HON. DAVID H. COAR (RET.) PROPOSAL TO SERVE AS INDEPENDENT MONITOR OF THE CLEVELAND DIVISION OF POLICE JULY 2015 CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 2. PERSONNEL 6 3. QUALIFICATIONS 12 4. PRIOR EXPERIENCE AND REFERENCES 21 5. PROPOSED ACTIVITIES 28 6. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OF BIAS 33 7. ESTIMATED COSTS 34 2 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Serving as monitor for the implementation of reforms at the Cleveland Division of Police (“CDP”) is a vitally important role. The City of Cleveland (the “City”) has made a commitment to ensure that its police force conducts itself in a manner consistent with all constitutional requirements. This agreement is defined by the Settlement Agreement entered between the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”), the City, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Ohio. The Hon. David H. Coar (Ret.) is pleased to present this proposal to serve as the Independent Monitor for the CDP. To aid him in overseeing the successful implementation of the Settlement Agreement between the United States and the City, Judge Coar has assembled a team with the skills, knowledge, and experience needed for this project. Specifically, this team has extensive experience in monitoring compliance with consent decrees and settlement agreements, analyzing police disciplinary systems and investigations, evaluating organizational change in the law enforcement context, legal analysis of police policies and conduct, and data analysis related to police performance. As mentioned above, the Hon. David H. Coar (Ret.) is the proposed Independent Monitor. Judge Coar served as a United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois for 16 years and prior to that, as a United States Bankruptcy Judge for 8 years. Judge Coar entered and oversaw numerous consent decrees and complex settlement agreements during his tenure as a federal judge. Examples include (1) a class action settlement agreement regarding the use of strip searches at the Cook County Jail and (2) a consent decrees arising from a challenge under the Fair Housing Act to plans for the redevelopment of a major public housing complex. Since retiring from the federal judiciary, Judge Coar has continued to be involved in monitoring consent decrees and overseeing institutional change in law enforcement and penal institution polices. He has been appointed by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to serve as special independent counsel pursuant to consent decrees involving Teamsters’ pension and health and welfare funds. He has been appointed by the Illinois Supreme Court to facilitate the implementation of recommendations for Cook County’s pretrial operations to reduce overcrowding at the Cook County Jail. He has also served as a mediator in the Detroit municipal bankruptcy. Judge Coar currently works as a mediator with Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. (“JAMS”). Terrence M. Burns and Jonathan S. Feld of Dykema Gossett, PLLC (“Dykema”) will assist Judge Coar by providing legal analysis, drafting reports, fact gathering, and coordinating with the parties, the CDP, and Cleveland community members. Mr. Burns regularly represents the City of Chicago in cases involving allegations relating to police department policies and practices. He also represents high ranking Chicago Police Department officials and police officers. Mr. Feld is a former Associate Deputy General with the DOJ and Assistant U.S. Attorney, who is the leader of Dykema’s Government Investigations and Corporate Compliance Team. 3 Jeffrey J. Noble and Michael Hyams will draw on their extensive law enforcement and monitoring experience for the analysis of CDP’s policies and procedures, the training necessary to implement those policies and procedures, the officer disciplinary process, and community policing initiatives. Mr. Noble is the former Deputy Chief of Police for the Irvine Police Department. Mr. Noble now acts as a police policy and procedure expert and has been retained by major municipalities across the country to review the adequacy of their use of force investigations. Mr. Hyams worked with the Newport Beach Police Department for 32 years and is currently the Commanding Officer of the Risk Management Legal Affairs Group and the Assistant Commanding Officer of the Office of Constitutional Policing and Policy for the Los Angeles Police Department. He has supervised Internal Affairs at three different law enforcement agencies. Jeff Rojek, Ph.D., Michael Smith, Ph.D., and Geoff Alpert, Ph.D. are nationally recognized experts in policing with decades of combined experience. Dr. Smith, who is an expert on racial profiling, has extensive experience designing large-scale research studies to examine bias-based policing. He worked with the Los Angeles Police Department as part of its consent decree with the DOJ to analyze millions of traffic and pedestrian stops for bias-based policing. Dr. Rojek is an Associate Professor of Criminal Justice at the University of Texas at El Paso. He has worked with law enforcement organizations across the country on data analysis projects involving a wide range of policing issues. Dr. Alpert was a member of the federal monitoring teams for the New Orleans and the Portland, Oregon Police Departments, and conducted racial profiling studies in Los Angeles as part of their Consent Decree. Professors Rojek, Smith, and Alpert in conjunction with Ted Hawkins of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PwC”) will review the CDP’s data collection efforts and analyze policing data regarding the implementation of the Settlement Agreement. PwC is uniquely qualified to assess and analyze performance of organizations and has extensive experience in policing projects. Ted Hawkins is a Forensic Services Partner at PwC and has a wide range of experience assisting clients in formulating voluminous data management strategies in support of reporting requirements to government entities. Calfee, Halter & Griswold, LLP’s Cleveland office will assist the team in understanding local issues and Ohio law. Virginia Davidson, a former federal prosecutor, chairs Calfee’s White Collar Defense and Investigations practice. Richard Goddard has represented municipalities, public officials and police officers in a broad range of civil rights litigation throughout Ohio. Judge Coar has focused on putting together a team known for its skill, its professionalism, and its integrity. With the additional support of policing experts, our team would assure that the objectives of the Settlement Agreement are met and that CDP progress is appropriately monitored and charted. Judge Coar has also focused on putting together a monitoring team whose members know the value of effective communication with different constituencies. Our team members will have strong, positive relationships both with the parties to the Settlement Agreement and with the many constituencies that have an interest in this monitorship. 4 As set forth in more detail in Section 5 of this Application, Judge Coar’s team intends to fulfill its monitoring duties by first learning about the current state of the CDP. Judge Coar believes an initial assessment of the CDP’s data collection capabilities and practices and the review of current CDP written policing policies and currently available data is important to obtain an understanding of the CDP. Gathering detailed and accurate information is crucial to the team’s ability to gauge the effectiveness of changes to be implemented pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. We will review the CDP’s plans regarding compliance with the Settlement Agreement and provide feedback on those plans. To the extent sufficient plans are not in place, the team will provide recommendations regarding how the CDP can best meet its goals and obligations. As the CDP implements its compliance plans, the team will meet with individuals from the City, the CDP, and the Cleveland community to gauge the effectiveness of the reforms. The team will also perform statistical analyses based on the data collected by the CDP pursuant to the Settlement Agreement to determine whether the reforms are, in fact, leading to bias-free, constitutional policing. The culmination of the periodic assessment process will be the issuance of a written report, through which the monitor reports on compliance with established standards in a professional, objective manner. The role of the monitor should not extend beyond this approach, and the monitor should make public statements only as specifically permitted by the Settlement Agreement. We see the future of the CDP in the most positive of terms. Members of the CDP have challenging job responsibilities, and we respect the steps that the CDP already has taken since the May 26, 2015 report by the DOJ. We believe the CDP can be a national model for best police practices and constitutional policing, and we look forward to playing a role in helping that become a reality. 5 2. PERSONNEL Hon. David H. Coar (Ret.) served as United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois for 16 years and, before that, as a United States Bankruptcy Judge for 8 years. From 1979 to 1982, he served as the first United States Bankruptcy Trustee in the Northern District of Illinois. As a United States District Judge, he has tried and settled hundreds of cases involving the full array of matters subject to federal jurisdiction including federal civil rights cases, class action multi district litigation, complex corporate, commercial, employment, intellectual property, mass tort, and securities cases. As an Associate Professor of Law at DePaul University College of Law, Judge Coar taught courses on constitutional law, ethics, corporations, corporate finance, labor law, and professional responsibility. Judge Coar currently works as a mediator with Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc., (JAMS) which is the largest private alternative dispute resolution provider in the world. Judge Coar has experience with consent decrees and settlement agreements involving law enforcement practices. While he was a federal judge, he entered and oversaw a consent decree involving the use of strip searches at the Cook County Jail, one of the largest jails in the country. Judge Coar also oversaw a consent decree regarding proposed redevelopment plans for Chicago’s Cabrini Green public housing complex. The consent decree was entered following challenges to the redevelopment plans brought pursuant to the Fair Housing Act. The challenges, brought by residents and community groups, argued the plans would result in resident displacements and a reduced supply of affordable housing units, which would have a discriminatory impact on African-Americans, women, and children. Judge Coar oversaw and enforced the consent decree for 11 years. Judge Coar has traveled extensively across the globe to consult on judicial and economic issues, and he has participated