being able to analyze and interpret the information in the early intervention system database. Other important changes may include supervisors becoming more sensitive to subtle cues from their officers in order to identify potential problems even before an officer reaches a threshold within their system, and supervisors encountering more paperwork initially. Study findings revealed that supervisors working in agencies with a successful early intervention system adapted to these new roles and responsibilities and found the benefits of the system to far outweigh any costs. Supervisors are better able to perform their duties under an early intervention system if they have the proper tools and resources to effect change. Having a wide array of intervention options produces a supportive environment for officers, but it also increases the chances that supervisors will be able to address the individual needs of an officer. The intervention phase of these systems is complex, and supervisors will likely have to approach their relationships with their officers differently, perhaps by finding new ways to ask officers about personal problems that may be affecting their job performance. The intervention process should be tied to a problem-solving approach to resolving officers’ issues. Furthermore, supervisors can help reinforce an agency’s commitment to its officers by showing support for officers who are experiencing difficulty in their job and invoking a nondisciplinary process. True support of officers requires being aware of officers’ behavior, engaging officers in conversations about potential problems, connecting them with appropriate resources or services, and following up to ensure the services were effective. It is also important to acknowledge and reward positive behaviors. It is important to note that early intervention does not always provide the necessary solutions for supervisors and officers. If EIS is engaged and officers’ behaviors continue to decline, or officers illustrate a pattern of dangerous/harmful behavior, more serious disciplinary action may occur. However, in most cases and for many police departments, EIS can be an important and multifaceted administrative tool that improves officer performance, enhances supervision, assists in personnel management, and ensures accountability and integrity. REFERENCES Davis, Robert C., Christopher W. Ortiz, Nicole J. Henderson, Joel Miller, and Michelle K. Massie. 2002. Turning Necessity into Virtue: Pittsburgh’s Experience with a Federal Consent Decree. New York: The Vera Institute of Justice. Davis, Robert C., Nicole J. Henderson, and Christopher W. Ortiz. 2005. Can Federal Intervention Bring Lasting Improvement in Local Policing? The Pittsburgh Consent Decree. New York: The Vera Institute of Justice. Walker, Samuel. 2003. Early Intervention Systems for Law Enforcement Agencies: A Planning and Management Guide. Washington, D.C.: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Walker, Samuel, Stacy Osnick Milligan with Anna Berke. 2005. Supervision And Intervention Within Early Intervention Systems: A Guide For Law Enforcement Chief Executives. Washington, D.C.: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. APPENDICES APPENDICES Appendix A—Participating Agencies Site Visits Sheriff Leroy Baca Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department 4700 Ramona Boulevard. Monterey Park, CA 91754 Contact: Dr. Audrey Honig Chief Robert Davis San Jose Police Department 201 West Mission Street San Jose, CA 95110 Contact: Lt. Dave Cavallaro Chief Charlie Deane Prince William Police Department 1 County Complex Court Prince William, VA 22192 Contact: Lt. Steve Hudson Chief Edward Guthrie Pocatello Police Department 911 North 7th Street Pocatello, ID 83206 Contact: Lt. Brad Hunt Chief Stephen Hogue Tampa Police Department 411 North Franklin Street One Police Center Tampa, FL 33602 Contact: Captain Joan Dias Chief Sidney Klein Clearwater Police Department 645 Pierce Street Clearwater, FL 33756 Contact: Lt. Ron Sudler Chief Ken McGuire West Jordan Police Department 8000 South Redwood Road West Jordan, UT 84088 Contact: Lt. Kyle Shepherd Chief Robert McNeilly Pittsburgh Bureau of Police 1203 Western Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15233 Contact: Commander Linda Barone Sheriff William Young Las Vegas Police Department 400 Stewart Avenue Las Vegas, NV 89101 Contact: Deputy Chief Mike Ault Note: Participants’ ranks and agency affiliations are listed as of the time of the project. Expert Panel Meeting Participants Commander Linda Barone Pittsburgh Bureau of Police 1203 Western Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15233 Lieutenant Tim Canas Arlington Police Department 6000 West Pioneer Parkway Arlington, TX 76013 Michael Cortrite UCLA EDD Program 1029 Moore Los Angeles, CA 90095 Captain Joan Dias Tampa Police Department 411 North Franklin Street One Police Center Tampa, FL 33602 Mollie Haines Vice President D.C. Chamber of Commerce 1213 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Assistant Sheriff Rod Jett Las Vegas Metro Police Department 400 Stewart Avenue Las Vegas, NV 89101 Gail Kettlewell Director, Higher Education Program George Mason University College of Arts and Sciences 4400 University Drive MS 1B3 Fairfax, VA 22030 Lynn Leavitt Director, Center for Service and Leadership George Mason University 442 Enterprise Hall Fairfax, VA 22030 John Markovic Program Manager International Association of Chiefs of Police 515 North Washington Street Alexandria, VA 22314 Chief Ken McGuire West Jordan Police Department 8000 South Redwood Road West Jordan, UT 84088 Commander Catherine McNeilly Pittsburgh Bureau of Police 1203 Western Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15233 Chief Robert McNeilly Pittsburgh Bureau of Police 1203 Western Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15233 Chief Bill McSweeney Los Angleles Sheriff’s Department 4700 Ramona Boulevard Monterey Park, CA 91754 Detective Toye Nash Phoenix Police Department 620 West Washington Street Phoenix, AZ 85003 Lieutenant Larry Oliver Austin Police Department P.O. Box 689001 Austin, TX 78768-9001 Sergeant Mike Schaller New Jersey State Police P.O. Box 7068 West Trenton, NJ 08628 Ellen Scrivner Deputy Superintendent Bureau of Administrative Services Chicago Police Department 3510 South Michigan Avenue Room 3073 NW Chicago, IL 60653 Appendix B—Telephone