PARC Police Assessment Resource Center Application to Serve as Independent Monitor of the Cleveland Division of Police July 8, 2015 Submitted to: Carole S. Rendon First Assistant U.S. Attorney U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Ohio 801 West Superior Avenue, Suite 400 Cleveland, OH 44113 Rashida J. Ogletree Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 3 Barbara A. Langhenry Director of Law City of Cleveland Department of Law 601 Lakeside Avenue, Suite 106 Cleveland, OH 44114 PARC Police Assessment Resource Center NEW YORK LOS ANGELES 115 W 18th St. 2nd Floor New York, NY 10011 (202) 257-5111 P.O. Box 27445 Los Angeles, CA 90027 (213) 623-5757 www.parc.info Proposal Contact: Matthew Barge Vice President & Deputy Director 115 W 18th St. 2nd Floor New York, NY 10011 (202) 257-5111 matthewbarge@parc.info I. Executive Summary This application expresses the interest of the Police Assessment Resource Center (“PARC”); its Deputy Director, Matthew Barge; Charlottesville Chief of Police Tim Longo; former Executive Director of the Harvard Kennedy School of Government’s Criminal Justice Program Christine Cole; former Madison, Wisconsin Chief of Police Noble Wray; and other team members in assessing and guiding implementation of the consent decree addressing the United States’ investigation of the Cleveland Division of Police (“CDP”).1 It outlines: • • • PARC’s track record of collaborative, successful, and effective monitoring; The diverse and experienced proposed Monitoring Team for Cleveland; and A structured approach to monitoring focusing on measurable outcomes, pragmatic and ongoing technical assistance, and community confidence and trust. In submitting this application, the proposed Monitoring Team (the “Monitoring Team,” “PARC Team,” or “Team”) is mindful of Cleveland’s history of community concern about police accountability. CDP’s use of deadly force has previously been the subject of federal inquiry.2 Highprofile incidents over the past several years have engendered significant community concern and highlighted substantial community distrust of law enforcement.3 In their wake, and in advance of the Consent Decree, some reforms have already been initiated or contemplated.”4 The Monitoring Team understands that the bedrock of any consent decree is a strengthened, responsive relationship between the city’s diverse communities and its police department. In Cleveland, the police must carefully consider how the city’s residents want their communities policed and what their priorities are. The community must likewise carefully consider how to assist and cooperate with the police to fight crime, share information, and promote public safety. PARC has a long history of providing independent, evidence-based counsel on effective, respectful, and publicly accountable policing. A nonprofit organization with offices in New York and Los Angeles, PARC and its nationwide network of experts work with police agencies, local governments, and community organizations to address difficult law enforcement issues and solve long-term problems. PARC does not merely do work in the policing area – it is a leading authority in the field. PARC “wrote the book on police oversight after the Rodney King beating in Los Angeles.”5 Its work on a wide array of accountability, technical, and community issues is widely cited by policy experts, other 1 This application incorporates, expands upon, and refines PARC’s “Statement of Interest to Serve as Monitor of the Cleveland Division of the Police,” previously submitted to the Department of Justice and City of Cleveland on April 20, 2015. 2 Agreement to Conclude DOJ’s Investigation of the Cleveland Division of Police’s Use of Deadly Force,” (Feb. 9, 2004), available at http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/cleveland_uof_final.pdf. 3 See, e.g., Brandon Blackwell, “Many Questions Remain After Deadly Police Chase,” Cleveland Plain Dealer (Dec. 7, 2012), http://www.cleveland.com/cityhall/index.ssf/2015/06/cleveland_police_chief_officer_1.html; Cory Shaffer, “Tanish Anderson Was Restrained in Prone Position; Death Ruled Homicide,” Cleveland Plain Dealer (Jan. 2, 2015), http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/01/tanisha_anderson_was_restraine.html; Brandon Blackwell, “Cleveland Police Officer Shot Tamir Rice Immediately After Leaving Moving Patrol Car,” Cleveland Plain Dealer (Nov. 26, 2014), http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/11/cleveland_police_officer_shot_1.html. 4 Leila Atassi, “Cleveland Police Chief: Officers Should See Themselves as ‘Guardians,’ Not ‘Warriors,’” Cleveland Plain Dealer (June 10, 2015), http://www.cleveland.com/cityhall/index.ssf/2015/06/cleveland_police_chief_officer_1.html. 5 Dominic Holden, “SPD’s Big Job Opening,” The Stranger (Aug. 1, 2012), http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/spds-big-jobopening/Content?oid=14332997. 1 monitors, civilian oversight mechanisms, and community groups – and is one of a few groups that “[t]he best departments keep an eye on” with respect to its reports and recommendations on best practices.6 PARC’s focus on monitoring is unique. It is the foremost expert on independent, in-depth assessment and active reform of police agencies. PARC’s rigorous, pragmatic, and hands-on approach to monitoring has yielded real results: Seattle. PARC’s Executive Director, as well as many of its staff and network of consultants, have been monitoring a consent decree between the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and City of Seattle addressing a pattern and practice of excessive force and concerns about discriminatory policing with the Seattle Police Department. To date, the monitoring has produced, among other successes: • • • • Precise, new use of force policies and officer training emphasizing de-escalation strategies and tactics; Cutting-edge, mandatory officer training on bias-free policing and procedural justice; A host of updated procedures to ensure the fair and thorough internal investigation of uses of force and review of pedestrian stops; and The establishment of the first-ever consent-decree-created Community Police Commission to promote the participation of the Seattle community directly in the reform process. The monitoring, while ongoing, has received national praise as a “historic” moment in policing – where, for the first time, “the two principal antagonistic stakeholders – community representatives and police rank and file and union leaders – were involved in a structured process that gave each a voice over . . . standards for police officer use of force”7: In . . . Seattle, police have worked with communities to improve relationships, discipline bad actors, and – most importantly – reduce crime . . . Incidents still happen, but they’re mediated by pre-existing relationships and open lines of communication.8 Los Angeles. PARC’s Executive Director was appointed by the County of Los Angeles to independently monitor the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, the fourthlargest law enforcement agency in the U.S., for more than 21 years. PARC became fully involved as staff to the monitoring upon the organization’s inception in 2001. 6 Sally Kestin et al, “Policing the Police: Investigating Law Enforcement,” IRE Conference (2013), available at https://www.ire.org/media/uploads/ire-2013/tipsheets/iretipsheet_police.pdf. 7 Samuel Walker, “The Community Voice in Policing: Old Issues, New Evidence” (2015) (Presentation) (Conference, “Moving Beyond Discipline: The Role of Civilians in Police Accountability:) (NACOLE and Seattle University), available at https://nacole.org/wp-content/uploads/WalkerSeattlePaperFeb4.pdf. 8 Jamelle Bouie, “Criminal Neglect,” Slate (June 18, 2015), http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/06/baltimore_police_are_virtually_on_strike_the_city_deserv es_something_better.html. 2 Leading police expert Samuel Walker hailed PARC’s monitoring as constituting “the most successful citizen oversight agency in the United States” – and one of the few that has established “evidence of its effectiveness.”9 Portland. PARC conducted an independent investigation of the Portland Police Bureau’s officer-involved shootings and made recommendations for improvements in policy, training, and practice to address underlying issues. The City Auditor found that PARC’s recommendations led to an 88% drop in the number of officer-involved shootings, a 59% decrease in overall use of force by officers, and a 51% decrease in citizen’s complaints about police officers – without increases in officer injuries or crime. Then-head of Portland’s Independent Police Review Committee noted that “[w]e accomplished more in 18 months with the PARC shootings report than police accountability in Portland ha[d] accomplished in 18 years.”10 Walkill, New York. PARC was appointed to serve as staff to the monitor of the first-ever, state-initiated consent decree in New York addressing a pattern of problematic misuse of police authority in the town of Wallkill. After the “successful completion of the consent decree, in 2006, the town retained PARC staff to continue to assess its compliance with good policing practices.”11 Denver. Denver’s Independent Police Monitor hired PARC to conduct an in-depth review officer-involved shootings – and to provide recommendations for across-theboard improvements with use of force policy, officer training, internal investigations, and administrative reviews of force incidents to address identified issues. PARC made clear and pragmatic recommendations that led to a number of reforms. This focus on in-depth, real-world, and pragmatic monitoring led PARC to be awarded a major grant from the Bureau of Justice Administration (BJA) to lead a group of peer experts and monitors in constructing National Guidelines for Police Monitors – providing a first-of-its-kind foundation for the work and approach of other monitors, civilian review boards, auditors, police commissions, and law enforcement agencies subject to other civilian oversight. 12 PARC played a similar role in the construction of national guidelines for internal affairs. PARC is also frequently hired to help communities set up or reform their civilian oversight and accountability structures. For instance, in Eugene, Oregon, PARC pioneered the leading conceptual framework for police oversight models – helping Eugene tailor an accountability system to the community’s needs and the local government’s structure. Similarly, the oldest police commission in the United States, the Milwaukee (Wisconsin) Fire & Police Commission, engaged PARC to evaluate its structures, practices, and procedures. PARC made a number of 9 Samuel E. Walker & Carol A. Archbold, THE NEW WORLD OF POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY 185 (2013). “Richard Rosenthal: Departing cop Watchdog Gives WW An Exit Interview,” Willamette Week (July 6, 2005), http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-4561-richard_rosenthal.html. 11 Harry W. More, CURRENT ISSUES IN AMERICAN LAW ENFORCEMENT 83 (2008). 12 Police Assessment Resource Center, National Guidelines for Police Monitors (2009), http://static1.squarespace.com/static/5498b74ce4b01fe317ef2575/t/54aff2f3e4b0233c1957492a/1420817139792/Monitoring+Gui delines.pdf. 10 3 recommendations for improving the rigor and transparency of its processes and procedures. PARC does not merely audit police agencies. Nor does it only impassively measure what agencies are doing. Although both audit and measurement functions are vital elements of monitoring, the Monitoring Team knows that no monitoring can succeed without establishing open, trustworthy relationships with CDP, the Division’s officers and unions, Cleveland’s elected officials, community organizations, and the public. These relationships ensure that the objectives of the consent decree will not exist only on paper or for a temporary period – but, rather, that the consent decree will have a real, measurable, and lasting effect across Cleveland’s communities. Consistent with PARC’s experiences conducting monitoring and independent assessments for other jurisdictions, the PARC Team proposes an approach to monitoring in Cleveland grounded in: Collaboration. The Team will establish open and honest relationships with the CDP, its officers of all ranks, the police unions, the City of Cleveland, Cleveland’s elected officials, the Department of Justice and its representatives, community and social service organizations, and Cleveland residents across the city’s neighborhoods, police districts, and communities. The Team will strive toward common understandings and agreement whenever possible. Best Practices. The Team will aim for CDP to adjust policies and procedures in light of best practice – as established by assessments of what has worked for law enforcement agencies nationwide, model policies from national organizations, legal and academic research, and consultation by experienced professionals and law enforcement experts. The goal will be policies and practices that promote officer and public safety, effective law enforcement, and constitutional imperatives. Real-Time Technical Assistance. PARC’s proposed Monitoring Team will provide real-time, technical assistance to the CDP and engage in open, continuous dialogue with all stakeholders, including the Cleveland community. The goal will be to ensure that everyone constantly has a common understanding of what progress and compliance entails. Objective & Pragmatic Assessments. Rigorous reviews, audits, and systemic assessments – both quantitative and qualitative – will need to be used to assess CDP’s progress in complying with the decree. The Team will collaborate with CDP and the community to ensure common understanding of clear benchmark measures of where CDP stands at the start of the decree, precise and identifiable guideposts for gauging progress, and clear metrics for determining compliance with the decree. Transparency. The Team will work with stakeholders to promote transparent, objective, and rigorous internal investigation and review processes – processes aimed toward inspiring renewed confidence and trust in CDP by the Cleveland community. Internal investigations should be fair, thorough, and timely. Reviews and assessments of those investigations must be comprehensive and willing to consider tough issues and questions. The Monitoring Team will be committed to transparency in its own right – providing open, real-time technical assistance and remaining clear at all times about how progress might be assessed. 4 Promoting Mechanisms for Critical Self-Analysis. Wherever possible, the Monitoring Team will seek systems and processes that allow CDP to self-identify and self-correct emerging problems and challenges in the future – long after the consent decree is over. The Team is comprised of leading experts who have successfully monitored other law enforcement agencies in other federal consent decrees, worked with agencies on addressing police accountability issues, or are otherwise experts on the issues that the Cleveland consent decree addresses. It includes current and former police chiefs, lawyers, academics, organizational change experts, psychologists, social science researchers, and experienced community organizers. The proposed PARC Team believes that the Cleveland Division of Police, like any police agency, is not consigned to be only what it has been in the past. With the assistance of the consent decree and the sustained involvement of the Cleveland community, frayed relationships can mend. Organizational cultures can change. Old habits and approaches can give way to dynamic innovation based on best practices and what has worked for other agencies. This proposal outlines the PARC’s proposed Monitoring Team proposed personnel and general approach for ensuring a complete implementation of the consent decree – one that ensures the safety of the public and officers, advances efficient and effective law enforcement, and protects the constitutional rights of Cleveland residents throughout its diverse communities. 