STRENGTHEN WRITTEN POLICIES AND IMPROVE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS

Regulating police behavior has been shown to reduce the risk of biased policing. Below are recommendations for some initial ways departments can strengthen their written policies and accountability structures. Community members can use this guidance to engage with their department in co-creating interventions to reduce inequitable policing and reimagine public safety.

Departments should create opportunities for communities to engage in discussions about these changes. To that end, we also offer guidance on key elements to support effective dialogue between communities and police departments.

Many departments have a policy that prohibits racial profiling. However, the language in the policy may affect how well it is achieving its goals. These policies should state that a person’s racial group or other protected characteristics may not be used as a motivating factor in deciding whether to take enforcement action except as part of a specific, reliable suspect description that links a specific person to a particular unlawful incident. Racial profiling policies should also state that information about protected characteristics may only be considered in combination with additional identifying characteristics or information for purposes of identification.

Use of force policies help officers understand limits on using force and how to effectively prevent use of force. Officers working under more restricted use of force policies have been shown to use force less readily than officers working under less restrictive policies. We encourage departments to adopt use of force policies that meet the following criteria:

1

Require officers to promptly intervene in the moment and report if they see a fellow officer using excessive force.

2

Mandate that officers provide or call for medical care for any person injured by police use of force, as well as anyone in police custody who requires medical attention.

Specify which officers are covered by the mandate and state that medical aid must be summoned and provided as soon as possible, unless providing or calling for such assistance would be dangerous or impossible. Avoid vague phrases such as “if feasible.”

3

State that use of deadly force is a last resort, and is only authorized when other reasonable alternatives have been exhausted or would clearly be ineffective at preventing an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury.

4

Prohibit the use of chokeholds and neckholds.

Specifically, prohibit the use of any hold or contact with the neck that may inhibit breathing or blood flow or that applies pressure to the front, side, or back of the neck.

5

Restrict the use of restraint methods that can cause breathing impairment or positional asphyxia.

Train officers to recognize and avoid positions and restraints that can unintentionally cause life-threatening breathing impairment. Specifically, prohibit the use of any “hog-tying” technique and the placement of an officer’s body weight on the back of a prone (i.e., flat and chest down), restrained person. Require that officers carefully monitor prone restrained people to ensure they are breathing properly.

6

Clarify expectations around use of weapons associated with use of force disparities.

If data analyses reveal that use of a particular weapon drives use of force disparities, review policies governing use of that weapon to ensure that they are clear and specific enough for an officer, supervisor, or member of the public to know whether an officer’s behavior falls within or outside of policy.

If data analyses reveal that disparities are consistent among uses of all or most types of force, departments should explore broad interventions that reduce the use of all types of force, such as changes to departmental policy and organizational culture.

7

Mandate the use of de-escalation tactics.

Evidence shows that split-second decision-making is a risk factor for racial bias in behavior, including deploying the use of force. Policies on de-escalation can minimize this risk factor by offering specific examples of de-escalation tactics that can be used to reduce the need for force, such as using distance and cover, tactical repositioning, waiting out a suspect, “slowing down” situations to allow for more time for resolution, requesting additional resources, using verbal persuasion, or calling the crisis intervention team. Policies should also instruct officers to consider whether a person’s non-compliance might be the result of a disability, medical issue, mental health problem, or language barrier. To promote de-escalation, require that officers document and explain in use of force reports the de-escalation tactics used to avoid or minimize the need for force.

8

Require officers to use the minimal amount of force necessary.

A growing number of departments have set standards that go beyond the minimum constitutional standard that force be “objectively reasonable” and instead require that force be limited to the minimum amount necessary to effect an arrest or protect the officer or others.

Operational processes, cultural norms, and supervisor expectations of behavior can work together to undermine or to support the expectations set in written policy. Your department can help make sure that policy expectations are supported in the following ways:

1

Require that officers provide a daily narrative description of their vehicle and pedestrian stops, and any use of force incidents, to their supervisors that details the justification for each stop.

Supervisors should review these reports promptly to ensure stops are supported by reasonable suspicion or probable cause, and both stops and uses of force are consistent with department policy. This approach can also be applied to other outcomes, such as searches, that show consistent unexplained disparities. Community members can research their jurisdiction’s requirements for collecting and reporting policing data, and advocate for departments to ensure they are meeting those standards.

2

Train officers and supervisors on the standards for their behavior, so that they can approach high-risk situations in the same way.

For example, written policies on interactions with people with disabilities must be supported by specific training on how officers can identify when a person they are engaging with has a condition that may affect their ability to communicate or cooperate. Policies should aim to ensure officers are trained with human dignity and equity in mind.

3

Make sure resources support policy.

Officers should have the resources necessary to follow written policy. If, for example, officers are required to call a Crisis Intervention Team when they encounter people experiencing mental health crises, the department should ensure that CIT trained officers are scheduled on every shift. Community members can also encourage policy makers to ensure community-based systems of crisis response are sufficiently funded to address public safety needs that may not require or warrant an armed response. Community members can also encourage policy makers to ensure community-based systems of crisis response are sufficiently funded to address public safety needs that may not require or warrant an armed response.

4

Strengthen accountability systems.

Broadly speaking, social science research demonstrates that people are less likely to fall into patterns of discriminatory behavior when expectations of behavior are clear and unambiguous. Departments and communities may be able to reduce the risk of racially disparate policing by strengthening or creating internal and external systems of accountability, including:

  • Early Intervention Systems and Early Warning Systems
  • Systems for receiving and investigating civilian complaints
  • Force investigation and review procedures
  • Disciplinary policies and procedures
  • Civilian oversight agencies

Community members can research to see whether their jurisdiction’s law enforcement agency has any existing mechanisms for community oversight or accountability to participate in, such as civilian oversight or review boards. Communities can also advocate for the development of accountability mechanisms where they don’t already exist.

5

Identify additional risk factors and opportunities to regulate and redesign public safety services.

Departments can and should consider additional policy innovations based on community input and local needs to build on this initial guidance. Community members can work with departments and local government leaders to identify opportunities to invest in Black and Brown communities and design more equitable public safety systems.

Participating in focus groups or community surveys set up by your department can help gain insight into the situations driving disparities in stops or use of force incidents and provide an avenue for community advocacy. Departments can then build on those to establish or join standing community meetings in order to share updates on their plans for reform and get ongoing community input.

To make standing community meetings successful:

1

Clearly set up committee objectives.

Consider how the committee’s meeting schedule and structure contribute to those goals. Meetings should be scheduled well in advance of implementing a planned intervention or reform, and provide necessary contextual information for community feedback.

It is important to continuously uplift feedback from community members in racial groups that experience disparities, and engage with that feedback to create committee objectives. Departments should act on the feedback received from these community forums to the greatest extent possible, and make it clear when and how they do so.

2

Provide feedback on planned reforms. Discuss the available and potential responses to any identified situations that are associated with disparities.

Ideally, relevant stakeholders would then decide whether police need to be involved in the scenario, or if there are other governmental or community resources that could meet public safety needs, such as mental health services. For more information, see CPE’s guidance on how communities can assess which resources meet their needs, as well as recommendations on redesigning traffic safety, mental health emergency responses, and school safety.

Even if police are the only available resource, departments should consider using less harmful or burdensome methods (such as law enforcement-assisted diversion, specialized mental health teams, use of citation in lieu of arrest, or a change in enforcement priorities). The policy guidance on this page can help address risk of racial disparities in situations where continued police contact is anticipated.

Scroll to Top