in educational programs for foreign judges in the U.S. and overseas. He has participated in programs in China, Russia, Nigeria, and Cameroon sponsored by law schools, the National Center for State Courts, the U.S. Department of State, and the U.S. Department of Commerce. Terrence M. Burns is a recognized leader in the area of policing issues with a remarkable depth of expertise. His work includes representing the City of Chicago, high ranking City officials including Chicago Police Department officials, as well as police officers. He has represented the City of Chicago in cases involving allegations that police department policies and procedures resulted in constitutional violations. He is a former prosecutor with the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office, where he was assigned to the Felony Trial Division of the Criminal Prosecutions Bureau. Mr. Burns is the former President of the Chicago Bar Association (2001-2002) and has held numerous other leadership positions in that organization. Since 1986 he has served as a Member and Hearing Board Chairman for the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois. 6 Jonathan S. Feld is the leader of Dykema’s Government Investigations and Corporate Compliance Team that focuses on complex civil and criminal matters. He has extensive experience, as a senior DOJ official and private sector attorney, with complex investigations, as well as criminal procedure issues. He represents companies, directors, and officers in investigations and enforcement actions by the DOJ, Securities and Exchange Commission, and other regulatory agencies. He also advises corporations, boards of directors, and board committees regarding internal investigations and corporate compliance. Mr. Feld served at the DOJ as an Associate Deputy Attorney General. In that role, he oversaw prosecutions from U.S. Attorney’s offices nationwide involving a broad array of cases from financial institution fraud to environmental prosecutions. He was an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey and twice received DOJ Special Achievement awards. Mr. Feld has considerable experience in these types of matters. He served as Associate Special Counsel to the Select Commission established by the State of Rhode Island to investigate, and make recommendations regarding, the collapse of its multibillion dollar privately-insured financial institution system. In addition, Mr. Feld served as an Associate Independent Counsel for the investigation of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development under the direction of the Hon. Arlin Adams. Jeffrey J. Noble is the former Deputy Chief of Police for Irvine, California. Mr. Noble began his policing career in 1984 when he was appointed to the position of police officer. He has worked a variety of assignments including: Patrol, Traffic, Narcotics, Training, Internal Affairs, and SWAT, before promoting through the ranks to the position of Deputy Chief of Police before his retirement in 2012. In 2014, Mr. Noble accepted a temporary position as the Deputy Chief of Police for the Westminster, CA Police Department. That department was the subject of a discrimination and retaliation lawsuit from three of its officers. Mr. Noble was hired to facilitate the efforts of an independent oversight official to review department policies and procedures, to conduct department audits, and to provide day-to-day management and leadership for the department. Mr. Noble has consulted on policing issues for several major cities including Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Miami. Mr. Noble has been retained to perform independent police practices inquiries. Notably, he was part of an outside team of police experts who reviewed the City of San Francisco’s Office of Citizen Complaints’ investigation into a case involving the indictment of seven command staff members and three line personnel of the San Francisco Police Department. He was part of the team who reviewed the Austin, Texas Police Department’s internal investigations of police-involved shootings in 2007 and 2009. Mr. Noble is the author of a text on police accountability entitled, “Managing Accountability Systems for Police Conduct: Internal Affairs and External Oversight.” He has also authored numerous articles and made presentations to a variety of professional organizations in the law enforcement field. 7 Michael T. Hyams is currently the Commanding Officer of the Risk Management Legal Affairs Group at the Los Angeles Police Department, and the Assistant Commanding Officer of the Office of Constitutional Policing and Policy. He also served as the Assistant Police Chief for Operations for the Los Angeles World Airports, where he supervised sections responsible for patrol, traffic, and security at Los Angeles International Airport, LA/Ontario International Airport and Van Nuys Airport. Mr. Hyams served over 32 years in the Newport Beach, CA Police Department and has over 30 years of experience as a police supervisor and over ten years of experience as a police legal advisor and professional standards expert. Mr. Hyams has conducted, supervised and managed Internal Affairs at three law enforcement agencies. He has reviewed and developed use of force policies in multiple agencies, and reviews cases to determine policy compliance, legal justification, and litigation exposure. Michael R. Smith, Ph.D., is the Director of the Center for Law and Human Behavior at the University of Texas at El Paso and has previously worked on the implementation of consent decrees. He is the former chair of the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of South Carolina where he and his colleagues established a Ph.D. program in the discipline. Dr. Smith is a former municipal and county police officer. Dr. Smith has extensive experience designing large-scale, methodologically sound research studies to examine bias-based policing. Dr. Smith has served as a principal investigator on numerous extramural grants and evaluation contracts over his 20 year career as a police scholar and criminal justice researcher. With funding from the National Institute of Justice, he led the most comprehensive investigation to date on the use of force by police and injuries to officers and citizens. This project involved collecting use of force data sets from more than 20 agencies nationwide, integrating them, and analyzing them for patterns of injury. His work with the Los Angeles Police Department as part of its consent decree with the DOJ involved the analysis of millions of traffic and pedestrian stop records and was one of the largest bias-based policing studies conducted to date. In 2000-2001, Dr. Smith conducted the nation’s first published study of racial profiling in Richmond, Virginia. This led to other large-scale racial profiling studies that he directed or in which he participated, including projects with the Miami-Dade Police Department, Washington State Patrol, and the Spokane, WA Police Department. For several years in the early 2000s, Dr. Smith served as a racial profiling research methodology consultant to the Special Litigation Section of the DOJ where he assisted with monitoring compliance with consent decrees by the Highland Park, IL and Prospect Heights, IL police departments. In the use of force arena, Dr. Smith has conducted analyses of the use of force by local police agencies and has published social science, legal, and policy analyses of the use of force by police. Jeff Rojek, Ph.D., is a Professor of Criminal Justice at the University of Texas at El Paso. He is a former member of the Los Angeles Police Department. Dr. Rojek has acted as the principal investigator or co-principal investigator on numerous law enforcement research contracts. He is currently serving as the principal investigator evaluating the Columbia, South Carolina, Police Department’s implementation of a data exchange and analysis program. Since 8 2002, he has served as an investigator for the Missouri Attorney General’s Annual Report on Missouri Vehicle Stops. Dr. Rojek’s work is amongst the leading theoretical and methodological work in the criminology and criminal justice discipline. He publishes articles regarding law enforcement in the top journals in the discipline, including Criminology, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Justice Quarterly, and Crime and Delinquency, on topics such as the use of force, civilian oversight of policing, the racial dynamics of traffic stops, and racial dynamics of the police disciplinary process. He is a member of the International Association of Chiefs of Police Research Advisory Committee. Geoffrey Alpert, Ph.D., is a professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of South Carolina. Dr. Alpert is a member of the federal monitoring team for the New Orleans Police Department. He has worked on the racial profiling methodology for the Consent Decree in Los Angeles, developing the pursuit policy for the Consent Decree in Oakland, and currently assists on the use of force policy development for the Portland, Oregon Settlement of Agreement (Consent Decree). Dr. Alpert has been conducting research on high-risk police activities for more than 30 years, and has published results from his research in the academic and professional literature. Two recent books include: Internal Affairs: Holding the Police Accountable (with Jeffrey Noble) and Understanding Police Use of Force: Officers, Suspects, and Reciprocity. He has published more than 50 professional and academic articles on police use of force, and has trained officers in decision-making. Dr. Alpert has been Principal Investigator on several projects on police use of force that were supported by the National Institute of Justice. He is a member of the International Association of Chiefs of Police Research Advisory Committee. Ted Hawkins is a Forensic Services Partner at PwC and has substantial experience providing expert consulting services in connection with commercial disputes and corporate investigations including regulatory inquiries. Mr. Hawkins has provided testimony in State and federal court and arbitration and mediation matters. He has presented to the Securities and Exchange Commission and the DOJ. Mr. Hawkins also has global experience in assisting in anticorruption and bribery analyses to identify weaknesses in design, implementation, and monitoring of clients' internal controls. He has assisted his clients with massive data strategy matters in support of reporting requirements to government entities. Eric Matrejek is a Partner in PwC's Advisory Services Technology practice specializing in Forensic Technology Solutions and Investigations. He leads the Forensic Technology Solutions practice in the Midwest, and is the Global leader for Computer Forensics and eDiscovery. He has assisted clients in responding to significant investigative, criminal, cyber response and regulatory compliance needs, both domestically and internationally. Michael Tosh is a director in PwC’s State