5 II. Personnel PARC’s proposed Monitoring Team is a diverse, seasoned group. PARC hand-picked its members to ensure a Team that is closely tailored to the Cleveland community and capable of squarely addressing the concerns of the Department of Justice’s investigation and the consent decree. The Team is comprised of individuals with varied backgrounds and professional experiences – current and former police chiefs, police accountability specialists, lawyers, academics, research experts, a psychologist, and an organizational change expert. Likewise, it is comprised of people who have participated in successful monitoring efforts elsewhere – indeed, seven team members have served as independent monitors or on teams that have monitored Department of Justice consent decrees of other law enforcement agencies. Two members served on the court-appointed monitoring team overseeing DOJ consent decree reforms of the Cincinnati Police Department.13 In short, the proposed Team features individuals who, in varying contexts and fields, have not merely talked the talk but, instead, are people who have walked the walk – guiding change, promoting accountability, and simultaneously effectuating public and officer safety and constitutional policing. The Team’s current and former police chiefs, police union executive, police psychologist, and long-time police accountability experts know the challenges and opportunities inherent in implementing enduring organizational and cultural changes in police departments from senior command staff to the rank and file. For all individuals proposed to work on consent decree implementation in Cleveland, the monitoring effort will be anything but a theoretical or academic exercise. Instead, it will be a pragmatic, real-world, and sustained effort informed by years of experience working to enhance the quality, effectiveness, and accountability of law enforcement agencies across the country. Internal Organization & Team Structure The PARC Monitoring Team for Cleveland will truly function as a team. Rather than designating a single individual as a Monitor acting with the support of a large team, the PARC Team proposes to use a wider distribution of responsibility. This structure will emphasize that the approach and evaluations of the Team are the well-informed, consensus views of its diverse and experienced members. In short, the team-based approach puts the focus on the work rather than on one individual. It has been utilized successfully in other cities in the monitoring of police departments pursuant to federal, state, or private consent decrees as well as settlement agreements affecting law enforcement and other municipal agencies. Nonetheless, PARC knows the importance of clear organization and providing CDP, the City, the Department of Justice, the Cleveland community, and the Court with designated points of contact. Accordingly, PARC proposes to designate four Team members as Directors. Each will be expressly designated as focusing on specified, major areas of the consent decree and compliance. The Directors will manage the efforts of several substantive work groups and sub-areas. 13 Alana Semuels, “How to Fix a Broken Police Department,” Atlantic (May 28, 2015), http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/cincinnati-police-reform/393797/ (noting the “startling” results of Cincinnati’s consent decree, including a “69 percent reduction in police use-of-force incidents, a 42 percent reduction in citizen complaints and a 56 percent reduction in citizen injuries” accompanied by a drop in violent crime and misdemeanor arrests). 6 Chief Timothy Longo of the Charlottesville, Virginia Police Department will serve as the Director of Implementation. Chief Longo was part of the team monitoring compliance with a DOJ consent decree addressing the Cincinnati Police Department. He will lead the Team’s evaluation of CDP’s changes to policies, training, systems, and procedures relating to the consent decree and oversee the provision of technical assistance with respect to the same. He will also set the direction for, and participate as part of, the group that will conduct in-depth reviews and assessments of the quality of CDP internal investigations, supervision, and internal accountability mechanisms. He will be significantly assisted by, among others on the Team, use of force and internal investigations expert Julio Thompson of the Civil Rights Unit of the Vermont Attorney General’s Office; Robert Saltzman, Police Commissioner of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) Police Commission; Sean Smoot, Director & Chief Legal Counsel for the Police Benevolent & Protective Association of Illinois; and Chief Joseph Brann, who also served as part of the monitoring team for the Cincinnati consent decree. Matthew Barge, PARC’s Vice President and Deputy Director, will serve as the Director of Compliance. He will be charged with project management and coordination across substantive areas; oversight of timely, effective implementation of the consent decree; communication and collaboration with stakeholders; and development of the Team’s monitoring plans and written reports. Mr. Barge will serve as a primary, on-the-ground point of contact and be in Cleveland throughout no less than 2 to 3 weeks per month. He will be significantly assisted by Kelli Evans, former federal court-approved monitor of a consent decree involving the Oakland Police Department. Christine Cole, former Executive Director of the Harvard Kennedy School of Government’s Program in Criminal Justice, will serve as Director of Outcome Measures. She will lead a subgroup of experts tasked with determining whether the consent decree is having an effect in the real world – coordinating baseline and outcome measurements, refining metrics based on CDP’s substantive reforms, and performing rigorous studies and evaluations to ensure that the consent decree’s provisions become effective in practice throughout the Cleveland community. She will be significantly assisted by Dr. Modupe Akinola of Columbia Business School and Dr. Ellen Scrivner of the Police Foundation and former Deputy Director of the Community Oriented Policing Services (“COPS”) Office of the Department of Justice. Chief Noble Wray, former Madison, Wisconsin Chief of Police and former Interim President & CEO of the Urban League of Greater Madison, will serve as Director of Community Engagement. He will guide the Team’s interactions with community stakeholders, including the Community Police Commission, other community organizations, and residents across Cleveland’s diverse communities. He will be significantly assisted by Professor Ayesha Bell Hardaway of Case Western Reserve School of Law; Chief Brann, who was the founding Director of the COPS Office; Brian Center, PARC Senior Consultant and expert on community policing and crisis intervention issues; and Matthew Barge. Additionally, aware of the significant relationship between union and employment considerations and the consent decree14, Sean Smoot, Director and Chief Legal Counsel of the Police Benevolent & Protective Association of Illinois, will assist significantly in guiding the Team’s development of relationships with CDP rank and file, the Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Association, and other employee groups. 14 Brandon Blackwell, “Cleveland police union chief says some consent decree provisions will violate union contract,” Cleveland Plain Dealer (June 25, 2015), http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/06/cleveland_police_union_chief_s_1.html. 7 Figure 1. MONITORING TEAM OVERVIEW Directors Chief Timothy Longo Director of Implementation • Chief of Police, City of Charlottesville, Virginia • 19-year veteran of Baltimore PD • Served on monitoring team for DOJ consent decree in Cincinnati, Ohio • Expert on use of force, stops and detentions, bias-free policing, internal investigations, & managing officer performance Chief Noble Wray (ret.) Director of Community Engagement • Former Chief of Police, Madison, Wisconsin • Former Interim President & CEO, Urban League of Greater Madison • Recipient of numerous awards for implementation of trust-based, problem-solving policing strategies • Expert on community engagement, policing, bias-free policing, and law enforcement operations Christine Cole Director of Outcome Measures • Vice President & Executive Director, Crime & Justice Institute (CJI) • Former Executive Director of Harvard Kennedy School of Government’s Program in Criminal Justice • Former Chief of Staff and Director of Business & Technology for multiple police agencies • Expert on evaluation and assessment of police organizations and consent decrees Matthew Barge, Esq. Director of Compliance • Vice President & Deputy Director, Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC) • Deputy Director of monitoring team for DOJ consent decree in Seattle, Washington • Directed & managed numerous monitoring and independent assessments across U.S. • Expert on use of force policies, police data systems, documentation of stops and Monitoring Team Chief Joseph Brann (ret.) • Founding Director, Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office, U.S. Department of Justice • Former Special Master, monitoring the Cincinnati Police Department DOJ consent decree • Former Chief of Police, Hayward, California • Expert in use of force, officer training, leadership and supervision, community and organizational change Ayesha Bell Hardaway Esq. • Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Case Western University School of Law; Cleveland, Ohio • Former Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Cuyahoga County • Former litigator, Tucker Ellis LLP; Cleveland, Ohio • Scholarship focuses on the intersection of race and the law, civil litigation • Cleveland native Ellen Scrivner Ph.D. • Executive Fellow, Police Foundation, Washington, D.C. • Former Deputy Director, Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office • Former Deputy Superintendent for Administration, Chicago Police Department • Expert on officer training, leadership, supervision, and crisis intervention programs Kelli Evans Esq. • Senior Director for Administration of Justice, State Bar of California • Former Federal Court Monitor, Oakland Police Department (2003–2010) • Former senior trial attorney, U.S. Department of Justice • Former Associate Director, ACLU of Northern California • Expert in evaluation of consent decree compliance, internal investigations, critical incident review Brian Center Esq. • Senior Consultant, Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC); served on Seattle, Washington consent decree monitoring team • Former Department Director, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and Senior Law Enforcement Expert, Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors • Former leader of non-profit implementing pioneering community-based anti-gang strategy in South L.A. • Expert on community policing, crime-fighting strategies, and crisis intervention issues Robert Saltzman Esq. • Police Commissioner, Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) • Associate Dean & Adjunct Professor of Law, University of Southern California Gould School of Law • Adjudicated nearly 750 use of force cases for LAPD and regularly reviews discipline applied to officers • Expert on use of force, internal investigations, administrative reviews, and biased policing issues Sean Smoot Esq. • Director & Chief Counsel, Police Benevolent & Protective Association of Illinois • Member of President Obama’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing • Elected Treasurer of National Association of Police Organizations (”NAPO”), a national, 250,000-officer organization • Expert on law enforcement employee labor law, benefits law, and civil rights litigation Julio Thompson Esq. • Assistant Attorney General, Director of Civil Rights Unit, Vermont Attorney General • Served on several monitoring teams or as a consultant on DOJ consent decrees, including Washington, D.C.; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and Seattle, Washington • Has conducted in-depth analyses and reviews of more than 1,000 use of force cases • Expert on use of force, internal investigations, officer training, early warning systems Modupe Akinola Ph.D. • Assistant Professor, Columbia Business School • Former consultant, Bain & Company and Merrill Lynch • Research focuses on features of organizations and workplace environments that influence performance – including the effects of stress on police officer decision-making • Expert in organizational behavior & change, management, social psychology, and research methods About the Team Structure Rather than designating a single individual as a monitor acting with the support of a large team, PARC’s proposed Monitoring Team for Cleveland proposes a wider distribution of responsibility. Four members of the Team are designated as Directors. These Directors will focus on specified, major areas of the consent decree and managing the efforts of substantive work groups. They will serve as the designated, primary points of contact for the identified subject matter area. All Team members will be involved across several aspects of monitoring, contributing in all areas in which they have experience and expertise. Technical experts will provide assistance on discrete issues or areas during specific phases of monitoring. Overview of the Monitoring Team Figure 1, “Monitoring Team Overview,” provides an overview and summary of the most relevant qualifications of the monitoring team members. As specified in the Request for Applications, a more complete description of the team member’s qualifications can be found below, see Section III. The complete resumes of all team members can be found in Appendix B, with the requested summary of monitoring and independent assessment projects of team members located in Appendix A. Areas of Responsibility Figure 2 sets forth the areas of participation and focus for each team member with respect to the primary substantive areas that the consent decree covers. 8 Figure 2. TEAM MEMBER AREAS OF FOCUS Although Monitoring Team members will be involved of all aspects of monitoring, some team members will give particular focus to some substantive areas in which they have particular expertise and experience. In some instances, including for many of the designated Directors, even these areas of focus will be comprehensive. Community Engagement & Building Trust DIRECTORS Chief Tim Longo Chief Noble Wray Christine Cole Matthew Barge MONITORING TEAM Kelli Evans Sean Smoot Robert Saltzman Julio Thompson Modupe Akinola Brian Center Ayesha Hardaway Joseph Brann Ellen Scrivner Community & ProblemOriented Policing Bias-Free Policing Use of Force Crisis Intervention Search & Seizure Accountability, Officer Transparency & Assistance & Oversight Support Supervision Policies III. Qualifications PARC’s proposed monitoring team is highly qualified to monitor the consent decree between the United States and the city of Cleveland addressing the patterns and practices identified in the Department of Justice’s 2014 investigation. This section of the application details each team member’s most relevant qualifications and experiences. The full resumes of team members are available, organized in alphabetical order, in Appendix B. Directors Chief Timothy Longo Chief of Police, City of Charlottesville, Virginia with reducing use of force incidents, reducing complaints of excessive force, and a significantly increasing citizen satisfaction with the Department.15 In that capacity, he developed substantial familiarity with relevant Ohio state laws. Chief Longo is the current Chief of the Charlottesville, Virginia Police Department. In Charlottesville, Chief Longo has earned praise for a sustained commitment to community policing and transparency. He has modernized the department’s computer and data systems to ensure that command staff use objective, real-world information to closely supervise officers. During Chief Longo’s tenure, crime is down – while public confidence and trust in the police is up. He has led major initiatives to expand the diversity of the Department’s recruitment while leading several high-profile investigations related to the University of Virginia, located in Charlottesville. He has also conducted assessments of: the Metropolitan Police Department in Washington D.C. and Pasadena, California Police Department’s communications divisions; the Denver Police Department’s internal affairs divisions; use of force in the Ft. Lauderdale, Florida Police Department; and a general assessment for the City of Hartford, Connecticut. Chief Longo understands law enforcement operations in an urban environment. He is an expert across numerous areas of law enforcement – including: Chief Longo previously served for 19 years with the Baltimore Police Department. By the time he left the department in 2000, he had risen to its second-highest rank, partnering closely with then-Police Commissioner Thomas C. Frazier and serving as Chief Frazier’s Chief of Staff and Colonel/Chief of Technical Services. He served as a Major/Commanding Officer for Baltimore’s Southeastern District, its most racially and ethnically diverse precinct, leading more than 200 sworn officers. Chief Longo is a highly experienced internal affairs investigator, working as a Detective Lieutenant in the Special Investigations Section of the Department’s Special Investigations Section. • • • • • • Community policing; Use of force policy and training; Internal investigations of use of force and citizen’s complaints; Use of data and information technology to manage officer performance; Terry stops and detentions; and Bias-free and discriminatory policing issues. He has personal experience with crisis intervention and the close relationship between law enforcement and the social service network. He has served as an instructor, speaker, or trainer for the Maryland Police and Correctional Training Commission, Johns Hopkins University, the University of Virginia School of Law and School of Business, and the Center for the Constitution. Chief Longo also has significant experience with monitoring federal consent decrees and independently assessing law enforcement agencies. He served as part of a monitoring team overseeing implementation of a federal court-supervised agreement between the Department of Justice and City of Cincinnati, Ohio addressing the Cincinnati Police Department. That agreement is credited 15 Elliot Harvey Schatmeier, “Reforming Police Use-of-Force Practices: A Case Study of the Cincinnati Police Department,” 46 COLUMBIA J. L. SOC. PROB. 559, 568 (2013). 