Survey Participants Arlington (Texas) Police Department Austin Police Department Baltimore City Police Department Boston Police Department Chicago Police Department Clearwater Police Department D.C. Metropolitan Police Department Denver Police Department Knoxville Police Department Las Vegas Metro Police Department Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department Miami-Dade Police Department Minneapolis Police Department Missouri City (Texas) Police Department New Jersey State Police New Orleans Police Department Oakland Police Department Omaha Police Department Philadelphia Police Department Phoenix Police Department Pittsburgh Bureau of Police Pocatello Police Department Prince William County (Virginia) Police Department Salt Lake City Police Department San Jose Police Department Seattle Police Department St. Paul Police Department Tampa Police Department West Jordan (Utah) Police Department Appendix C—COPS Office/PERF Staff COPS Office Staff 1100 Vermont Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Phone: 800-421-6770 Fax: 202-616-2914 Website: www.cops.usdoj.gov Carl Peed Director Pam Cammarata Deputy Director Amy Schapiro Senior Social Science Analyst PERF Staff 1120 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 930 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202-466-7820 Fax: 202-466-7826 Website: www.policeforum.org Chuck Wexler Executive Director Anna Berke Project Manager Jason Cheney Project Assistant Jim Cronin Project Associate Joshua Ederheimer Director Center on Force and Accountability Martha Plotkin Communications Director ABOUT THE AUTHORS/ CONTRIBUTOR ABOUT THE AUTHORS/CONTRIBUTOR Samuel Walker retired in May 2005 after 31 years as a professor of criminal justice at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. He continues his research and consulting on police accountability, including citizen oversight of the police, early intervention systems for police officers, and the mediation of citizen complaints against police officers. He is the author of the report Early Intervention Systems for Law Enforcement Agencies: A Planning and Management Guide (2003), published by the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Walker has written 13 books on policing, criminal justice policy, and civil liberties, most recently The New World of Police Accountability (2005). He is also the author of The Police in America: An Introduction (5th ed. 2005), Police Accountability: The Role of Citizen Oversight (2001), and The Color of Justice: Race, Ethnicity, and Crime in America, with C. Spohn and M. DeLone (3rd ed. 2003). He served as the coordinator of the Police Professionalism Institute (PPI) at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. The PPI is engaged in a number of projects relating to police relations with the Hispanic/Latino community, early intervention systems, national standards for police auditor systems, and a comparative analysis of police accountability in the United States, Latin America, and Europe. PPI reports are available at www.policeaccountability.org. Walker has also served as a consultant to the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice and to local governments and community groups in a number of cities across the country on police accountability issues. Stacy Osnick Milligan is a criminal justice consultant whose most recent work focuses on performance measurement and accountability within law enforcement agencies. Milligan is also coauthor of the companion guide to this publication, Supervision and Intervention within Early Intervention Systems: A Guide for Law Enforcement Supervisors (forthcoming), and coauthor of an upcoming National Institute of Justice report, Measuring What Matters: The PERF Law Enforcement Performance Measurement System. Milligan’s other research experience includes work on national program evaluations, homeland security, police use of force, drug enforcement, police department management, and strategic planning in a law enforcement agency. She received a master’s degree in criminology from the University of Delaware and bachelor’s degrees in both administration of justice and sociology from Pennsylvania State University. Anna Berke joined PERF in July 2003 as a research assistant and conference coordinator. Berke is currently the project manager for the early intervention systems project. She has written portions of the EIS guides, as well as coordinated site visits to police departments throughout the country. She traveled to each department to conduct the interviews that formed the basis for this document. As PERF’s conference coordinator, she has successfully managed many meetings and other forums throughout the United States, including the 2004 and 2005 PERF Annual Meetings, the 2003 Problem- Oriented Policing Conference, and the 2004 and 2005 PERF Use-of-Force and Mass Demonstration Conferences. Berke holds a bachelor’s degree from Colby College in both Spanish and women’s studies and is pursuing a master’s degree in public administration at American University. ABOUT THE POLICE EXECUTIVE RESEARCH FORUM ABOUT THE POLICE EXECUTIVE RESEARCH FORUM he Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) is a national organization of progressive law enforcement chief executives from city, county, and state agencies who collectively serve more than half of the country’s population. Established in 1976 by ten prominent police chiefs, PERF has evolved into one of the leading police think tanks. With membership from many of the larger police departments in the country and around the globe, PERF has pioneered studies in such fields as community and problem-oriented policing, racially biased policing, multijurisdictional investigations, domestic violence, the police response to people with mental illnesses, homeland security, management concerns, use of force and crime-reduction approaches. PERF’s success is built on the active involvement of its members: police chiefs, superintendents, sheriffs and other law enforcement leaders. The organization also has types of membership that allow the organization to benefit from the diverse views of criminal justice researchers, law enforcement of all ranks and others committed to advancing policing services to all communities. As a nonprofit organization, PERF is committed to the application of research in policing and to promoting innovation that will enhance