and Local Government practice, with more than 18 years of experience helping companies and governments develop innovative strategies to achieve improvements in performance. Michael’s experience includes managing the efforts of 9 the City of Seattle Police Department to identify requirements and define a solution to provide reporting on key public safety metrics, as mandated by the DOJ consent decree. Sean M. Joyce is a principal in PwC’s Advisory Practice, where he specializes in Strategic, Risk, and Management Consulting, Forensics, Crisis Management, and Technology. Prior to joining PwC in December 2013, Mr. Joyce was Deputy Director of the FBI, where he spearheaded several strategic initiatives and established a framework to operate and evaluate the FBI’s 56 domestic field offices. Mr. Joyce began his career as an FBI special agent in 1987. He has served as the Executive Assistant Director of the FBI’s National Security Branch, Assistant Director of the FBI’s International Operations Division, Chief of the Counterterrorism Division’s International Terrorism Operations Section, Assistant Special Agent in Charge Washington Field Office, Supervisory Senior Resident Agent Dallas Field Office, SWAT Team Leader, and Hostage Rescue Team. He is a 2011 recipient of the Presidential Rank Award, the nation’s highest civil service award. Sunil Sekhri is a Director in PwC’s Forensic Technology Solutions practice, supporting clients in matters addressing internal corporate investigations, accounting fraud, IP theft, data breaches, and regulatory response. Mr. Sekhri has led various types of investigations as a forensic examiner, performing both advisory services and forensic fieldwork (data collection and analysis). He is experienced applying forensic methodologies to assist clients in responding to regulatory inquiries in a variety of sectors. Virginia Davidson chairs Calfee’s White Collar Defense and Investigations Practice. She advises and defends individuals, corporations, and governmental bodies in enforcement actions, internal and external investigations and civil and administrative actions and compliance reviews. She is a former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio. Richard Goddard co-chair’s Calfee’s Labor and Employment group and is a partner in the Litigation group. He has extensive experience representing municipalities, public officials, and police officers in civil rights litigation throughout Ohio. INTERNAL ORGANIZATION Our monitoring team’s division of responsibility will be straightforward. Judge Coar will oversee the monitorship effort. Together with the support of Dykema and other team members, he will provide legal analysis regarding the CDP’s proposed reforms and the effects of enacted reforms. He will meet with the parties, CDP members of various ranks and positions, and members of the Cleveland community to obtain a comprehensive view of the CDP and its reforms under the Settlement Agreement. Judge Coar will be supported on legal issues by attorneys from Dykema. Field work, testing, and data analytics for policing issues will be conducted by Drs. Smith, Rojek, and Alpert together with the PwC team and reported to Dykema’s legal team. Expertise on law enforcement 10 and policing practices will be provided by Jeff Noble, Mike Hyams, and the PwC staff. Guidance regarding local issues, conditions, and laws will be provided by the Calfee team members. CURRENT PROJECTS Although each of our team members has other professional responsibilities separate from this engagement, this project would be our highest priority. We will spend whatever time is necessary to make this project a success. Our team is composed of leaders in their respective fields. While our team members have other engagements. Dykema and PwC have the resources and personnel to add to our teams as needed. Judge Coar, Jeff Noble, Mike Hyams, Jeff Rojek, and Michael Smith are all able to devote the necessary time to this project to ensure it is completed efficiently, yet in a thorough and conscientious manner. The successful implementation of the Settlement Agreement reforms will be our team’s top priority. 11 3. QUALIFICATIONS Judge Coar’s monitoring team has tremendous qualifications in the areas required by this monitorship. Specific qualifications are set forth below. MONITORING, AUDITING, EVALUATING, OR OTHERWISE REVIEWING PERFORMANCE OF ORGANIZATIONS, INCLUDING EXPERIENCE IN MONITORING SETTLEMENTS, CONSENT DECREES, OR COURT ORDERS In his 16 years as a United States District Judge and his eight years as a United States Bankruptcy Judge, Judge Coar frequently was involved with monitoring compliance with settlement agreements, consent decrees, and court orders. Such monitoring was an everyday part of his duties for those 24 years. As a judge, he entered and oversaw numerous consent decrees and settlements requiring monitoring, including the following cases: Cabrini-Green Local Advisory Council v. Chicago Housing Authority – 96 C 6949 and Kenya Gary v. Michael Sheahan – 96 C 7294. Since retiring from the bench, he also has served as the court-appointed Special Independent Counsel under a consent decree involving the (Teamster’s) Central States Pension and Health and Welfare Funds. Judge Coar has also been appointed by the Illinois Supreme Court to facilitate and oversee the implementation of 40 recommendations arising from a systemic review of Cook County’s pretrial operations to reduce overcrowding at the Cook County Jail. The goal of the reforms is to develop risk assessment tools to allow for the release of defendants before trial without risking community safety. Dykema has unique experience in that it regularly investigates and reviews the performance of one of the country’s largest law enforcement organizations. Dykema’s representation of the City of Chicago specifically focuses on the police department’s performance in balancing the need for effective law enforcement with the need to respect the constitutional rights of Chicago’s citizens. Through this representation of the City of Chicago, Dykema has evaluated the organizational change of the Chicago Police Department. In doing so, Dykema has experience analyzing years of reforms in police policy and procedure. With its team of experienced litigators, Dykema regularly addresses compliance with settlement agreements and court orders. Specifically, Dykema has experience reviewing a major police department’s compliance with settlement agreements and court orders. Jeffrey Noble and Mike Hyams regularly monitor and review the performance of law enforcement organizations. They have consulted for several major cities regarding the performance of their police forces. While Jeff Noble served as the Deputy Chief of the Irvine and Westminster, California Police Departments, he was responsible for monitoring the performance of those departments. Dr. Michael Smith worked with the Los Angeles Police Department as part of its consent decree with the DOJ. His work with respect to that consent decree involved analyzing millions of traffic and pedestrian stop records as a part of the largest bias-based policing studies conducted 12 to date. Dr. Alpert has also worked with law enforcement agencies implementing settlement agreements and consent decrees. Similarly, PwC’s team members have extensive audit experience and have developed, implemented, and analyzed numerous compliance programs for private and public entities. Specifically, PwC has developed analysis and performed assessments of police departments. They also have designed and implemented compliance-monitoring controls in both the private and public sectors. Specific experience with monitoring settlements and similar arrangements is set forth in Section 4. LAW ENFORCEMENT PRACTICES, INCLUDING TRAINING, COMMUNITY AND PROBLEM-ORIENTED POLICING, COMPLAINT AND USE OF FORCE INVESTIGATIONS, AND CONSTITUTIONAL POLICING Our team is closely familiar with a wide variety of law enforcement practices, including training protocols, community policing and problem-oriented policing, misconduct complaints and use of force investigations, and related constitutional requirements. The team includes a former United States District Court Judge, lawyers with policing and criminal justice experience, former police officers, former federal law enforcement agents, and consultants with a high degree of knowledge and expertise regarding a wide variety of law enforcement topics. As mentioned earlier, Judge Coar presided over numerous cases involving allegations of constitutional violations by police department policies and practices during his 16 years as a United States District Judge. Judge Coar also ruled on, or was the trial judge for, many criminal matters, giving him further insight regarding law enforcement practices. Dykema has extensive experience representing the City of Chicago in litigation based on allegations of police misconduct. A major focus of Dykema’s representation of the City of Chicago has been defending Monell claims that municipal policies and police department practices were the moving force behind constitutional violations. In representing the City of Chicago in such cases, Dykema reviews the constitutionality of police policies and practices and has worked closely with city and police department policy makers, including police superintendents, regarding law enforcement practices. Dykema also has experience with the issues involving municipal policing policies and their “real life” ramifications. Dykema also has extensive knowledge regarding both internal and civilian oversight of law enforcement. Dykema regularly represents Chicago’s civilian law enforcement oversight body, the Independent Police Review Authority, on a wide range of issues. Dykema’s representation of the City of Chicago has included addressing allegations regarding municipal policies in conducting investigations of alleged police misconduct. In representing the City of Chicago and officers accused of misconduct, Dykema regularly reviews investigations, including investigations into officers’ use of force and searches and seizures by the Independent Police Review Authority and the Chicago Police Department’s Internal Affairs Division. Jeffrey Noble and Mike Hyams each has a wealth of experience with law enforcement policies, procedures, and practices regarding a wide variety of topics, including training, 13 community problem-oriented policing, and internal investigations such as use of force investigations. With respect to officer training, Mr. Noble and Mr. Hyams both have extensive experience in developing course curriculum, ensuring that educators are trained and delivering a meaningful lesson and that systems are in place to ensure that all officers are in compliance with training mandates through audits and inspections. During Mr. Hyams’ tenure at the Newport Beach Police Department, the Department enjoyed a dramatic drop in complaints, liability exposure, and payouts after implementing comprehensive training and intervention