9 Chief Longo earned a J.D. at the University of Baltimore School of Law while working full-time as a Sergeant, Lieutenant, and Chief Commander. He has written a manual on Fourth Amendment search and seizure law for law enforcement officers. Ms. Cole is the Vice President & Executive Director of the Crime and Justice Institute (“CJI”). CJI conducts nonpartisan criminal justice policy analysis. It focuses on evidence-based, results-driven recommendations and strategies for assessing organizations and programs. Chief Noble Wray Chief of Police (retired), Madison, Wisconsin Ms. Cole was previously the Executive Director of the Harvard Kennedy School of Government’s Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management. At Harvard, she specialized in the evaluation and assessment of police organizations. She led a widely-praised, comprehensive assessment of the LAPD’s progress and experience under its federal Consent Decree. She also led a high-profile team assessing lessons learned in the response to the Boston Marathon bombing. Chief Noble Wray is a 30-year veteran of the Madison, Wisconsin Police Department. He was promoted through the ranks of that department and appointed Chief of Police in 2004. An advocate of trust-based policing, Chief Wray was responsible for establishing enduring, positive relationships between the department and the Madison community. Twice during his tenure as Chief, the Madison Police Department was named a finalist for the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing’s Goldstein Award. Chief Wray continued his community commitment during a successful, recently-concluded term as Interim President & CEO of the Urban League of Greater Madison. He has received numerous awards recognizing his commitment to respectful, accountable, community-centered policing and outreach. Ms. Cole has civilian experience within multiple law enforcement agencies. She was the Director of Business and Technology for the Springfield, Massachusetts Police Department, serving as a strategic advisor to the Police Commissioner and implementing innovative technology and policy solutions across the Department. She also served as Chief of Staff in the Executive Office of Public Safety for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where she designed, led, and monitored policy and operational reform efforts throughout the Massachusetts criminal justice system. Chief Wray is an expert in community policing, officer training, law enforcement operations, bias-free policing, and use of force. He has served as a consultant for the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) and the Police Foundation in the areas of community policing and trustbased policing. Ms. Cole began her career as a Victim Witness Advocate in the Middlesex District Attorney’s Office in Cambridge, Massachusetts. She provided crisis intervention and counseling services for victims and witnesses of violent crime, as well as community-based crisis intervention training. At the Police Leadership Institute at the University of Lowell Massachusetts, he participated in developing training courses for police managers. He is a currently a trainer across the country for the Fair and Impartial Policing training program, helping to pioneer new training approaches on bias-free policing issues. Chief Wray holds a B.S. in criminal justice from the University of Wisconsin– Milwaukee. Ms. Cole holds a Master of Public Administration from Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, a Master of Arts in Community & Social Psychology from the University of Massachusetts, and a B.A. from Boston College. Christine Cole Vice President & Executive Director, Crime & Justice Institute 10 Matthew Barge, Esq. Vice President & Deputy Director, Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC) Matthew Barge is the Vice President and Deputy Director of the Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). He is the head of its New York City office. Mr. Barge has supervised the court-appointed monitoring team overseeing a federal consent decree in Seattle. In that capacity, he has been a primary day-to-day contact on the monitoring team for the Seattle Police Department, city, Department of Justice, Community Police Commission, and community and political stakeholders. He represents the Monitor before community organizations, the Court, and meetings with the police department, Justice Department, and city. He has coordinated, managed, and directed the ongoing activities of monitoring team members – ensuring that compliance and monitoring remains on target with respect both to timelines and budget. policy and procedure in each instance. Mr. Barge has specific substantive expertise in a number of technical areas, including: • • • • • Mr. Barge has engaged in significant monitoring and assessment projects for cities including Mesa, Arizona; Los Angeles and Pasadena, California; Denver, Colorado; Farmington, New Mexico; Walkill, New York; and Portland, Oregon. In each instance, he has worked with PARC to translate in-depth review of critical incidents, analysis of officer tactics, assessments of internal processes and procedures, and scrutiny of the quality of supervision into clearly defined, pragmatic recommendations for enhancing accountability and improving transparency. He and PARC have conducted exhaustive reviews of highprofile use of force incidents for the University of California, Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Unified School District and made recommendations for improving • Construction, implementation, and use of data systems to advance evidence-based policing and management, including early warning systems; Use of force policies; Policies and training regarding less-lethal force instruments; Documentation and analysis of stops of civilians and other law enforcement activity to identify potentially disproportionate effects; Officer training on use of force, bias-free policing, and procedural justice issues; and The creation of rigorous methodologies for assessing departmental trends and outcomes. A lawyer, Mr. Barge worked as a litigator specializing in mass torts and complex litigation at the law firms of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom and Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart & Sullivan in New York City. He holds a J.D. from N.Y.U. School of Law and graduated summa cum laude from Georgetown University. He is frequently sought as an expert on police issues by the media, universities and law schools, and government bodies, including the House Judiciary Committee. Monitoring Team Kelli Evans, Esq. Senior Director for Administration of Justice, State Bar of California Fmr. Federal Court Monitor, Oakland Police Department Fmr. Associate Director, ACLU of Northern California numerous reports to the parties, Court, and community detailing the status of consent decree compliance. She represented the monitoring team in Court and in countless working meetings. In some instances, she mediated disputes between the parties with respect to compliance issues to reach consensus resolutions. Kelli Evans was one of the federal court-appointed monitors of the Oakland Police Department from 2003 to 2010. While serving as co-monitor, Ms. Evans handled all aspects of monitoring. Among many other tasks, she audited and reviewed hundreds of use of force incidents and reports – including on-scene observation of officerinvolved shooting investigations and department reviews of force. Ms. Evans has likewise audited and reviewed hundreds of misconduct complaint investigations and training classes. In Oakland, she developed metrics and analytical methods to evaluate compliance. She drafted Ms. Evans previously served as a senior trial attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice. In that capacity, she conducted pattern or practice investigations – including the investigations that culminated in consent decrees involving the New Jersey State Police (addressing racial profiling issues) and in Washington, D.C. (addressing use of force issues). 11 Ms. Evans has also worked as an attorney in private practice and as the Associate Director of the ACLU of Northern California, focusing on racial discrimination issues. Ms. Evans currently serves as the Senior Director for Administration of Justice for the State Bar of California. She oversees and manages a range of access to justice initiatives. Ms. Evans is a graduate of the University of California, Davis, School of Law. She holds in a B.A. in Public Policy from Stanford University. Robert M. Saltzman, Esq. Police Commissioner, Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) Board of Police Commissioners Commissioner Robert Saltzman has served for more than 7 years on the Los Angeles Police Department’s Board of Police Commissioners (the “Board”) – the era in which LAPD made steady and sustained progress in complying with a Department of Justice Consent Decree addressing use of force, stops and detentions, training, internal investigations, the tracking of officer performance, and the introduction of integrity units aimed at identifying systemic corruption. That Consent Decree has been credited with changing the basic culture of the LAPD. Mr. Saltzman was the only Commissioner appointed and confirmed by both of Los Angeles’ two most recent mayors. The Board “serves as the head of the Los Angeles Police Department . . . , setting policies for the department and overseeing its operations.”16 It shares power with the mayor to hire and fire the Chief of Police, adjudicates all serious uses of force to determine if force was within LAPD policy, and oversees the Inspector General who investigates and evaluates LAPD operations, including biased policing, excessive force, and corruption. A lawyer, Mr. Saltzman has significant and specific expertise in use of force, internal investigations, administrative reviews, and biased policing issues. He has participated in the adjudication of nearly 750 use of force cases and regularly reviews discipline applied to officers in response to findings that an officer’s use of force or other behavior was out of policy. Mr. Saltzman was involved in the revision of policy changes relating to the investigation and review of use of force incidents. He was significantly involved in a major revision of training regarding use of 16 Police Commission, lapdonline.org, http://www.lapdonline.org/police_commission (last visited Jan. 26, 2015). 12 force, less-lethal instruments, drawing and exhibiting weapons, and force tactics. He is a frequent speaker at the LAPD Training Academy on constitutional policing issues. Mr. Saltzman recently retired from his position as Professor of Lawyering Skills at the University of Southern California’s Gould School of Law in South Los Angeles, where he was a Former Associate Dean. In that capacity, he has been an outspoken champion of recruiting an ethnically and racially diverse student body and creating support systems to foster academic success by lowerperforming students. President Barack Obama appointed Mr. Saltzman to serve on the White House Commission on Presidential Scholars in 2011. The commission advises the White House and Department of Education and selects Presidential Scholars with demonstrated accomplishments in academics, the arts, and public service. Mr. Saltzman has previously served as Commissioner on the Los Angeles City Ethics Commission, special Counsel to the Director of Health Services in Los Angeles County, and a Trustee on the Law School Admission Council (LSAC). He is a graduate of Harvard Law School and graduated summa cum laude from Dartmouth College. Julio Thompson, Esq. Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Vermont Attorney General An expert on use of force, force reporting, internal affairs investigations, early intervention and officer performance data systems, risk management, and officer discipline, Julio Thompson has nearly 24 years of experience in police monitoring and accountability. He has conducted in-depth analyses and reviews of more than 1,000 use of force cases. He has likewise reviewed and audited countless officer training programs on use of force and force investigation. Mr. Thompson has served on several law enforcement monitoring teams and large-scale police oversight initiatives. The Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division engaged him as a consultant in connection to an investigation of the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department that resulted in a memorandum of understanding addressing use of force, internal investigations, supervision, and related issues. In 2011, he was engaged to analyze the Oakland Police Department’s Internal Affairs policies, practices, and investigations. He has conducted in-depth analyses of use of force incidents, policies, and procedures in Denver, Detroit, Los Angeles, and Portland (Oregon). Since 2012, he has served as a consultant to the monitoring team overseeing compliance with the DOJ consent decree in Seattle. In Seattle, he has focused on the implementation of an early warning system, use of force policy and training, and internal investigations of use of force and possible officer misconduct. handled a variety of criminal matters, including juvenile delinquencies and general felonies. Since 2009, Mr. Thompson has served as the Director of the Vermont Attorney General’s Office’s Civil Rights Unit, where he is the head lawyer in the enforcement of the state’s civil rights law, including hate crimes and discrimination statutes. He helped develop the Attorney General’s model bias-free policing policy and has provided review and assistance on use of force and other critical issues concerning police and correctional officers. He conducts training at the Vermont Police Academy on hate crime issues. Professor Hardaway holds a J.D. from Case Western Reserve University School of Law and a B.A. in Sociology from the College of Wooster in Wooster, Ohio. Mr. Thompson graduated cum laude from the University of Michigan Law School and summa cum laude from Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan with a B.A. in economics. Ayesha Bell Hardaway, Esq. Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law Ayesha Bell Hardaway is a Visiting Assistant Professor of Law at Case Western Reserve University School of Law in Cleveland. A Cleveland native, Professor Hardaway teaches in the Health Law and Civil Litigation clinics in the Milton A. Kramer Law Clinic. She and her students represent clients in disability, guardianship, emergency mental health commitment, housing, and employmentrelated cases. Professor Hardaway’s scholarship focuses on the intersection of race and the law, civil litigation, and health law. Prior to joining the Case Western law faculty, Professor Hardaway practiced at the firm of Tucker Ellis LLP in Cleveland. She represented clients, including major automotive and pharmaceutical manufacturers, in state and federal courts throughout the country. Professor Hardaway also has prior experience as an Assistant Prosecuting Attorney for Cuyahoga County, where she 13 Professor Hardaway is an active member of the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association, where she co-chaired a diversity-focused internship program for four years, and the Norman S. Minor Bar Association. She sits on the Board of Directors and Executive Committee of the Cleveland Rape Crisis Center. Chief Joseph Brann Founding Director, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office, DOJ Monitor, Riverside Police Department Fmr. Special Master, Cincinnati Police Department Consent Decree Fmr. Chief of Police, Hayward, California Chief Joe Brann’s nearly 46-year career in law enforcement has made him an expert in effective and accountable community-based policing. President Bill Clinton selected Chief Brann to establish the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office of the U.S. Department of Justice, which is responsible for advancing community policing throughout the country. In that position, Chief Brann ensured that the agency was responsive and supportive to local government, funding some 100,000 local police officers across the country. He was named Law Enforcement News’ “Person of the Year” in 1998 for his pioneering efforts in creating a national “3-11” non-emergency number to reduce emergency calls for service. Chief Brann has successfully monitored several police agencies complying with federal and state consent decrees. He was appointed by a federal court to serve as Special Master for the Cincinnati, Ohio consent decree resolving a DOJ investigation there in 2002. In that capacity, he developed significant familiarity with relevant Ohio state laws. Chief Brann has also served as the California Attorney General’s monitor of the Riverside Police Department’s reform efforts. He currently is assisting in oversight of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s jail system. Chief Brann began his law enforcement career in 1969 with the Santa Ana, California Police Department. He was named Chief of Police of Hayward, California in 1989. His 25-year career in the field as both a patrol officer and supervisor has given him wide-ranging expertise in internal investigations, officer training, use of force policies, community policing, and many other areas. He holds an M.P.A. from the University of Southern California and a bachelor’s degree in criminal justice from California State University, Fullerton. Sean Smoot, Esq. Director & Chief Counsel, Police Benevolent & Protective Association of Illinois and Police Benevolent Labor Committee Illinois State University and holds a J.D. from Southern Illinois University School of Law. He holds several certificates in police union leadership from Harvard Law School. Modupe Akinola, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Columbia Business School – Management Division Modupe Akinola is an Assistant Professor at the Columbia Business School. She is an expert in organizational behavior, management, social psychology, and research methods. Sean Smoot serves as Director and Chief Counsel for the Police Benevolent & Protective Association of Illinois (“PB&PA”) and the Police Benevolent Labor Committee (“PBLC”). In those capacities, he is responsible for administering the provision of legal services for over 7,500 of the police union’s members. As the organizations’ primary legislative advocate, Mr. Smoot writes legislation and testifies before legislative bodies regarding police issues, including public employment labor law, benefits law, civil rights litigation, and use of force. Professor Akinola has experience implementing significant changes in large organizations – and developing sophisticated metrics for assessing whether those changes are leading to the desired outcomes. Before her academic career, Professor Akinola advised large professional services organizations on organizational change and management at Bain & Company and Merrill Lynch. At Bain, she led the firm’s diversity recruiting and professional development efforts. Since leaving Bain, she has conducted organizational training and coaching for HSBC, The Bridgespan Group, the Executive Leadership Council, Harvard’s Divinity School, KIPP Schools, and CoreNet Global. A member of President Obama’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Mr. Smoot speaks regularly at state, national, and international forums regarding community policing, public safety, and public employee labor issues. He currently serves as the elected Treasurer of the National Association of Police Organizations (“NAPO”), a national law enforcement advocacy group representing over 250,000 police officers. Professor Akinola holds a Ph.D. in Organizational Behavior from Harvard University, an M.B.A from Harvard Business School, and a Masters in Social Psychology from Harvard. After graduating with a B.A. in Psychology from Harvard, she founded the Street Babies Project in Accra, Ghana, which established four centers that provided child care, literacy education, and vocational training to homeless mothers and children. Mr. Smoot is a Member of the Executive Session on Policing and Public Safety at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. He serves on the Use of Force Advisory Committee, the Police Pursuit Advisory Committee, the Racial Profiling Advisory Committee, and the Task Force on Police Integrity for the Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board. Professor Akinola’s academic research focuses on the features of organizations and workplace environments that influence performance. Using innovative research methods, she partnered with police agencies to gauge the extent to which stress affects officer decision-making in the presence of threats. Since her groundbreaking research was published in Behavioral Neuroscience in 2012, she has spoken to police departments throughout the country about the psychological effects of biological stress responses in tense and fast-moving situations. Another research focus is workforce diversity. Professor Akinola examines the strategies that organizations use to increase A military veteran, Mr. Smoot has been a featured speaker at the National Academy of Arbitrators and several CLE programs regarding the rights of military employees. Mr. Smoot received his B.S. in Criminal Justice Sciences from 14 the diversity of their talent pool – and the biases that can affect the recruitment and retention of minorities in organizations. Brian Center, Esq. Senior Consultant, Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC) Brian Center is Senior Consultant with the Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC). Mr. Center was a department director in the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, the fourth-largest law enforcement agency in the United States, and served as a senior law enforcement expert for the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. Mr. Center was centrally involved in the development and implementation of a comprehensive, community-based anti-gang strategy in partnership with the LAPD in South Los Angeles and has substantial expertise in the areas of community policing and police-community engagement. He has also served as an executive director of a community-organizing-based, anti-gang non-profit with a mission of building relationships between law enforcement and community members in high-crime neighborhoods. Mr. Center’s consulting work has covered a broad array of issues for both large and small departments. This includes reviewing and editing policies and procedures; analyzing gang strategies; reviewing uses of force and the quality of related internal investigations; assessing the quality of training, advising on organizational management; devising plans to build more trust between officers and the community; assessing a department’s efforts to minimize litigation costs; and assessing the overall efforts of a canine unit. He has served as part of the team monitoring the federal consent decree in Seattle, where he has focused on issues related to officer interactions with individuals experiencing behavioral crises, such as mental illness, drug addiction, or emotional disturbance. Mr. Center regularly is engaged to serve as a mediator for purposes of dispute resolution. He has served as Judge Pro Tem for the Los Angeles County Superior Court, a volunteer mediator for the Federal District Court, and as a delegate to the Alliance of Youth Movements, an organization that brought together the State Department, activists, and non-profits from around the world to combat extremism and violence. Mr. Center holds a J.D. from 15 UCLA School of Law and a B.A. from the University of Kansas. Ellen Scrivner, Ph.D. Executive Fellow, Police Foundation, Washington, D.C. Dr. Ellen Scrivner has led a distinguished, 30-year career advancing accountable, effective, and community-focused policing. A psychologist, she is a recognized national expert on police behavior, law enforcement leadership, public safety, and criminal justice policy. She has consulted for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Police Foundation, the Community Policing Consortium, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), and numerous city governments and law enforcement agencies. An Executive Fellow at the Police Foundation, Dr. Scrivner is currently a subject matter expert on early intervention systems for the Office of Justice Programs. Previously, Dr. Scrivner was appointed by President Obama in 2009 to serve as the Deputy Director of the National Institute of Justice. She has served on the faculty of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, University of Illinois at Chicago, and George Mason University. Dr. Scrivner has also worked as the Deputy Superintendent for Administration of the Chicago Police Department, where she managed a $1.2B budget for the second-largest police department in the United States. She contributed significantly to major department initiatives addressing community policing. She chaired a city-wide task force on responding to the needs of the mentally disabled. Dr. Scrivner also served as Deputy Director of the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office of the Department of Justice. In that capacity, she provided oversight for major grants to police chiefs and sheriffs across the program. There, she also served as Assistant Director of Training and Technical Assistance, where she created a national training strategy that was implemented through a nationwide network of innovative Regional Community Policing Institutes. Dr. Scrivner began her career as a police psychologist for two major police departments in Farifax County, Virginia and Prince Georges County, Maryland. She remains a licensed psychologist who is Board-certified in Police and Public Safety Psychology. She holds a Ph.D. from Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. and both a B.S. and M.S. in Psychology from St. Louis University. 16 IV. Prior Experience & References PARC’s Experience PARC was founded in 2001 by its current Executive Director and the Vera Institute of Justice, with the generous support of the Ford Foundation, to provide independent, evidence-based counsel on effective and publicly accountable policing. It helps law enforcement agencies solve problems by incorporating best practices, managing risks, using data-drive management, and providing services with greater efficiency and accountability. A nonprofit organization, PARC aims to serve as an honest broker providing counsel and advice on best practice and constitutional policing. As such, it is not an advocacy organization. It does, however, adhere to a commitment that effective policing and constitutional policing go hand in hand. Over the years, PARC has established a robust network of experts and consultants who have conducted independent monitoring, assessed the practices and performance of police agencies, and have significant technical expertise in law enforcement. PARC carefully assembles teams based on the nature of the problems to be addressed and community to be served. Its portfolio of projects over the last 10 years – summarized below – encompasses work on complex projects for some of the largest law enforcement agencies in the United States and with some of the country’s most acclaimed law enforcement experts. Relevant Monitoring & Independent Assessments Project Description Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Monitoring PARC served as staff to the Monitor of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, the nation’s fourth-largest law enforcement agency, for the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. That unprecedented, 21-year monitoring produced countless recommendations and reports that formed the backbone of expanded accountability and transparency in the aftermath of the Rodney King incident and the serious unrest in Los Angeles in 1992 brought about by acquittal of the involved LAPD officers. Proposed Cleveland Monitoring Team members Matthew Barge and Julio Thompson worked directly on the effort, directing numerous studies and authoring numerous public reports. Seattle Police Monitoring PARC has been heavily involved in the monitoring of a consent decree between the city of Seattle and Department of Justice addressing unconstitutional use of force and concerns about discriminatory policing in the Seattle Police Department. PARC’s Executive Director has served as the federal court-appointed monitor, with some of PARC’s staff and affiliated consultants serving on the team. Specifically, Matthew Barge, Julio Thompson, Brian Center, Joseph Brann, and Ellen Scrivner have all contributed in some capacity. 