the quality of life in our communities. PERF’s objective is to improve the delivery of police services and the effectiveness of crime control through the exercise of strong national leadership, the public debate of criminal justice issues, the development of a body of research about policing, and the provision of vital management services to all police agencies. In addition to PERF’s cutting-edge police and criminal justice research, the organization provides a wide variety of management and technical assistance programs to police agencies throughout the world. The organization also continues to work toward increased professionalism and excellence in the field through its training, leadership and publications programs. For example, PERF sponsors the Senior Management Institute for Police executives, and publishes some of the leading literature in the law enforcement field that addresses the difficult issues that challenge today’s police leaders. PERF publications are used for training, promotion exams and to inform police professionals about innovative approaches to community problems. The hallmark of the program is translating the latest research and thinking about a topic into police practices that can be tailored to the unique needs of a jurisdiction. To learn more about PERF visit www.policeforum.org. ABOUT THE PERF CENTER ON FORCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY ABOUT THE PERF CENTER ON FORCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY Created in April 2005, the PERF Center on Force and Accountability is designed to be a significant resource for PERF members and others in law enforcement, and to serve as the principal clearinghouse for ideas, strategies and data that will address problems related to police use of force and accountability. Ultimately, the Center provides law enforcement executives with information and strategies that will help them make more informed decisions as they serve their communities. The PERF Center on Force and Accountability has four primary objectives: • Identify emerging trends and seek out effective new strategies • Conduct groundbreaking research • Provide high quality technical assistance to law enforcement agencies • Create a central resource for information regarding use-of-force and police accountability issues To that end, the Center is continually developing competencies in areas that include the following. Use of Force: community outreach and accountability; equipment and weapons (including TASERS™); investigations; police canines; policy development; review boards; tactics; technology; training; trends and promising approaches identification; statistics, tracking and analysis; vehicle pursuits; and violence against law enforcement officers. Police Accountability: community involvement; consent decrees/ memoranda of accountability; discipline and conduct review; early intervention systems and processes; equal employment opportunities; internal investigations; law enforcement ethics; misconduct statistics, tracking and analysis; policy development; technology; training; and trends and promising approaches identification. ABOUT THE COPS OFFICE ABOUT THE COPS OFFICE The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services was created in 1994 and has the unique mission to directly serve the needs of state and local law enforcement. The COPS Office has been the driving force in advancing the concept of community policing and is responsible for one of the greatest infusions of resources into state, local, and tribal law enforcement in our nation’s history. Since 1994, COPS has invested over $11.9 billion to add community policing officers to the nation’s streets, enhance crime fighting technology, support crime prevention initiatives, and provide training and technical assistance to help advance community policing. COPS funding has furthered the advancement of community policing through community policing innovation conferences, the development of best practices, pilot community policing programs, and applied research and evaluation initiatives. COPS has also positioned itself to respond directly to emerging law enforcement needs. Examples include working in partnership with departments to enhance police integrity, promoting safe schools, combating the methamphetamine drug problem, and supporting homeland security efforts. Through its grant programs, COPS is assisting and encouraging local, state, and tribal law enforcement agencies in enhancing their homeland security efforts using proven community policing strategies. Traditional COPS programs such as the Universal Hiring Program (UHP) gives priority consideration to those applicants that demonstrate a use of funds related to terrorism preparedness or response through community policing. The COPS in Schools (CIS) program has a mandatory training component that includes topics on terrorism prevention, emergency response, and the critical role schools can play in community response. Finally, COPS has implemented grant programs intended to develop interoperable voice and data communications networks among emergency response agencies that will assist in addressing local homeland security demands. The COPS Office has made substantial investments in law enforcement training. COPS created a national network of Regional Community Policing Institutes (RCPIs) that are available to state and local law enforcement, elected officials, and community leaders for training opportunities on a wide range of community policing topics. Recently the RCPIs have focused their efforts on developing and delivering homeland security training. COPS also supports the advancement of community policing strategies through the Community Policing Consortium. In addition, COPS has made a major investment in applied research, which makes possible the growing body of substantive knowledge covering all aspects of community policing. These substantial investments have produced a significant community policing infrastructure across the country as evidenced by the fact that at the present time, approximately 86 percent of the nation’s population is served by law enforcement agencies practicing community policing. The COPS Office continues to respond proactively by providing critical resources, training, and technical assistance to help state, local, and tribal law enforcement implement innovative and effective community policing strategies.