tactics. Both Mr. Noble and Mr. Hyams have extensive experience in the oversight of police internal investigations. Mr. Noble is the author of the text, Managing Accountability Systems for Police: Internal Affairs and External Oversight and numerous articles regarding police officer truthfulness and officer misconduct. He has been an Internal Affairs investigator, supervisor, and manager and has reviewed and overseen investigations as a deputy chief of police for two agencies. He has been retained as an expert to review the internal affairs investigations of many large cities including: Chicago; Seattle; Los Angeles; Austin; Miami; Memphis; and San Diego, and has personally reviewed over 2,000 internal investigations. He has testified as an expert witness in federal and state courts regarding the reasonableness of these investigations. Mr. Hyams has conducted, supervised, and managed Internal Affairs at three agencies and he is currently the Commanding Officer of the Risk Management Legal Affairs Group at the Los Angeles Police Department, and the Assistant Commanding Officer of the Office of Constitutional Policing and Policy. He advises and reviews critical Internal Affairs investigations. With respect to use of force investigations specifically, Mr. Noble, as a deputy chief and consultant, has reviewed thousands of use of force incidents. He has testified as an expert witness in state and federal courts regarding uses of force for both plaintiffs and defendant officers. He has been retained by cities including San Francisco and Austin to review use of force incidents and the police departments’ investigations into those incidents to advise the city councils if the use of force was objectively reasonable and if the department was properly investigating the use of force. Mr. Noble has been retained by a city currently under a consent decree to advise the city attorney’s office if the police department’s Force Investigation Team investigations are reasonable. He was also part of a think tank with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace on reducing violence and improving the rule of law, which address uses of force by the police in developing nations. Mr. Hyams has reviewed and developed use of force policies in multiple agencies, and reviews cases to determine policy compliance, legal justification, and litigation exposure. Both Mr. Noble and Mr. Hyams are experts in Community Oriented Policing (“COP”) and both “grew up” in police agencies that highly valued the concepts of COP. This policing philosophy focuses on community engagement and problem-solving skills at the lowest levels of the organization to empower police officers to identify solutions and resolve community issues before minor concerns become larger problems. Mr. Noble worked with the Irvine Police Department for 28 years. The City of Irvine is nationally recognized as one of the safest communities in the nation. The city has a population 14 of over 210,000, and with less than one officer per thousand residents the police department was able to address crime through community engagement and trust developed through the principles of Community Oriented Policing. Mr. Hyams worked with the Newport Beach Police Department for 32 years. Newport Beach is an internationally known beach community that lends itself to the COP philosophy. The Newport Beach Police Department embraced the COP philosophy and granted discretion for officers in the field to engage in problem solving to maintain the high quality of life enjoyed by the residents and balancing the desires of transient beach, tourist and business populations. Dr. Michael Smith is a former municipal and county police officer, and has been a nationally recognized police scholar and criminal justice researcher for over 20 years. Dr. Jeff Rojek is also a former police officer who is now a leading expert in in the criminology and criminal justice discipline. Several PwC team members have extensive law enforcement experience and knowledge of police practices and training, including Sean Joyce, former Deputy Director of the FBI. EVALUATING THE BREADTH AND DEPTH OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE, INCLUDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF OUTCOME MEASURES AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PRACTICES Judge Coar’s experience as a Federal District Court Judge included presiding over numerous cases in which he monitored and reviewed the performance of various types of organizations, including municipalities and their police departments. Judge Coar has also evaluated change and reform in a wide variety of other organizations and institutions. As a United States Bankruptcy Judge he oversaw large corporate reorganization cases. As a U.S. District Court Judge, he presided over cases involving claims regarding the adequacy of police department reforms. In light of his experience and skill, Judge Coar served as a mediator in the Detroit municipal bankruptcy after his retirement from the federal judiciary. Dykema has reviewed the organizational change in the City of Chicago’s law enforcement oversight and investigatory framework, including changes in the way the police department reviews cases internally, and the creation of the civilian oversight and investigatory body, the Independent Police Review Authority. The PwC team members have extensive experience in evaluating organizational change. For example, as Deputy Director of the FBI, Sean Joyce established a framework to evaluate the FBI’s 56 domestic field offices. Another PwC partner, Peter Zanolin is the former Inspector General of New York City’s Department of Investigations and specializes in program integrity, risk assessment, and the design and implementation of internal compliance programs. 15 MEDIATION AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION Judge Coar has extensive experience with mediation and dispute resolution. Judge Coar has conducted countless settlement conferences on numerous different types of cases. In addition to his experience with mediation and dispute resolution as a judge, he is now working as a private mediator for JAMS. Judge Coar has experience in mediation involving community groups. As a judge, he presided over tenant-based challenges to the restructuring of the CabriniGreene housing development in Chicago. He had numerous negotiations between the tenant association, the City and HUD. After the case was settled and closed, he continued to successfully mediate disputes that arose under the terms of the agreement. Judge Coar has also acted as a mediator in the Detroit bankruptcy. Dykema litigators are very familiar with mediation and dispute resolution. Engaging in mediation and dispute resolution is a regular part of their duties. Dykema attorneys have resolved a significant number of matters through mediation and dispute resolution, both formal and informal. STATISTICAL & DATA ANALYSIS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & DATA MANAGEMENT PwC’s Forensic Technology Solutions practice applies advanced approaches to address complex information management challenges. The practice combines data analysis techniques, sophisticated technology tools, information management principles, and an understanding of the particular environment created by investigative, dispute, compliance, and risk management matters to help clients make well-informed decisions. Our PwC team members offer the latest technology in managing data in a monitorship such as this one. Similarly, PwC’s Dispute Analysis group provides financial, economic, and statistical services and has deep experience in data collection and analysis. It has specific experience with police departments. Drs. Smith, Rojek, and Alpert have extensive experience with statistical and data analysis, specifically with respect to the analysis of policing and law enforcement practices. Dr. Rojek has taken part in numerous projects involving the statistical analysis of information related to police activities. In doing so he has analyzed law enforcement organizations’ data relating to traffic stops, the use of force, and internal investigations, and has analyzed the role that race plays with respect to these activities. Dr. Smith led the most comprehensive investigation to date on the use of force by police and injuries to officers and citizens. This project involved collecting use of force data sets from more than 20 agencies nationwide, integrating them, and analyzing them for patterns of injury. Dr. Smith has led or contributed to large-scale traffic stop data analysis efforts in Los Angeles, Miami-Dade County, Florida, Richmond, Virginia, and with state highway patrol agencies in Washington and Arizona. He served as a statistical and methodological consultant to the Special Litigation Section of the DOJ and pioneered methodologies to help inform courts, communities, and law enforcement agencies about disparities in police traffic stop practices. Dr. Alpert is currently a member of the federal monitor team for the New Orleans Police Department and is assigned to reviewing policies and creating 16 and measuring outcome measures on use of force, including CEW’s, the development of the early warning system, policies and measurement of vehicular collisions and pursuits, as well as the development and implementation of opinion surveys from officers, citizens and jail inmates. He has worked on the racial profiling methodology for the Consent Decree in Los Angeles, developing the pursuit policy for the Consent Decree in Oakland, and currently assists on the use of force policy development for the Portland, Oregon Settlement of Agreement (Consent Decree). WORKING WITH GOVERNMENT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNITS AGENCIES, MUNICIPALITIES, AND Judge Coar has presided over a large number of cases involving various government agencies, municipalities, and collective bargaining units. Judge Coar is currently a co-chair of a committee appointed by the Illinois Supreme Court to work with major stakeholders in the courts, law enforcement, and criminal defense communities to reexamine pretrial processes and procedures in criminal cases. Judge Coar has also acted as a mediator in the City of Detroit bankruptcy. Dykema regularly works with government agencies. Dykema’s representation of the City of Chicago requires regular interaction with the City’s Law Department including the City’s Corporation Counsel, decision-makers in the police department, including the superintendent, and lower-level members of the police department and other City agencies. Dykema has represented numerous high-ranking members of the Chicago Police Department. In addition, Dykema represents Chicago’s civilian law enforcement oversight body on a regular basis. Dykema regularly works with government agencies outside of the City of Chicago regarding law enforcement issues, such as the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office and the Illinois Attorney General’s Office. The police