17 Reference & Representative Work Product http://www.parc.info/l asd/ Peter Holmes Seattle City Attorney 600 4th Avenue, 4th Floor P.O. Box 94769 Seattle, WA 98124 (206) 684-8200 www.seattlemonitor.c om/resources Portland (Oregon) Independent Assessment Walkill (New York) Monitoring Denver OfficerInvolved Shooting Assessment King County (Washington) Independent Review Milwaukee (Wisconsin) Fire & Police Commission Review University of California, Los Angeles Independent Review In Portland, Oregon, the City charged PARC with conducting an independent review of officer-involved shootings. That review led 89 specific recommendations on training, tactics, policies, and internal investigations. Portland subsequently retained PARC for 6 years to track implementation of the reforms. PARC’s recommendations decreased the number of officer-involved shootings in Portland by 88%, decreased overall use of force by officers by 59%, and led to a 51% decrease in complaints by citizens about officer performance – all without increases in officer injuries or crime. Proposed Cleveland Monitoring Team members Matthew Barge and Julio Thompson worked directly on this effort – reviewing incidents, interacting with the police department, making recommendations, and drafting reports. PARC was asked by the court overseeing the monitoring of the first-ever state-initiated consent decree in New York, between the Town of Walkill and the New York Attorney General to serve as staff to the monitor. The decree addressed a range of accountability issues. After the successful completion of the decree, the town independently retained PARC to continue to assess compliance-related issues. Denver’s Independent Police Monitor hired PARC to review officer-involved shootings and examine whether the Denver Police Department’s policies, training, and practices comported with best practices. PARC made recommendations for strengthening policy, improving training, and streamlining practices. Matthew Barge and Julio Thompson of the proposed Cleveland monitoring team were part of the team on the Denver project and helped author the public report. In 2012, a television news investigative series criticized the King County (Washington) Sheriff’s Office’s use of force and handling of citizen’s complaints. PARC was engaged to review incidents, internal investigations, and make recommendations for changes – which the City Council pledged to adopt within days. The oldest police commission in the United States, the Milwaukee (Wisconsin) Fire & Police Commission, trusted PARC to evaluate its structures, practices, and procedures – and make recommendations for improvement. The University of California, Los Angeles hired PARC when a UCLA student was tasered by campus police at the university library and cell phone video of the incident made news around the world. PARC conducted an independent investigation, making clear policy recommendations based on best practices for the campus police going forward. Matthew Barge was a member of the project team. 18 Gary Blackmer Audits Division, Oregon Secretary of State Office Public Service Building Suite 500 255 Capitol St. NE Salem, OR 97310 (503) 986-2255 http://www.parc.info/p ortland/ http://www.parc.info/ wallkill/ Richard Rosenthal Independent Investigations Office of B.C. 12th Floor 13450-102nd Ave. Surrey, BC V3T 5X3 (604) 586-5668 http://www.parc.info/d enver/ http://www.parc.info/k ingcounty/ http://www.parc.info/ milwaukee/ http://www.parc.info/u cla/ Los Angeles Unified School District Independent Review The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) selected PARC to conduct an independent investigation of a use of force incident by School Police during disturbances on a high school campus. Matthew Barge directed the project. Relevant Work with Law Enforcement & Community Organizations PARC has also helped numerous law enforcement agencies incorporate best practices, address problems, manage risks, and provide services with greater efficiency and accountability. PARC has been hired, among other things, to: • • • • • • Conduct systemic assessments of critical incidents (such as officer-involved shootings, use of force, and SWAT deployments); Draft new policies and procedures; Construct new accountability and internal review systems; Review the quality and integrity of internal affairs investigations and make recommendations for improving their quality; Assist in the implementation of community policing or community partnership initiatives; and Conduct wholesale assessments of departments and make recommendations regarding its most urgent and pressing needs. The following is a non-exclusive summary of recent engagements by law enforcement agencies and cities that – while not examples of monitoring or independent oversight – are relevant to the issues and work necessary in Cleveland. Project Farmington, New Mexico Civilian Oversight Report Eugene, Oregon Civilian Oversight Report Pasadena, California Police-Community Assessments Description Reference & Representative Work Product In the wake of increased community-police tensions, the city of Farmington, New Mexico looked to PARC for ways to strengthen civilian oversight of its police department. PARC provided 49 concrete, practical recommendations. When Eugene, Oregon was considering implementing a new civilian oversight mechanism, it asked PARC to report on law enforcement oversight models used by cities across the U.S. In its report, PARC pioneered the leading conceptual framework for police oversight models – helping the City of Eugene tailor an accountability system to the community’s needs. Pursuant to a generous foundation grant, PARC conducted one of the first published studies that contemporaneously surveyed both a community’s thoughts about its police department and the views of police officers about themselves and the community in Pasadena, California. Subsequently, the Community Oriented Police Services (COPS) Office of the Department of Justice charged PARC with conducting the first major assessment of a policecommunity mediation program, which became a national model. Matthew Barge of the proposed Cleveland Monitoring Team was 19 Dr. Bernard Melekian Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office 4434 Calle Real Santa Barbara, CA 93110 (805) 681-4100 http://www.parc.info/p Mesa, Arizona Southwest Native American Tribe an author of the February 2008 study and a member of the project team. asadenapolicecomm unity/ The Mesa, Arizona Police Department hired PARC as to conduct a review of its use of force policies and internal investigation procedures. Matthew Barge of the proposed Cleveland Monitoring Team participated in the project. George Gascon District Attorney, City & County of San Francisco 850 Bryant Street #320 San Francisco, CA (415) 553-1751 A Native American police force engaged PARC to examine the practices of its police force and the relationship between the force and members of the tribal community. PARC made specific recommendations for improving both. Matthew Barge of the proposed Cleveland Monitoring Team provided direction and supervision the project. Additional References & Resources More information about PARC’s projects, history, and approach can be found at its website, www.parc.info. Other references in a position to speak about the whole of PARC’s body of work include: Constance L. Rice Advancement Project 1910 W. Sunset Blvd., Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA 90026 (213) 989-1300 Michael Jacobson City University of New York 365 Fifth Ave. New York, NY 10016 (212) 817-8370 mjacobson@gc.cuny.edu Christopher Stone Open Society Foundations 400 W. 59th St. #4 New York, NY 10019 (212) 548-0600 Team Member Project Experience & References The independent project experience for members of the proposed Monitoring Team is catalogued in Appendix A, along with references for each project listed and, where available, examples of nonconfidential work product from those projects. 20 V. Proposed Activities A court-ordered reform process is akin to emergency open-heart surgery for police departments. It addresses serious, systemic issues that have built up over time. A pattern or practice consent decree is a major intervention that, historically, the Department of Justice has used at critical moments when rigorous and sustained intervention is needed. It is intended to last no longer, but end no sooner, than it takes for the identified problems to be effectively remedied while ensuring officer and public safety and enhanced community trust. PARC does not employ a “cookie cutter” approach to monitoring. Nor does PARC assume that the same playbook will effectuate identical results in every law enforcement agency. Communities, like police departments, are different. Their values, histories, and concerns matter and must guide how changes to basic law enforcement practices occur. Consequently, in Cleveland, PARC will work with CDP and the community to ensure that, based on a foundation of best practices, the reforms and structures institutionalized because of the consent decree work for CDP and its officers – and the City and its residents – creating and investing in a new, shared vision for policing in Cleveland. Nevertheless, in PARC’s experience, monitoring involves several broad areas of work. These include: • • • • • • Changes in Policies, Systems, & Training Oversight & Technical Assistance Data Systems & Information Practices Assessments & Outcome Measurements Community Dialogue & Engagement Reporting Work across these several areas will take place at several, defined instances over the course of the monitoring – and with the ongoing, close coordination of monitoring activities with the CDP, City of Cleveland, Department of Justice, and community organizations and members. Progress in the above areas can be broken down into more precise, defined stages. Based on PARC’s experience, its review of the findings of the DOJ’s investigation and the provisions of the Consent Decree, and introductory conversations with some members of the Cleveland community, and as summarized in Figure 3, it anticipates the monitoring in Cleveland would proceed through several phases: Phase 1. Initial Community Stakeholder Dialogue. & In Phase I, the Monitoring Team’s goal is to lay the groundwork for reaching a full and complete understanding of where CDP and the Cleveland community stand as the implementation of the consent decree begins. This initial work will rely on establishing strong working relationships with major stakeholders – including the Cleveland Division of Police, the Division’s officers and unions, elected officials in Cleveland, 21 Department of Justice representatives, the Court, community organizations, and members of the general public. Community engagement will be a top priority during the monitoring’s initial phase. Mindful that community organizations have focused on police accountability and on advancing police reform over many different eras of Cleveland’s history, the Monitoring Team will reach out to engaged community groups. The Monitoring Team will also engage in a series of town hall and roundtable listening sessions with members of the Cleveland community. During those sessions, the Figure 3. KEY MONITORING PHASES MAJOR STAGES OF FEDERAL MONITORING IN CLEVELAND The PARC Monitoring Team will use a structured approach emphasizing collaboration, community engagement, the clear articulation of pragmatic tasks, and objective measurement of real-world progress. The general phases of monitoring reflect the importance of the Team providing real-time, technical assistance to the CDP so that expectations are clear and that compliance can proceed in light of best practices. A process of refinement and adjustment over time may well be necessary to ensure that new policies, procedures, and systems are woven into the fabric of the Cleveland Division of Police – and that the effects are realized throughout Cleveland’s diverse communities. PHASE 2: BASELINE ASSESSMENTS POLICIES, SYSTEMS & PROCESSES OVERSIGHT & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE DATA SYSTEMS & INFORMATION PRACTICES ASSESSMENTS & OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS COMMUNITY DIALOGUE & ENGAGEMENT The Team will assess the current state of policies, training, internal procedures, and departmental systems that the consent decree implicates. It will gain a real-world understanding of what CDP says that its officers should do – and how they are actually performing across the Cleveland community. PHASE 6: FORMULATION & ADOPTION OF POLICIES & PROCEDURES CDP will revise its policies, update or implement new internal processes and procedures, and institute new training and standards in a manner that addresses and embodies the provisions of the consent decree in all of its relevant areas. PHASE 5: DEVELOPMENT OF TASK-DRIVEN MONITORING PLAN A structured assessment and work plan – breaking down the provisions of the consent decree into defined tasks with specific deadlines – will be created to ensure a clear understanding of when various areas will be subject to compliance review or outcome assessments. PHASE 3: BUSINESS PRACTICE & INFORMATION SYSTEMS GAP ANALYSIS & “STRESS TEST” PHASE 8: IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICIES, PROCEDURES, PROTOCOLS & SYSTEMS Through training and active implementation, changes on paper with respect to policies, processes, and systems will begin to take hold in practice. Real-time observation and systemic assessments may likely set the occasion for additional refinements on CDP policy and systems. ONGOING: PROVISION OF REAL-TIME TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PHASE 10: REAL-TIME QUALITATIVE FEEDBACK The Team will provide real-time guidance on specific issues, policies, training, and procedures implemented to further compliance with the decree – ensuring common understandings and avoiding misunderstandings. The Team will provide real-time qualitative feedback and guidance on the results of its compliance reviews and audits so that reforms may be refined, adjusted, or changed at the earliest possible juncture so that consent decree implementation is swift and meaningful. PHASE 7: PRACTICE & SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS CDP, assisted by its Data Collection and Analysis Coordinator (established by the Decree), will address the any business practice or potential technology gaps in database systems and related business practices identified in Phase 3 and to which CDP and the Department of Justice have previously agreed (i.e., the relational database necessary for the Officer Intervention Program, etc.). The Team will survey the data and information systems capturing information about officer and departmental performance implicated by the consent decree and necessary for identified outcome assessments. PHASE 11: OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS PHASE 9: COMPLIANCE REVIEWS & AUDITS PHASE 4: REFINEMENT OF COMPLIANCE REVIEW APPROACH & OUTCOME MEASURES The Team will consider whether CDP’s changes and reforms to policy, procedure, protocols, and systems comply with the consent decree are being carried out in actual practice. It will consult closely with all stakeholders regarding methodology and expectations. Even partial implementation of changes in phase 8 can allow reviews and audits on those changes to begin. Pursuant to the baseline assessment, the Monitoring Team will recommend any adjustments or refinements to the outcome measures negotiated and agreed to by the Parties in the consent decree. PHASE 1: INITIAL COMMUNITY & STAKEHOLDER DIALOGUE The Team will establish strong, collaborative relationships with the community and major stakeholders – conducting listening sessions with the CDP, the Parties, the Community Police Commission, District Policing Committees, and community groups and engaging in town hall listening sessions with Cleveland residents. On the schedule set forth by the monitoring plan and per the requirements of the decree, the Team will conduct the outcome assessments identified by the consent decree. The Team will conduct these assessments at least annually throughout the monitoring period. ONGOING: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT & ASSESSMENT OF COMMUNITY TRUST Community confidence and trust will be the bedrock of the Team’s concerns and focus when considering progress and compliance with the consent decree. The Team will engage continuously and directly with Cleveland’s diverse communities – including the Community Police Commission, District Policing Committees, and other community groups. ONGOING: REPORTING The Team will regularly update CDP, the Cleveland community, the Court, and the Parties about CDP’s progress with complying with the consent decree. It will provide semiannual reports on where CDP stands in complying with each of the Agreement’s requirements. It will also file standalone reports on major systemic outcome assessments when appropriate and timely. REPORTING PHASE 12: POLICY & SYSTEM REFINEMENT Monitoring Team will hear from community stakeholders and Cleveland residents about their priorities, concerns, and views with respect to the issues addressed in the decree. do and what officers actually are doing. The Monitoring Team will need to understand all of the following at a significant level of specificity – which can often be different: • With respect to the CDP itself, the Monitoring Team will meet over the course of several sessions with, and actively solicit input from, command staff and rank-and-file officers alike about the issues addressed in the decree, as well as resource or training concerns that affect day-to-day operations. It will also meet extensively with union leadership to assess its views of the CDP and of what areas of reform should be prioritized. All Team members commit to being present in Cleveland as often as possible during this important first phase. Multiple of the proposed Monitoring Team’s members have participated on working on a consent decree in Seattle that established the first Community Police Commission to provide community input and participation in the Consent Decree. The Team will – from day one – incorporate lessons learned in Seattle and PARC’s expertise in civilian oversight and take every effort to promote effective, fair, and meaningful civilian engagement and participation in the Consent Decree reform effort. The Team will actively engage with those involved in the process of getting the Commission and District Policing Committees set up and established. Phase 2. Policy, Training, Systems & Process Baseline Assessment. The Monitoring Team will need to fully understand the current state of the policies, training, internal procedures, and departmental systems that the consent decree implicates. Although the Department of Justice’s investigation and Consent Decree necessarily will inform and guide the Team’s understanding of the nature and scope of deficiencies to be addressed, the Team will need to know with precision the ways that CDP’s current policies, training, systems, and processes differ from or are inconsistent with the objectives, goals, and provisions of the consent decree into a refined, achievable work plan. Based on PARC’s prior monitoring experience, the Monitoring Team will be looking to gain a real-world understanding not just of what CDP says that its officers should do – but, also, to what officers believe they should 22 • • • What CDP’s written policies, training, and written protocols and systems and procedures say and require; What CDP officers and supervisors understand CDP’s policies, training, and protocols to say and require; and Whether and to what extent CDP officers and supervisors apply department policies, training, and protocols; and Whether CDP personnel have also adopted other, informal policies, processes, or practices that either supplant or supplement those on the books. The Monitoring Team will collect and assess CDP’s policies on all areas implicated by the consent decree, such as policies on use of force, Terry stops, reporting misconduct, and the like. It will review officer training related to the same. It will talk to CDP officers and command staff, participate in ride-alongs, and shadow commanding officers during shifts. The Team will likewise work to understand CDP’s internal procedures related to the investigation, review, and supervision of critical incidents implicated by the consent decree – such as use of force, citizen’s complaints, allegations of bias or racism, encounters with individuals experiencing behavioral crisis, and others. The whole of the Team will be involved in the initial assessment and fact-gathering. Phase 3. Business Practice Information Systems Analysis & “Stress Test.” and Gap The Consent Decree requires CDP to “collect and maintain all data and records necessary to accurately evaluate its use of force . . . and search and seizure practices.”17 It must “ensure the creation and maintenance of a reliable and accurate electronic system to track all data derived from force-related documents”18, track stops and searches of civilians 19 , inform officer performance 17 Consent Decree ¶ 257. Id. ¶ 259. 19 Id. ¶ 260. 18 evaluations and promotions20, and effectuate the Officer Intervention Program (“OIP”)21. CDP, the Department of Justice, and the Monitoring Team will all need to use the Division’s data and information to conduct the compliance reviews, audits, and outcome assessments the Consent Decree requires.22 The Monitoring Team has substantial experience with law enforcement reporting systems and data and information technology – enabling it to hit the ground running on information issues. Matthew Barge, Julio Thompson, and Kelli Evans all have extensive experience with helping several major law enforcement agencies across the country implement early warning or intervention systems similar to Cleveland’s OIP. Most recently, Mr. Barge has been in charge of a monitor’s oversight of the implementation of new reporting and data requirements regarding force and searches and seizures for the federal consent decree in Seattle. The Team will conduct an assessment of the quality, accuracy, and integrity of existing information in electronic databases related to the provisions and objectives addressed by the consent decree. To the extent that CDP’s systems or business practices do not yet reliably capture the whole of the necessary information officer performance, the Team will conduct a “stress test” to assess whether existing business practices and/or information infrastructure can accommodate the collection of additional information or changes to workflow that decree implementation may require. The goal is to identify what, if any, gaps exist in available systems or CDP’s processes. PARC has long promoted monitoring based on hard evidence and policing based on objective information and not merely intuition or gut instinct. In monitoring the Cleveland consent decree, the PARC Team’s experts on measuring and assessing the real-world effects of consent decrees and law enforcement reforms will work closely with all stakeholders to identify clear, defined, and meaningful measures and methods for gauging whether the provisions of the consent decree take hold. 20 Id. ¶¶ 313–18. Id. ¶¶ 326–36. 22 Id. ¶¶ 360, 367. The Team will remain committed, wherever possible, to the use of rigorous, quantitative measures. In areas where quality assurance or other qualitative concerns are at issue, the Team will be committed to the use of transparent and clearly defined methodologies consistent with best practices in social science research. Such metrics will be informed by, among other things, best practices, the lessons and experiences of other consent decrees, and the specific attributes of CDP, the Cleveland consent decree, and the Cleveland community. In this way, the metrics will be grounded in lessons learned, insights gained, and best practices identified in previous monitoring efforts and in other law enforcement agencies, both in Ohio and across the country – while incorporating the prior efforts of community organizations in Cleveland to gauge accountability and the effectiveness of law enforcement activities. Likewise, in this stage, the Team will work closely with the CDP and the Parties to establish baseline measures for the outcome measurements identified by the Consent Decree in areas such as use of force, stop activity, bias-free policing, response to individuals experiencing behavioral crisis, training, recruitment, civilian complaints, discipline, and others.23 Taking baseline measures, where possible, will allow all stakeholders to gauge, over time, how CDP is progressing with consent decree implementation. Without such baselines, no stakeholder can be reasonably assured that the Consent Decree-required reforms are taking hold in the real world and creating real change within the Division. Christine Cole, working closely with Modupe Akinola, Ellen Scrivner, and the other Directors, will lead the formulation of baseline and outcome measures. Phase 4. Based on discussions and fact-gathering during the preceding stages, the Monitoring Team will further refine its approach and methodologies for conducting compliance reviews and audits and formal outcome assessments. It will work with the City, Department of 21 23 23 Refinement of Compliance Review Approach & Outcome Measures. Id. ¶ 367. Justice, CDP, and all other stakeholders to ensure clear expectations about how progress will be determined and tracked over time. If the outcome measurements identified in the consent decree need to be adjusted, the Monitoring Team will work collaboratively with the Parties on any necessary modifications.24 The goal will be common understandings about what will be assessed – and how both progress and success will be evaluated. Phase 5. Development of Monitoring Plan. Task-Driven At the conclusion of the initial assessment period, the Monitoring Team – in consultation with the City, DOJ, and community stakeholders – will formalize a Monitoring Plan, as required by the consent decree.25 The document functions as a structured work plan – clearly delineating how the objectives, goals, and large provisions of the consent decree can be “broken down into clear, discrete tasks with specific deadlines and defined expectations.”26 It will provide the Department with a clear understanding of what objectives should be accomplished, milestones reached, or tasks completed by specific deadlines. The Plan will be finalized per the timetable set forth in the consent decree. Importantly, the work plan will serve as a culmination of the Team’s initial outreach efforts – reflecting the priorities of the community, results of the systems “stress test,” and input from CDP and its officers. In PARC’s experience, major efforts like consent decrees succeed when all stakeholders have common expectations about priorities and sequencing. Although CDP will certainly need to make sure and steady progress across a host of critical areas, attempting to do absolutely everything all at once risks compromising the ability of all stakeholders to help ensure that the Division is getting it right. for updated training. The Plan would provide separate deadlines by which any discussions about, or revisions to, the material would need to be complete in order for the Monitor to provide final approval, or disapproval, of the training. In this way, the Plan would provide CDP, the City, the Department of Justice, the community, and the Court with common expectations about when and how work will be accomplished and changes should be implemented. The Plan will also identify intended timetables for conducting the rigorous compliance reviews, audits, and qualitative and quantitative outcome assessments of the Department’s compliance efforts.27 Matthew Barge, Kelli Evans, Chief Timothy Longo, and Christine Cole will take the lead in forming the Plan, with all members of the Team significantly informing the identified tasks and timetables. Phase 6. After a Monitoring Plan is finalized, the major task of the Monitoring Team will be to provide ongoing oversight of CPD’s efforts to implement the updates, changes, reforms, and new policies and procedures necessary to comply with the consent decree. In this stage, CDP will take the important first steps – with the ongoing assistance of the Monitoring Team – in getting the Department from where it was during the Department of Justice investigation and the Team’s assessment in Phase I to where it must be to achieve full and effective compliance with the consent decree. During this stage, CDP will revise its policies and training; update or implement new internal processes and procedures; and institute new standards and guidelines in a manner that embodies the objectives and requirements of the decree. Based on the Consent Decree, this will include, among other things: • • • For example, the Monitoring Plan would likely set forth agreed upon dates by which CDP will provide lesson plans 24 Id. Id. ¶ 369. 26 Police Assessment Resource Center, National Guidelines for Police Monitors at 62 (2009), http://static1.squarespace.com/static/5498b74ce4b01fe317ef2575/t/54aff2 f3e4b0233c1957492a/1420817139792/Monitoring+Guidelines.pdf. • 25 24 Formulation & Adoption of Policies, Procedures, and Systems. 27 Use of force policy and training; The documentation and review of use of force; Internal investigations of force by a dedicated force investigation group (“FIT”); The implementation of a Force Review Board (“FRB”) to critically analyze officer use of force Id. at 64. • • • • • • • and to assess force incidents from the perspective of tactics, training, policy, and Department-wide practice; Policies and training on crisis intervention and responding to individuals with mental health, substance abuse, or other behavioral considerations; Policies, training, and practices relating to the stop, search, and arrest of subjects; The collection and analysis of data on stops and arrests; Policies and processes for rigorously investigating and adjudicating civilian complaints; Policies and systems related to recruitment, hiring, performance evaluations, promotions, and staffing; Enhancements to the Officer Intervention Program (“OIP”); and Officer supervision. The Monitoring Team will work closely with the Parties and CDP to ensure that all updates, changes, or revisions to existing policies and systems: • • • • • Promote and are consistent with the provisions of the consent decree; Align with and incorporate best practices; Build on, learn from, or otherwise incorporate the real-world experiences of other police agencies, including agencies that have successfully complied with previous consent decrees; Further the objectives of advancing effective, safe, and constitutional policing in a manner that engenders public confidence and trust; and Incorporate and build upon, where they exist, the systems already in place by CDP and the important local initiatives that have previously taken place in the Cleveland community that relate to and promote the goals of the consent decree. PARC and the Monitoring Team will in no way disengage from the process while CDP implements initial changes geared toward complying with the consent decree. Instead, collaborating and consulting closely with the City and the Department of Justice, it will provide real-time guidance as to the kind of policies, training, policies, procedures, and mechanisms that will be necessary under 25 the consent decree or that will assist CDP in achieving compliance with specific provisions of the consent decree. This continuous technical assistance will allow CDP and community stakeholders to have clarity about expectations and direction during the consent decree. It will allow, for instance, drafters of policy within CDP to consult Monitoring Team members, the Parties, the Community Police Commission, and other community stakeholders about a particular issue on a use of force policy question as it is drafting a set of policy revisions – without having to wait to submit a formal draft later on before having specific questions addressed. Likewise, the Monitoring Team will ensure that the Community Police Commission, other community stakeholders and organizations, the police unions, and CDP officers themselves participate directly in the policy, procedure, and systems development processes. The goal is for the Department’s ultimate policy to be informed by a wide and diverse group of stakeholders – so that they work for both for officers in the real world and for the communities that will be policed on a day-to-day basis in accordance with them. To provide this ongoing technical assistance, the Monitoring Team will maintain, from day one, an ongoing, on-the-ground presence in Cleveland – establishing an office where community stakeholders may interact with the Monitoring Team. Matthew Barge, head of PARC’s New York office, will be present in Cleveland for no less than 2 to 3 weeks per month during the pendency of the decree. Chief Tim Longo, Chief Noble Wray, Chief Joe Brann, Brian Center, Christine Cole, Rob Saltzman, Ellen Scrivner, Sean Smoot, and Julio Thompson all commit to being present, in person, in Cleveland as frequently as possible to provide ongoing, real-time guidance and technical assistant. Ayesha Hardaway will be present throughout the decree. Phase 7. Information Practices & System Improvements. At the same time that CDP makes necessary changes to policies and procedures, it will also address the business practices and information processes that it uses to collect information about officer and departmental performance. Specifically, it will need to address any of the more specific gaps and deficiencies identified in Phase 3. Again, the Consent Decree requires CDP to collect and maintain data and track information about use of force and search and seizure practices. 28 It must and effectuate an Officer Intervention Program (“OIP”)29 that identifies trends over time in performance. Thus, in this phase, CDP, in collaboration with the Parties and Monitoring Team, will refine a specific work plan – based on general objectives set forth in the Monitoring Plan – to address foundational gaps in business practices, internal processes, and systems related to information about the performance of CDP and its officers. Matthew Barge, Julio Thompson, and Kelli Evans, who have assisted in addressing data and information issues in several other law enforcement departments, as well as the implementation of early warning systems in several other major-city jurisdictions, will ensure that any business practice and technical changes that CDP makes are geared expressly toward complying with the consent decree. Phase 8. Implementation of Policies, Training, Procedures, Protocols, & Systems and Provision of Technical Assistance. In this phase, changes on paper will need begin to take hold in practice with respect to policies, processes, and systems. Before policies can address the provisions and objectives of the decree, officers – both patrol officers and command staff alike – must receive training of sufficient quality on the new policies, procedures, or processes. The Monitoring Team will provide ongoing, real-time technical assistance to CDP with respect to officer training. The goal is for CDP to provide engaging, rigorous, and high-quality training that fully addresses changes in policies or practices. The Team will ultimately assess the sufficiency of training materials, quality of instruction, and the underlying rigor of the training. This includes both assessment of proposed curricula and ongoing, in-person audits of actual officer training sessions. Chief Tim Longo, Chief Noble Wray, Chief Joseph Brann, and Julio 28 29 Consent Decree ¶ 257. Id. ¶¶ 326–36. 