policy members of the team all have extensive experience working with government agencies, municipalities, and collective bargaining units. Jeff Noble and Mike Hyams have served as high-ranking police department members and have consulted with numerous municipalities across the country serving as policing experts. Similarly, Drs. Rojek, Smith, and Alpert have been engaged in a wide variety of projects for municipalities and government agencies related to the statistical and data analysis of their law enforcement practices. The PwC team members similarly have substantial government and municipal experience from their time employed by the FBI. LANGUAGE SKILLS AND EXPERIENCE WORKING WITH LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT PERSONS AND COMMUNITIES, IN PARTICULAR COMMUNITIES WHOSE PRIMARY LANGUAGE IS SPANISH Judge Coar has a great deal of experience working with limited English proficient persons and communities. During his time as a federal judge, Judge Coar presided over a large number of cases involving parties who spoke no English or limited English. Many of the other 17 team members have experience working with people and groups who speak little or no English. We will add members who have the language skills to communicate effectively with non-English speaking individuals and communities and develop any appropriate surveys or programs. FAMILIARITY AND UNDERSTANDING OF LOCAL ISSUES AND CONDITIONS The team members from Calfee have a strong understanding of local issues and conditions. Calfee is one of the top law firms in Ohio and is headquartered in Cleveland, and its attorneys are residents of the area. Calfee attorneys have represented municipalities, public officials, and police officers in civil rights litigation throughout Ohio. Having Calfee attorneys on board means the team has intimate knowledge of the issues important to the Cleveland community right now. Calfee attorneys also bring extensive knowledge regarding labor law and issues relating to collective bargaining units. EFFECTIVE ENGAGEMENT WITH DIVERSE COMMUNITIES Judge Coar has been effectively engaged with diverse communities for decades. As a United States District Court Judge, he has presided over cases involving parties of every demographic, social, and economic background. Judge Coar has overseen consent decrees involving diverse community stakeholders, including the consent decree he entered and monitored arising from a Fair Housing Act challenge brought by community groups to the redevelopment plans for the Cabrini-Green public housing project. Judge Coar has also presided over criminal and civil cases involving police involvement with diverse communities and therefore is very familiar with the issues that can arise from such interactions. CREATION AND EVALUATION OF MEANINGFUL CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT Dykema has extensive knowledge regarding civilian oversight of law enforcement. Dykema regularly represents Chicago’s civilian law enforcement oversight body, the Independent Police Review Authority, on a wide range of issues. Dykema attorneys have represented civilian members at all levels of the agency, from Chief Administrator down, in depositions regarding the agency’s investigations. Dykema’s representation of the City of Chicago has included addressing allegations regarding the City’s policies in conducting investigations of alleged police misconduct. In representing the City and officers accused of misconduct, Dykema regularly reviews investigations, including investigations into officers’ use of force and searches and seizures by the Independent Police Review Authority and the Chicago Police Department’s Internal Affairs Division. FAMILIARITY WITH FEDERAL, OHIO, AND LOCAL LAWS, INCLUDING CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS AND POLICIES AND RULES GOVERNING POLICE PRACTICES The team is very familiar with federal, Ohio, and local laws, particularly civil rights laws and policies and rules governing police practices. As a United States District Court Judge for 18 years, Judge Coar is an expert on federal law, including civil rights laws. He has presided over a very large number of cases involving civil rights challenges to police officers’ conduct, and involving claims that municipal law enforcement policies caused constitutional violations. 18 The Dykema team members regularly represent the City of Chicago in cases in which it is alleged police policies and practices caused constitutional violations. The Dykema team is therefore very familiar with federal civil rights laws and policies and rules governing police practices. Jeff Noble and Mike Hyams have decades of experience as police supervisors. They have consulted with numerous municipalities regarding police practices and are also very familiar with the policies and rules governing police practices. The Calfee team members are very familiar with federal and Ohio laws, including civil rights and collective bargaining laws. The Calfee team has represented municipalities, public officials, and police officers in civil rights litigation throughout Ohio. COMPLETING PROJECTS WITH ANTICIPATED DEADLINES AND BUDGET The team members pride themselves on providing excellent service and producing outstanding work product in a timely and cost-effective manner. Virtually the entire team has extensive experience completing large complex projects with anticipated deadlines and budgets: Judge Coar through his monitorship and mediation projects; Dykema through providing legal representation on various projects to the City of Chicago and other clients; Jeff Noble and Mike Hyams through their engagements with municipalities’ consulting projects regarding police practices; Drs. Smith, Rojek, and Alpert through their statistical and data analysis projects regarding law enforcement, which are often funded through grants; PwC through its projects for its private and public sector clients; and Calfee through providing legal representation to clients. PREPARING FOR AND PARTICIPATING IN COURT PROCEEDINGS Judge Coar served as a United States District Judge for 16 years and another eight years as a United States Bankruptcy Judge. Judge Coar was an attorney in private practice prior to being appointed to as a Bankruptcy Judge. The attorneys at Dykema and Calfee regularly appear in state and federal courts. Every attorney on the team has significant trial experience. Several have represented parties and witnesses in criminal trials, both as prosecutors and defense attorneys. Mr. Noble has testified on many instances as an expert witness relating to policing matters. Our PwC team members similarly have deep experience preparing for trial and participating in court proceedings. REPORT WRITING FOR A BROAD VARIETY OF STAKEHOLDERS Our team is experienced in report writing for a wide variety of audiences. In his career as a federal judge, Judge Coar drafted countless opinions regarding complex legal and factual issues that could be read and understood by diverse parties involved in litigation and the public at large. Since he has retired from the bench, Judge Coar’s duties as a monitor and mediator have required him to prepare written reports for various stakeholders. Dykema team members have a wealth of experience drafting reports, briefs, memoranda, motions, and numerous other types of documents to be read by courts, clients, other attorneys, pro se plaintiffs, and others. Jeff Noble and Mike Hyams have experience drafting reports regarding law enforcement policies and procedures for 19 municipalities. Drs. Smith and Rojek have broad experience preparing reports regarding complex statistical and data analysis related to policing for a variety of stakeholders and the public at large. Similarly, PwC’s professionals have worked in a multitude of industries, including in the public sector and for very large companies, and have consistently delivered reports in line with their clients’ needs. 20 4. PRIOR EXPERIENCE AND REFERENCES Judge Coar and his team have substantial project experience relevant to the duties and responsibilities of this engagement. Judge Coar’s experience stems from his duties both as a federal court judge and his duties on complex monitorship projects since his retirement. Some examples and references regarding the team’s experience are set forth below. CABRINI GREEN PUBLIC HOUSING PROJECT While serving as a United States District Court Judge, Judge Coar entered and oversaw a complex consent decree arising from resident challenges to government agencies’ redevelopment plans in Chicago’s Cabrini Green public housing complex. Residents and community groups brought Fair Housing Act challenges to the redevelopment plans, arguing the plans would reduce the available affordable housing options for residents and would result in a discriminatory impact on African Americans, women, and children. The decree resulted from an agreement reached by the residents and community groups and the City of Chicago and the Chicago Housing Authority. The decree contained provisions creating a working group including residential participation to oversee the redevelopment plans, provisions for funding to develop replacement housing for residents, provisions regarding requirements for city requests for proposals related to the property, provisions regarding the demolition of certain buildings, provisions regarding relocation options for families affected by the redevelopment plans, and provisions regarding funding for community and supportive services. Judge Coar entered the complex and detailed consent decree in 2000, and oversaw and enforced the decree until 2011. PENSION FUND CONSENT DECREE Since retiring from his position as a United States District Court Judge, Judge Coar has been appointed as Independent Special Counsel pursuant to a 1982 consent decree concerning the (Teamsters’) Central States, Southeast, and Southwest Area Pension Fund. Judge Coar was appointed to this position in 2011 by Judge Milton Shadur of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Pursuant to the consent decree, the operation of the pension fund, which provides monthly pension payments to over 200,000 individuals, is monitored by the federal court and U.S. Department of Labor. As Independent Special Counsel, Judge Coar attends board meetings and regularly meets with fund managers to determine how the fund is being run and to assess the financial health of the fund. Judge Coar provides detailed quarterly reports to the court regarding the fund and its financial condition. An example of one of Judge Coar’s reports to the court is attached. COOK COUNTY JAIL OVERCROWDING Since retiring from the judiciary, Judge Coar continues to be involved in overseeing complex reforms to the criminal justice system. In 2013, Judge Coar was appointed by the Illinois Supreme Court to oversee the implementation of reforms relating to Cook County’s pretrial release and detention procedures. The goal of the reforms is to develop risk assessment tools to allow for the release of defendants before trial without risking community safety, which 21 will reduce jail overcrowding. In this role, Judge Coar is facilitating the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts and the Cook County Circuit Court Chief Judge’s office’s adoption of 40 different recommendations. Among the reforms are changes to Cook County’s pretrial bond process. As part of his duties, Judge Coar has reviewed the pretrial detention and release processes utilized by other jurisdictions throughout the country and makes recommendations to the stakeholders regarding changes to the Cook County system. DETROIT BANKRUPTCY In 2013, Judge Coar was appointed to be a mediator for the City of Detroit’s bankruptcy, which is the largest municipal bankruptcy in United States history. As a mediator on the bankruptcy, Judge Coar meets with parties and stakeholders, including the municipal government, to facilitate agreements on major issues relating to the bankruptcy. SEATTLE CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE Jeff Noble has been retained by the Seattle City Attorney’s Office as an expert consultant related to the implementation of the Settlement Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the DOJ and the City of Seattle in the matter of United States of America v. City of Seattle, Ninth Circuit No. C12-1282JLR. Included in the project, Mr. Noble is reviewing all of the use of force reports (over 100 separate investigations) between July 2014 and January 2015 and consulting with the City Attorney’s Office as to the sufficiency and reasonableness of the investigations, disciplinary issues, and training and policy recommendations. Reference: Jeff Schlanger Exiger 212-833-3346 jschlanger@exiger.com SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT – BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE READINESS ASSESSMENT & RECOMMENDATIONS PwC was on the monitoring team overseeing the implementation of reforms at the Seattle Police Department (“SPD”). The City of Seattle had entered into a settlement agreement with the Department of Justice with the goal of ensuring that efficient police services were delivered to the people of Seattle in a way that promoted public confidence in the SPD and its officers. PwC constructed a robust business intelligence system to provide officer performance data to managers which enabled them to actively supervise and monitor their officers. This system also functioned as an early intervention system to alert managers, through identifying trends in officer performance, to take corrective action. Working across 16 different functional units within the SPD, PwC worked around gaps in data and other hurdles to successfully deliver on this engagement. 22 Reference: Mark Knutson Governance, Risk & Compliance Program Manager City of Seattle Seattle, WA (206) 727-3967 Mark.Knutson@seattle.gov SAN FRANCISCO INTERNAL INVESTIGATION EVALUATION Jeff Noble was retained in 2004 as an expert to review and evaluate the internal investigation conducted by the San Francisco, California, Office of Community Complaints of the case widely known as “Fajitagate” involving the indictment of seven command staff and three line officers of the San Francisco Police Department. Mr. Noble assisted in preparing a confidential report to the City Council regarding the reasonableness of the investigation and findings. Reference: Jeff Schlanger Exiger 212-833-3346 jschlanger@exiger.com AUSTIN INTERNAL INVESTIGATION EVALUATIONS In 2007, Jeff Noble was retained by the City of Austin, Texas to review the police department’s internal homicide and Internal Affairs investigation of an officer-involved shooting that resulted in the death of a civilian. Mr. Noble reviewed both the criminal and administrative investigations to determine the reasonableness of the investigations and findings and assisted in preparing a confidential report for the City Council. In 2009, Mr. Noble was again retained by the City of Austin, Texas to review the police department’s internal homicide and Internal Affairs investigation of an officer-involved shooting that resulted in the death of one civilian and the wounding of another. Mr. Noble again reviewed both the criminal and administrative investigations to determine the reasonableness of the investigations and findings and assisted in preparing a confidential report for the City Council. Reference: Jeff Schlanger Exiger 212-833-3346 jschlanger@exiger.com 23 ARIZONA HIGHWAY PATROL TRAFFIC STOP DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS As part of a racial profiling-related settlement agreement with the ACLU, the Arizona Department of Public Safety’s Highway Patrol division agreed to collect, analyze, and monitor traffic stop data for five years from 2007 to 2012. Dr. Michael Smith was part of a research team from the University of Cincinnati that was contracted to develop the data collection and analysis methodology as part of this settlement agreement. In this capacity, he served as the senior methodological consultant to the project. The team designed the traffic data collection instrument and methodology adopted by the AZ Highway Patrol, and performed the data analysis and annual reporting to the agency, the ACLU, and other outside stakeholders. The team analyzed over 1.5 million traffic stop records annually for the purpose of identifying statistically significant racial disparities in the traffic stops themselves as well as various stop outcomes such as citations, arrests, and searches. The team also conducted focus groups with many different DPS officers and units to help understand the context and potential causes of disparities identified. Reference: Dr. Robin Engel Director, Institute of Crime Science University of Cincinnati School of Criminal Justice robin.engel@uc.edu 513-556-5850 SEATTLE DRUG ARREST DISPARITY STUDY In spring 2007, Dr. Smith was contracted by the Seattle Police Department to examine possible racial disparities in the department’s drug arrests. Dr. Smith and another researcher designed and carried out a multi-method research project to determine whether the Seattle Police Department (“SPD”) was engaging in drug enforcement efforts that may have resulted in racially disparate policing. Their research focused primarily on two neighborhoods in Seattle with high volumes of drug arrests. They developed innovative and scientifically rigorous benchmarks against which to compare the racial composition of SPD drug arrests. These comparative methods included systematic observations of outdoor drug sales as well as the use of 911 calls for drug-related citizen complaints. While the results from the research revealed some disparities in the volume of drug arrests in downtown Seattle, these disparities were largely explained by the concentration of drug enforcement efforts by the SPD in areas of the city that also were responsible for violent crimes, incivilities, and other disorders that often accompany open-air drug markets. The results from this study can be found in Criminology and Public Policy, 11, 603-635. Reference: Hon. R. Gil Kerlikowske (formerly chief of the Seattle Police Department) Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (202) 344-2001 24 RACIAL PROFILING ANALYSIS FOR THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT Dr. Smith served as the senior research methodologist on a racial profiling traffic stop study commissioned by the City of Los Angeles as part of its compliance with a consent decree between the USDOJ and the LAPD. Led by the Analysis Group (an international economic consulting company), this project collected and analyzed more than a million traffic stop records from the LAPD. The goal of the project was to identify racial disparities in traffic stops and traffic stop outcomes (searches, arrests, citations) that would allow the City of Los Angeles to address those disparities through appropriate policy changes and training. As the senior research methodologist on the project, Dr. Smith worked with analysts from the Analysis Group to design and carry out the statistical analyses and to draft the final report to the City. Reference: Dr. Bruce Strombom Analysis Group 213-896-4520 bruce.strombom@analysisgroup.com A MULTI-METHOD EVALUATION OF POLICE USE OF FORCE OUTCOMES In January of 2006, Drs. Smith and Alpert received a $650,000 grant from the National Institute of Justice to study injuries sustained by citizens and police officers during use of force encounters involving conducted energy devices (e.g. Tasers). The resulting study was the largest and most comprehensive study conducted to date on injury outcomes during use of force encounters. The project was extensive and involved the collection of use of force data from approximately 20 law enforcement agencies across all regions of the U.S. Their methods also included interviews with officers and citizens who had been involved in use of force events. Dr. Smith directed the project and served as its principal research design methodologist. The results from the study showed a reduction in injuries sustained by police and citizens associated with the use of Tasers after controlling for a variety of individual and situational variables. This project resulted in several scholarly publications, including an article in the nation’s preeminent public health journal, the American Journal of Public Health, 99, 2268-2274. NEW ORLEANS FEDERAL MONITOR TEAM Dr. Alpert is currently a member of the federal monitor team for the New Orleans Police Department and is assigned to reviewing policies and creating and measuring outcome measures on use of force, including CEW’s, the development of the early warning system, policies and measurement of vehicular collisions and pursuits, and the development and implementation of opinion surveys from officers, citizens and jail inmates. He worked on the hiring and selection processes and development of the training academy for the New Orleans Police Department. He has also been assigned specialized tasks by the monitoring team and the judge. Reference: Deputy Monitor Dennis Nowicki nopdmonitor_den@att.net 25 MISSOURI ATTORNEY GENERAL’S ANNUAL REPORT ON VEHICLE STOPS In 2000, the Missouri General Assembly passed legislation requiring all Missouri law enforcement agencies to annually report all traffic stops to the Attorney General’s Office. The legislation was passed amidst mounting concern nationally on racial profiling. It represents one of the first and longest running statewide data collection efforts reporting race of drivers stopped and related stop characteristics. Dr. Rojek, with two other analysts, has conducted the analysis on this annual traffic stop data for the Attorney General since 2002. This project involves the analysis and reporting on more than 1.5 million traffic stops from more than 600 agencies, along with providing analysis advice and interpretation to the Attorney General and staff. Reference: Cindy Lowry Missouri Attorney General’s Office Jefferson City, MO