26 Thompson, among others, will be participating in such audits. All have significant experience creating, conducting, and monitoring law enforcement training on use of force, internal investigations, search and seizure, crisis intervention, and other critical areas. Likewise, before new procedures can meaningfully address underlying deficiencies, CDP must implement them in practice – translating good ideas into efficient and practical systems. For instance, when updated internal investigation procedures are agreed upon and approved, CDP investigators must adopt them in the field. If an when changes to the process for determining discipline in instances of officer misconduct, those processes must get up and running. If modifications to computer systems or the business practices associated with their use are necessary, those changes to the systems must “go live.” Chief Tim Longo, Kelli Evans, Matthew Barge, and Julio Thompson will take the lead on coordinating the overall provision of technical assistance. Phase 9. Compliance Reviews & Audits. The Monitoring Team will need to verify that the measures taken to comply with the consent decree take hold in precincts and on the streets. The provisions of the consent decree will need to be demonstrated as being effective in practice, not effective in theory or in place merely on paper. Thus, the Monitoring Team, in close collaboration and consultation with the Parties, will systematically assess whether the changes that CDP makes ultimately have realworld outcomes. As noted above, the Team will have previously developed some baseline metrics against which subsequent success might be measured. However, those metrics and methodologies will likely need to be refined, adjusted, or fine-tuned at this stage – based on a better sense of what policies and system changes have been implemented and what data will be available for analysis. Christine Cole will lead the refinement process, assisted by Modupe Akinola, Ellen Scrivner, and other members of the Team. Phase 10. Real-Time Qualitative Feedback. After new systems or policies are put in place, initial tweaks or refinements are almost always necessary. A period of adjustment is understandable. While those policies and systems are taking hold, the Monitoring Team will – in close collaboration with the CPD, City, Community Police Commission, Department of Justice, and the Cleveland community – spend significant time on the ground in Cleveland and in CDP precincts to gauge in real-time how the implementation of new policies and procedures is going. For instance, in another project on which PARC has worked, a jurisdiction implemented a new process for capturing information about use of force incidents. Rather than needing to fill out a use of force report by hand – as officers were long accustomed to doing – the police department determined that officers would provide all information about use of force in an electronic format. However, when the new process was initially implemented, confusion existed over whether officers still needed to manually complete a paper form even though they had already electronically entered the information. The police department worked with the Monitoring Team and Parties to create roll call training guidance for communicating that the electronic process in fact entirely replaced the need for hand-written reports. A procedural manual was also clarified to eliminate officer confusion and redundant effort. Likewise, in that same jurisdiction, PARC helped to implement revised force policies. Officers there were initially confused about whether holding a firearm in the “sul” or “low ready” position – which constitutes a sound tactic and is consistent with best practices in many circumstances – constituted reportable “Type 1” force. The police department worked with the Monitoring Team, Parties, and community to create clarifying instructions to officers emphasizing that keeping a weapon at the “low ready” would generally not constitute “Type 1” force because the firearm would not be pointed at a subject. Thus, the Team’s real-time qualitative feedback and guidance seeks to prevent any identified issues from artificially festering for too long. Rather than wait to bring challenges or deficiencies to the attention of CDP, the City, and the community only in the context of its formal reports, the Monitoring Team’s 27 goal will be to refine processes at the earliest responsible juncture – and to ensure swift, meaningful implementation of the consent decree. Chief Tim Longo, Chief Noble Wray, Rob Saltzman, Matthew Barge, Julio Thompson, and Kelli Evans will be the individuals primarily responsible for this ongoing qualitative feedback. Phase 11. Outcome Measurements. This phase is where the Monitoring Team considers whether new policies, systems, and requirements implemented in light of the consent decree have become effective in practice – that is, whether they have taken hold across Cleveland’s communities. The specific provisions of the consent decree and new policies and processes within CDP need to add up to tangible results for Cleveland residents. The Monitoring Team and its experts will conduct the various outcome measurements identified in the consent decree30 and otherwise agreed upon by the Parties – with the methodology, approach, time period, and areas of focus clearly identified and informed by discussions with the Parties, CDP, and community stakeholders. Some of the consent decree’s measures are more quantitative or audit-like – such as gauging the “number of officers who have more than one instance of use of force in violation of policy” or the “total number of investigatory stops, searches and arrests” by District, race, age, and other factors.31 Other measures require rigorous qualitative or qualitativequantitative hybrid assessments – such as inquiries to assess the “quality of use of force investigations and reviews” or the “prevalence of training deficiencies as reflected by problematic incidents or performance trends.”32 Regardless of the substantive area assessed, Monitoring Team will use rigorous methodology approaches that would be acceptable as evidence in other federal court proceeding.33 That is, the Team 30 the and any will Consent Decree ¶ 367. Id. 32 Id. 33 See generally Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993); Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999). 31 hold itself to utilizing best practices with respect to research methods, auditing approaches, and outcome assessments. Christine Cole, Modupe Akinola, Ellen Scrivner, Matthew Barge, and Kelli Evans will all collaborate to ensure that the Monitoring Team is using best practices when conducting systematic assessments of CDP’s progress under the decree. Phase 12. Policy & System Refinement. Based on the Team’s experience with monitoring other agencies, a period of refinement and adjustment is sometimes necessary based on the results of initial reviews, audits, and outcome assessments. Those initial reviews or assessments may reveal ongoing challenges or simply be inconclusive with respect to whether CDP has reached compliance with various of the consent decree provisions. provisions and objectives. All such initiatives would be discussed with CDP, the Parties, and the community – and would be reflected in updated versions of the Monitoring Plan that would be finalized throughout the monitoring process. Even in areas where it appears that changes made to further compliance with the decree are having a real effect in the Cleveland community, the Monitoring Team will need to ensure that the effects are not fleeting or temporary. Thus, follow-up assessments and a period of sustained outcome measurement may be necessary in many areas to ensure that CDP maintains progress. Throughout this period, as with all other stages, the Monitoring Team will be transparent with respect to expectations, methods, and findings – and fully involve all stakeholders. Ongoing. For example, it could be that – after making changes and updates to policies and systems relating to pedestrian and vehicular stops of civilians – the Monitoring Team’s statistical assessments conclude that Cleveland’s black residents continue to be stopped and arrested at a rate disproportionate to the overall population.34 In such an instance, that might set the occasion for further adjustment of policies, additional or refined training, or the implementation of new programs or procedures. After such adjustments had taken hold for another period of time, the same type of assessment would be run again to see if the refinements made a measurable difference with respect to the disproportionate stop and arrest patterns. Likewise, it could be that – after updating policies, change internal procedures, and providing more extensive training to Internal Affairs personnel – the systemic assessment of internal investigations reveals that the quality of officer misconduct investigations in some crucial respects may be lagging behind good progress in other respects. In such instances, that might well set the occasion for additional discussions about refinement, follow-up, and adjustments to processes in place so that the quality of CDP’s internal investigations would continue to improve. This stage of monitoring is, then, fundamentally about the fine-tuning of reforms to ensure that CDP can fully and effectively comply with all of the consent decree’s 34 See Consent Decree ¶ 367(c). 28 Community Assessments Trust. Engagement & of Community Community confidence and trust will be the bedrock of the Monitoring Team’s concerns and focus when considering progress and compliance with the consent decree. The Monitoring Team will engage continuously and directly with all of Cleveland’s diverse communities. The Team will likewise partner closely with the Community Police Commission and District Policing Committees to ensure that they can be primary conduits of direct community input to the process. It will meet in an ongoing capacity with community organizations, organize community events, meet with community leaders, and hold regular neighborhood forums and roundtable discussions. During the ongoing engagement progress, the Team will both update the community on the current status of CDP’s progress. It will detail and explain the motivations for the changes taking place. The Team will likewise want to hear from the community about their ongoing experiences with CDP, their concerns or praise regarding CDP, and the extent to which the implementation of the consent decree is being seen and felt on the streets and in the community on day-to-day basis. The consent decree calls for biennial studies of community confidence in CDP and its perception of the Department.35 PARC has significant experience with such assessments – using them to drive change in jurisdictions like Pasadena, California and Seattle. Insights from these surveys must inform areas of focus and evaluations of progress throughout the monitoring. Methodologically rigorous focus group studies with Cleveland residents may also prove valuable. Ongoing. Reporting. Semiannual Status Reports Twice per year, the Monitoring Team will provide overall public reports of CDP’s progress with complying with the terms of the consent decree.36 These written reports will address where CDP stands in complying with the decree’s provisions on all relevant areas, including stops and arrests, disparate impact based on race, use of force, officer theft, internal investigations and discipline, supervision, training, and others. Those studies would occur on a defined schedule set forth in the Monitoring Plan. Substantial and Effective Compliance with the Decree The consent decree calls for termination of the agreement when CDP has complied with the decree’s search and seizure provisions for one year and with all other provisions for two consecutive years.37 The Monitoring Team’s and Parties’ systemic assessments, community engagement, and ongoing efforts to address the problems and issues will inform a determination of “substantial and effective compliance” with the decree can be reached. The potential rate of CDP’s progress depends on numerous, currently unknown factors. However, the Team will do everything it can to ensure that progress and compliance is swift, enduring, comprehensive, and felt throughout Cleveland’s communities. The reports will update CDP, the City, the Department of Justice, the Court, the Community Police Commission, and the Cleveland community generally about the progress that CDP has made in complying with the decree’s provisions – and about outstanding challenges that CDP must tackle. They will summarize the status of specific steps that CDP has taken – and the effectiveness of the measures in complying with the decree. The reports will aim to be accessible, straightforward, and direct. Standalone Reports on Assessment Findings As described elsewhere, the Monitoring Team will conduct ongoing audits, analyses, and assessments to determine compliance with the provisions of the consent decree. Rather than waiting until the periodic “snapshot” reports of CDP’s overall progress to report the results of assessments of individual substantive areas, the Monitoring Team will – assuming the full cooperation and consent of the City and Department of Justice – provide public reports to the Court, Parties, and the community on its formal outcome measures as it completes each study. 35 36 Id. ¶¶ 361–66. Id. ¶¶ 375–76. 