cindy.lowry@ago.mo.gov (573) 751-8828 EVALUATION OF LAS VEGAS LAW ENFORCEMENT MOTOR VEHICLE CRASH PREVENTION PROGRAM In 2014, Dr. Rojek and Dr. Hope Tiesman received a grant jointly funded by the National Institute of Justice and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health to evaluate the impact of an officer involved collision prevention program instituted by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) in 2010. The program was developed after thee LVMPD officers were killed in traffic collisions within a six month period in 2009. The study involves an interrupted time series design with two nonequivalent comparison groups (CharlotteMecklenburg (NC) Police Department and Austin (TX) Police Department) to evaluate the impact of the LVMPD program. The study involves data collection from personnel, traffic division, workers compensation, and fleet maintenance records across the three agencies to conduct the comparative analysis. The study will be completed in 2016. Reference: Dr. Hope Tiesman Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Division of Safety Research 1095 Willowdale Road M/S 1811 Morgantown, WV 26508 htiesman@cdc.gov (304) 285-6067 26 BUILDING BRIDGES BETWEEN POLICE RESEARCHERS AND PRACTITIONERS In 2009, Drs. Rojek and Alpert, received a grant from the National Institute of Justice to examine the barriers and facilitators to the development of partnerships between police practitioners and researchers. This study was built on the growing interest among police practitioners to develop working relationship with researchers, particularly for the purpose of translating research into practice and creating change in law enforcement agencies. The purpose of the study was to improve the knowledge of the barriers and facilitators to development and sustainability of these relationships in the law enforcement setting. The study involved the use of a national survey of law enforcement agencies and interviews of more than 140 law enforcement practitioners and researchers who have participated in successful and unsuccessful partnerships. The study has resulted in multiple publications and Dr. Rojek has been asked by NIJ to speak on the topic on multiple occasions for events sponsored by the agency. Reference: Eric Martin National Institute of Justice Eric.D.Martin@usdoj.gov (202) 814-9588 27 5. PROPOSED ACTIVITIES System, Process, and Policy Maturity Assessment Prior to beginning the monitoring process, it is important to fully understand the current capabilities, limitations, and overall maturity of the CDP’s IT system and related processes. The extent to which these systems and processes can provide reliable data will factor into the development of detailed objectives of the monitoring activities, as well as the overall success of the monitorship. We propose performing a gap assessment of CDP’s current IT systems, policing reports, and information processes to assess the capacity to provide the requested information. This assessment will provide for an overview of the current state of the CDP’s reporting capabilities, identified gaps and risks associated with this current state, and a roadmap to achieve the desired outcomes of the systems and processes. With the knowledge obtained from this effort, in order to ensure the team is addressing what the Settlement Agreement requires, we would then perform a complete review of the approach with the CDP, identify the goals and the gaps, and develop a detailed work plan and budget. Proceeding in this manner early in the monitorship will end up saving costs for the City of Cleveland by providing for a realistic budget and efficient use of resources and time, and allowing for an understanding of the true state of affairs, including any issues or limitations, as well as insights into what truly works well within CDP. Data Collection Assessment One of the first tasks of the team in the 90 day review period will be to examine all hard copy and electronic data collection forms (i.e. use of force reports, traffic stop reports, complaint forms) that will populate the data for the identified outcome measures. Second, the team will meet with the Data Analysis and Collection Coordinator, along with other members of the CDP that have key responsibilities related to reporting efforts and data storage, to determine the progress and timeline on reporting requirements articulated in the Settlement Agreement that have not yet been implemented. These meetings will also facilitate the opportunity for the team to capture insight from these individuals on additional data elements that they believe will improve the outcome analysis that are not currently captured by the department or articulated in the Settlement Agreement. Third, the team will review the current means for storing data from the above reporting efforts, or proposed storage in relation to new data collection. The central focus of this review is to identify whether the data captured is stored in hard copy or electric format, and the query capacity for downloading data to analyze. The above review efforts are intended to identify any recommended changes to data collection elements articulated in the Settlement Agreement. All recommendations will be presented to the key parties of the Agreement, which will include articulation of the strengths and limitations of the proposed recommendations in relation to what is presented in the Settlement Agreement. Included in these recommendations will be the identification of any qualitative data efforts (likely to reflect interviews, focus groups, and content analysis of text portions of reports) that the monitor team believes will improve the capacity to examine CDP’s establishment of constitutional policing. The monitor team will work to incorporate those 28 recommendations that are agreeable to all parties. This 90 day review effort will also give the monitor team a more informed capacity to identify a timeline for when outcome analyses can be completed. Particular consideration is given to the timing of implementation of data collection efforts articulated in the Settlement Agreement and any of the above recommendations adopted, and the passage of sufficient time to collect enough data to conduct a meaningful analysis. Similarly, the review will allow for the identification of any additional resource commitments required to prepare data for analysis, such as data entry efforts to translate hard copy reports and records into databases ready for analysis. Establish Lines of Communication and Understand Current Compliance Activities The monitoring process will begin with the monitoring team meeting in person with all relevant parties, both in the law enforcement field and from the Cleveland community. This serves several purposes. First, it continues the process of educating the monitoring team so that the team can fulfill its obligations in the most effective manner possible. Second, it helps ensure that the lines of communication from and to the monitoring team are open, which will facilitate feedback to the monitoring team as the monitoring process continues. Third, it enables various stakeholders to see first-hand that the monitoring team is determined to “get this right” and to see that their input is valued. For example, our monitoring team would establish immediate contact with the CDP. Our dialogue would include getting complete information about the work the CDP already has done to implement reforms. Similarly, we would meet with the DOJ investigative team and review available DOJ materials to get the benefit of the detailed work DOJ already has conducted. We would review current CDP policies and procedures and compare them with policies in other cities and with model policies from professional police organizations. Concurrently, we would ensure that community groups and stakeholders have an opportunity to express their concerns and observations. Develop Detailed Monitoring Plan While these meetings are taking place during this initial 90-day period, the monitoring team will draft its detailed monitoring plan. Objective metrics will be established in consultation with the Settlement Agreement parties and audit protocols and procedures will be finalized. The DOJ Report provides a framework for this process. At the same time, the monitoring team will stand ready to provide technical assistance to the CDP. Feedback will be provided on policies and procedures, and, if sought, assistance will be given in the implementation of the settlement agreement. Data Collection and Analysis The next aspect of the monitorship is the collection of data, to occur in coordination with the CDP and the City. Review of documents frequently is of the greatest significance in this regard, but data collection also will include interviews of individuals as well as methodologically sound surveys where appropriate. The testing process is designed to determine, in part, whether 29 constitutional performance has improved during the pendency of the Settlement Agreement. It will be conducted in accordance with accepted standards. Collecting and analyzing data to answer important questions about police behavior requires a unique and multifaceted skill set. Deep familiarity with police records management systems, reports, data fields, data coding, and the formal and informal mechanisms that influence police decision-making are required. The proposed evaluation team of Dr. Smith, Dr. Rojek, and Dr. Alpert has more than 60 years of combined experience performing these types of analyses. They have designed and carried out research efforts in many law enforcement agencies to answer precisely the kinds of questions posed by the Settlement Agreement. Just as importantly, they have the proven capability to translate complex research questions and analyses into language that police and community stakeholders can understand and use to evaluate the impact of the Settlement Agreement on the practices of the CDP. Reporting In many ways, the drafting of written reports is the culmination of the monitoring process. Such reports are addressed first and foremost to the Court and to the Settlement Agreement parties, but should also be in a form easily understood by other stakeholders and members of the public. In this case, we envision completing periodic reports concerning the activities of our team, with reports also issued upon the completion of major reviews as well as issuance of an annual report assessing compliance with the Settlement Agreement. A website can be set up to post these reports and other significant information regarding the monitorship, if the parties desire. In addition, we will set up an email account and a telephone hotline through which stakeholders and other members of the community can provide feedback. Throughout this process the goal of the monitorship remains the same: implementation of constitutional policing practices and transition by the City of Cleveland and CDP to a system of self-monitoring as expeditiously as is possible. This process as generally described above will be applied to each of the specific substantive areas set forth in the settlement agreement. The Report already has set forth a significant foundation in this regard and provides a framework for the process going forward. Specific areas to be reviewed, as identified in the agreement, include: • • • • • • • • • Community Engagement and Building Trust Community and Problem-Oriented Policing Bias-Free Policing Use of Force Crisis Intervention Search and Seizure Accountability Transparency and Oversight Officer Assistance and Support 30 • • Supervision Policies Within each area, certain descriptive analyses have been agreed upon. Once the monitoring team is in place and able to evaluate the availability, comprehensiveness, and quality of the data captured by CDP, we will likely recommend additional analyses to help inform stakeholders whether the agreement has resulted in constitutional policing. For example, the Agreement mandates descriptive analyses of the number of use of force incidents by type of arrest, race, age, gender, ethnicity, time, subjects’ mental condition or disability, and the involvement of drugs and/or alcohol. Ideally, we also would want to know which of these factors is contributing to the use of force during an arrest, and we would want to see changes in the expected direction over time. A series of regression models could identify, for example, whether subject race/ethnicity is contributing to the use of force, and trend analysis could determine whether the influence of this extra-legal variable diminishes over the course of the Settlement Agreement period. Likewise, descriptive analyses that examine investigatory stops, searches, and arrests (as required by the Settlement Agreement) by race, ethnicity, age, and gender are a useful starting point. Additional multivariate analyses can reveal whether extra-legal factors such as race and/or ethnicity influence the decision to search or arrest once other relevant variables are controlled, and if so, whether the contribution of such factors to search or arrest decisions diminishes over time. Analyses of stop data (pedestrian or traffic) require the monitoring team to consider issues of benchmarking. In determining constitutional policing (or lack thereof), it is not sufficient to simply catalog apparent disparities in the rates at which Black and White pedestrians are stopped. An appropriate analysis must also consider the racial population available to be stopped and to use that population as the appropriate comparison to CDP stop data. There are a variety of ways to derive population benchmarks, and the team has extensive experience and expertise in developing these methodologies. Biennial Community Survey The Settlement Agreement articulates the responsibility of the Monitor to conduct three separate but conceptually interrelated surveys of City residents, police personnel, and detained arrestees. The survey is to be conducted at the beginning of the monitoring period to establish a baseline measure and every two years thereafter as a triangulated approach to capture CDP’s implementation of constitutional policing. Our team has conducted these types of surveys in both the community and law enforcement agency context, and thereby has survey formats and questions that can be used to develop surveys under the Settlement Agreement. Consistent with the Settlement Agreement, the surveys developed by the team will incorporate questions from any prior surveys conducted in Cleveland that will inform the assessment of the CDP’s implementation of constitutional policing. It will also integrate knowledge gained by the team from Cleveland residents, CDP personnel, and other relevant individuals through interviews, focus groups, and informal conversations. This approach represents a desirable strategy of 31 integrating qualitative and quantitative methodologies to identify a diverse set of interests and concerns to the different survey populations and then a survey to assess representativeness on these issues. The team will present both the survey designs and administration protocols to the parties of the Settlement Agreement in order to develop a survey effort of mutual interest to these parties. We anticipate the citizen surveys will capture both experiences with CDP personnel and general assessments of the CDP. The detainee surveys will provide the opportunity for a more event specific assessment of the CDP in relation to the respondents’ arrests as well as what are commonly referred as global or general assessments of the department. We would recommend these surveys incorporate question matrices that measure resident and detainee sentiments of procedural justice and legitimacy toward CDP. The surveys that result from these collective considerations will be pre-tested in order to assess their validity. In addition to these design considerations, the team will develop random samples of the resident and detainee populations in order to establish representative survey results. The team will also present the strengths and weaknesses of different survey administration strategies to the parties of the Settlement Agreement in order to come to an agreed upon feasible and effective survey administration protocol. The Monitor will take the same approach in developing the surveys of CDP personnel. The research members of the monitor team have conducted similar surveys across a number of law enforcement agencies. Consistent with what is outlined in the Settlement Agreement, these prior surveys captured the orientation of personnel to existing or new policies and practices, as well as questions that assess the organizational climate. Prior research in policing and other organizational settings has found the organizational climate (particularly perceptions of fairness and orientation to supervision and leadership) is a key factor in facilitating organizational change, which is the premise of the Settlement Agreement. Similar to the resident and detainee surveys, the team will develop the organizational survey with consideration of prior questions they have used, questions drawn from any prior surveys conducted in the CDP, and insight gained through interviews, focus groups, and informal conversations with CDP personnel and related parties. A draft survey will be presented to the parties of the Settlement Agreement and will be adjusted to assure representation of the mutual interests of each party. Drs. Smith, Rojek, and Alpert have delivered similar surveys in law enforcement agencies using hard copy and different electronic formats. The team will provide a review of these formats and the strengths and limitations of each to the parties of the Settlement, and will administer the survey in the format the parties believe will best fit the context and resources of the CDP. 32 6. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR BIAS We are aware of no potential, actual, or perceived conflicts of interest that would bear on the ability of our monitoring team to serve as monitor under the Settlement Agreement. None of the Calfee team members currently represent the City of Cleveland in any matters. Calfee does perform certain legal work for the City of Cleveland, but does not do so in regards to police-related matters, and does not represent the Cleveland Division of Police. As described above, several members of the monitoring team previously have worked for the Department of Justice, but not in recent years. Similarly, PwC periodically has been hired to perform work for various federal agencies. To our knowledge, no member of the monitoring team has been the proponent or subject of any complaint, claim, or lawsuit alleging misconduct. 33 7. ESTIMATED COSTS Being aware of the budget constraints experienced by municipalities across Ohio and the rest of the country, our monitoring team has made all efforts to put together a project budget that will provide exceptional value at a sensible cost. All of us have agreed that we would be taking on this project as a matter of public interest and therefore we are proposing significantly reduced rates for this project. For example, Judge Coar proposes to bill at per hour, which is a discount of rom his normal rate and partners on this engagement will be billing a per hour, a discount of more than off their standard hourly rates. We are very interested in being engaged for this project and will take all possible steps to be efficient and cost-effective in our efforts. For example, the team will not bill for time spent traveling and will cap billable hours at 10 hours per day per team member. While precise budgeting is difficult at this early stage (and will depend, for example, on how much technical assistance the monitoring team is asked to provide), our projected budget/cost estimate for each year of this engagement is set forth below: Year Estimated Fees Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Additionally, we estimate the initial system, process, and policy maturity assessment will require an additional during the first 90 day period of the monitorship. It is expected that the benefits of this initial assessment will be made evident in the first year, as the outputs of this exercise will provide greater clarity into the level of effort required, and afford an opportunity to revise subsequent years’ budgets accordingly. Thus, the five-year cost estimate, and cap, including the initial assessment period, is The first year budget is anticipated to be higher than budgets in following years, given startup activity costs that will not be incurred again in later years. The estimated budget in year three is expected to drop by approximatel to and estimated budgets in years four and five drop by an additional to as efficiencies are gained and certain monitor activities require less effort over time. The team suggests this number should be revisited following the initial 90 day period of the monitorship to determine whether this cap is appropriate or whether it can be reduced based on the current state of the CDP’s IT and data gathering systems, processes, and policies, and the amount of technical assistance the team will need to provide. We have based our estimated costs in large part on our view of how best to address the specific issues addressed in the Settlement Agreement and the level of effort that will be required for each cluster of issues. 34 CONCLUSION Judge Coar’s team has the experience and knowledge needed to successfully fulfill the duties of the Independent Monitor. The team has a former federal judge and lawyers who know the legal aspects of the project, law enforcement experts who know the policing aspects of the job, and analysts who specialize in large data projects related to law enforcement. Judge Coar has experience with consent decrees and complex settlement agreements both as a judge and a monitor. We thank you for your consideration, and look forward to helping the Court, the parties, the CDP, and the people of Cleveland in this important role. 35