37 29 Id. ¶ 401. VI. Disclosures Relating to Potential Conflicts of Interest or Bias Modupe Akinola is currently employed by Columbia University, which may have contracts, grants, or other relationships with the City, CDP, or the United States but with which she has no involvement and no current familiarity. During his work on the United States’ consent decree with the city of Seattle addressing the Seattle Police Department, Matthew Barge has worked with or had occasion to become familiar with several current members of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, including but not limited to: Jeff Blumberg, Puneet Cheema, Vanita Gupta, Emily Gunston, Christy Lopez, Jeff Murray, and Timothy Mygatt. He regularly interacts with representatives of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Western District of Washington. Mr. Barge has worked on other of PARC’s projects that have received funding from the Community Oriented Policing Services (“COPS”) Office and Bureau of Justice Assistance (“BJA”) and in which, in some instances, representatives of the Department of Justice participated. He has previous work experience as a legal extern in the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Central District of California. Mr. Barge has previously represented various clients in civil proceedings at the law firms of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart & Sullivan who may, in those or other proceedings, have been adverse to the City of Cleveland or United States. In addition to Mr. Barge, Chief Joseph Brann, Brian Center, Dr. Ellen Scrivner, and Julio Thompson have contributed to the team monitoring implementation of the consent decree in Seattle. From time to time, all have interacted with various representatives of the United States. PARC’s Executive Director, Merrick Bobb, currently serves as federal court-appointed monitor overseeing implemented the consent decree addressing the Seattle Police Department in U.S. v. City of Seattle. He has worked with or had occasion to become familiar with several current members of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, including Jeff Blumberg, Puneet Cheema, Vanita Gupta, Emily Gunston, Christy Lopez, Jeff Murray, and Timothy Mygatt, as well as representatives of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Western District of Washington. Additionally, Mr. Bobb has in the past served as a consultant for the Department of Justice on pattern and practice investigations. Mr. Bobb is not part of the proposed Monitoring Team for Cleveland. Chief Joseph Brann is serving as a consultant working with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department on behalf of the County Board of Supervisors, assisting with the implementation of reforms in the jail facilities. Any implicated federal issues would likely not involve Cleveland. Chief Brann served as Special Master for the consent decree in Cincinnati, Ohio. In that capacity, he had occasion to become familiar with representatives of the United States who may still be its agents, representatives, or employees. As the founding director of the COPS Office, Chief Brann likewise worked with representatives of the United States who may still be its agents, representatives, or employees. Christine Cole is the Executive Director of the Crime and Justice Institute (“CJI”), which is part of Community Resources for Justice (“CRJ”) in Boston, Massachusetts. CRJ operates halfway houses for offenders leaving federal prison, which are funded by contracts from the U.S. Bureau of Prisons. CJI currently has grants and cooperative agreements from BJA, NIC, OJJDP, and COPS. All but the COPS 30 funding are for substantially different kinds of work. The COPS grant relates to the provision of technical assistance by that Office to local police departments and does not include any work in, for, or about Cleveland. Kelli Evans is the Senior Director of the State Bar of California’s Access to Justice activities. She was the Associate director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in Northern California. From time to time in such positions, it is possible that those organizations, or their representatives, might have taken positions adverse to or inconsistent with the United States. However, no direct conflict of interest or bias is apparent. Ms. Evans served as the monitor of a consent decree addressing the Oakland Police Department, and was a former business partner, with the Department of Justice’s Christy Lopez. Both the business relationship and monitoring project concluded in 2010. Ms. Evans served as a senior trial attorney for the Department of Justice from 1998 to 2001. Ayesha Hardaway is currently employed by Case Western Reserve, which may have contracts, grants, or other relationships with the City of Cleveland, CDP, or the United States but with which she has no involvement and no current familiarity. Her work through Case Western Reserve School of Law’s Milton A. Kramer Law Clinic involves the representation of indigent defendants in municipal courts in Cleveland and Euclid. None of the criminal defense cases have involved claims of police misconduct or excessive force. The clinic is currently representing two individuals through the Ohio Innocence Project in Cuyahoga Common Pleas Court regarding a wrongful felony conviction and Brady violation. The original case involved the East Cleveland Police Department. At least one colleague in the Milton A. Kramer Law Clinic has represented clients in claims regarding excessive police force. None of those cases have involved the Cleveland Division of Police, and Professor Hardaway has not been involved in them. Ms. Hardaway has also previously represented various clients at Tucker Ellis, LLP who may, in those or other proceedings, have been adverse to the City of Cleveland or United States. Chief Timothy Longo is the current Chief of Police of the Charlottesville, Virginia Police Department. In the execution of his duties as the city’s chief law enforcement official, he may be involved in matters in which the United States is an interested party. From 2003 to 2007, Chief Longo served on the independent monitoring team for the consent decree in Cincinnati, Ohio. In that capacity, he had occasion to become familiar with representatives of the United States who may still be its agents, representatives, or employees. He has served as an expert witness for both plaintiffs and defendants in litigation relating to police use of force, and he has been a police practices consultant for a number of police departments or jurisdictions. PARC has previously received grants from or worked on projects funded by the Department of Justice’s COPS Office and Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). None of these grants are outstanding nor any of these projects ongoing. Rob Saltzman was, until only very recently, employed by the University of Southern California, which may have had contracts, grants, or other relationships with the City, CDP, or the United States but with which Mr. Saltzman had no involvement and no familiarity. With respect to his role as Police Commissioner in Los Angeles, Los Angeles and/or the LAPD may have relationships with the City of Cleveland, CDP, or the United States but with which Mr. Saltzman has no involvement and no current familiarity. His appointment to the White House Commission on Presidential Scholars is an advisory position to the Department of Education and the executive branch but the position has and does not focus on police issues. 31 Dr. Ellen Scrivner was a consultant for the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division conducting the pattern or practice investigation of the New Orleans Police Department, which resulted in the consent decree. Dr. Scrivner conducted the work with the Division’s William Nolan, Christy Lopez, and Carrie Nguyen. She currently is serving as a Subject Matter Expert on Early Intervention systems for the Office of Justice Programs in the Department of Justice and a Subject Matter Expert on Leadership for the Bureau of Justice Assistance of the Department of Justice. Previously, Dr. Scrivner has worked in the COPS Office, the National Institute of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Agency, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy – all either branches of or closely associated with the U.S. Department of Justice. Sean Smoot is the Director and Chief Legal Counsel for the Police Benevolent & Protective Association of Illinois. In that capacity, he has represented various police officers and their interests. It is possible that, in some instances, Mr. Smoot represented interests adverse to the United States. He is the Treasurer of the National Association of Police Organizations, which may take advocacy positions both consistent and inconsistent with Mr. Smoot’s views. He was a member of President Obama’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, where he interacted with various agents of the Department of Justice. He was also a policy advisor to the Obama-Biden Transition Team in 2008–09. Julio Thompson previously worked with the Department of Justice on its memorandum of understanding with respect to the Metropolitan Police Department in Washington, D.C. That engagement ended in 2008 and is unrelated to Cleveland. He was hired by former Special Litigation Section Chief Steven H. Rosenbaum, who is the Chief of the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division. As Director of the Vermont Attorney General’s Civil Rights Unit, he routinely investigates complaints of misconduct (e.g., employment discrimination, hate crimes) on behalf of aggrieved Vermonters. None are pursued on his own behalf, and none have been adverse to Cleveland, the United States, or the Department of Justice. Chief Noble Wray was, until recently, the Interim President & CEO of the Urban League of Greater Madison (Wisconsin). It is possible that it, or its local analog (the Urban League of Essex County) near Cleveland, may have contracts, grants, or other relationships with the City, CDP, or the United States but with which he has no involvement and no current familiarity. As the former Chief of Police of Madison, he interacted with representatives of the United States during the course of executing his law enforcement duties. Chief Wray serves as a trainer for the Fair and Impartial Policing training program, which has received support from the Department of Justice. 32 VII. Estimated Costs The proposed PARC Monitoring Team’s investment in this project goes beyond budgetary concerns. Each member of the Team has committed to the Cleveland consent decree effort out of the firm belief that policing in Cleveland can, at the same time, be effective, safe, and constitutional – and that Cleveland can become a national model for successful, accountable policing and for renewed trust between the police and community. The Team commits to the CDP, Cleveland community, and Parties to doing whatever work is necessary to ensure effective implementation of the Cleveland consent decree – to accomplish the Scope of Work set forth in the Request for Applications and to rigorously and completely perform the Proposed Activities outlined in this application. In short, the commitment is to do the job right. To the extent that more work is required or resources necessary to do the job right – and consistent with PARC’s status and mission as a nonprofit organization – the Monitoring Team is committed to investing significant pro bono time on the Cleveland monitoring. Additionally, many members of the Team will be at rates substantially discounted from their rates in other contexts. These lower rates for this project likewise reflect the level of commitment by Team members and a strong belief in the importance of the work in Cleveland. The Team has experience with keeping major monitoring projects on track and on budget. Among other roles, Matthew Barge has served as project manager for the DOJ consent decree in Seattle. Kelli Evans similarly directed budgetary and staffing issues for a consent decree in Oakland. Chief Timothy Longo and Chief Joseph Brann were members of the team that monitored the consent decree in Cincinnati. Julio Thompson has served as consultant for the DOJ Civil Rights Division during the consent decree in Washington, DC, was engaged by the Oakland Police Department during its consent decree, and has served on the monitoring team in Seattle. Ellen Scrivner has likewise served on monitoring teams. Christine Cole and Modupe Akinola have both managed large, complicated projects and tight budgets. As a result of this experience, the proposed Team’s members all know the value of maximizing resources and efficiency. The Team’s proposed budget, general responsibilities, and time commitments for the first year of monitoring is detailed in Figure 4. This budget reflects the Team’s best sense, based on its prior experience with conducting independent assessments and monitoring consent decrees, of how the Team’s resource might best be allocated given the capacities of the Team members. It should be noted that the details of the budget may need to be adjusted upon the Team developing, over the first phases of monitoring, a more detailed sense of where CDP and the Cleveland community are and what work needs to be done. Such adjustments would relate to the commitments and allocations to individual team members – not to the budget total. The Team commits to a budget in the first year that does not exceed a total of th proposed. In PARC’s experience, and supplemented by the experience of other monitors in other jurisdictions, the costs of monitoring tend to remain even across, at the least, the first two to three years, depending on the relative rate of progress toward compliance with the decree. During that time period, relationships are being established, initial reviews and assessments completed, and the most central work of providing technical assistance and real-time qualitative assessment to the police agency is occurring. Likewise, during that time, systemic assessments of a department’s initial progress begin to be possible. Consequently, although the stages or phases of monitoring outlined above entail different 33 skills and resource requirements, the overall involvement of the Team would necessarily remain steady as the project progressed through those stages. As the project begins to focus on refinements and adjustments, the overall resources demanded from the Monitoring Team may well decrease. Thus, the Team’s cost overall budget is not expected to exceed million over five years. This number is equivalent to yearly budgets that average the projected for the first year plus percent, as a built-in buffer against unforeseen circumstances. The internal allocation of resources among Team members may need to change from year to year to reflect shifting areas of emphasis, focus, challenge, or progress. 34 Figure 4. PROJECTED FIRST-YEAR BUDGET Hours/ Year Projected Pro Bono Hours On-Site Hours Off-Site Hours hour 1400.0 884.00 1050.00 350.00 hour 611.0 335.0 480.0 131.0 hour 460.0 160.0 288.00 172.0 Rate Total First-Year Budget A. Staff Compensation Matthew Barge Coordinate monitoring team & manage project. Draft public reports. With Kelli Evans, construct Monitoring Plan. Participate in all aspects of initial appraisal of CDP policies, systems, and processes. Lead “stress test” of information and business practices. Will work from Cleveland at least 10 and typically more than 15 days business days per month, serving as the Team’s most ongoing day-to-day point of contact with CDP, the City, DOJ, and the Cleveland community. Brian Center 35 Conduct and coordinate initial community engagement and interaction with Community Police Commission and other community groups. Participate in initial assessment of community confidence and CDP outreach efforts. Serve as primary expert on crisis intervention issues. Participate in initial assessment of use of force and officer training issues. Will work from Cleveland at least 1-2 weeks per month. Christine Cole Direct development of measurements for assessing CDP’s current state and for measuring effects and outcomes of consent decree implementation later. Participate in initial appraisal of all current CDP data, processes, policies, and systems. Lead discussions with stakeholders about defining and refining progress, success, and compliance with the provisions of the consent decree. Assist in drafting of public reports. Will be present in Cleveland during at least during 1–2 weeks per month for the initial phases of monitoring. Chief Timothy Longo /hour 385.0 85.0 192.0 193.0 /hour 400.0 240.0 60.00 340.0 day 736.0 320.0 320.0 416.0 day 435.0 95.0 104.0 331.0 Assisted by Chief Noble Wray, direct initial appraisal of CDP policies, processes, and systems relating to all areas implicated by the consent decree. Lead establishment of partnerships with CDP command and line officers. Participate in development of Monitoring Plan. Provide real-time technical assistance on all topics related to consent decree, including use of force, internal investigations, officer training, stops and searches, bias-free policing, and officer theft. Will be present in Cleveland as regularly as possible, with schedule variable with relation to ongoing responsibilities as active Chief of Police in Charlottesville, Virginia. Kelli Evans Participate in initial of CDP policies, codified procedures, and established systems. Review use of force, stops, and bias-free policing policies; data systems; discipline process; and early warning system. Partner with Matthew Barge in construction of Monitoring Plan. Assist in drafting of communication to the federal court and public reports. Will be present in Cleveland as often as ongoing responsibilities with the State Bar of California permit. Committed to significant time investment with respect to off-site work. 36 Robert Saltzman Participate in all aspects of initial appraisal and provision of technical-assistance with respect to CDP policies, processes, and systems, with a particular focus on use of force, stops and searches, and bias-free policing concerns; internal investigations; and discipline issues. Contribute to development of Monitoring Plan. Assist in drafting of public reports. Will be in Cleveland at least 1-2 weeks per month with significant capacity for off-site and remote participation. Julio Thompson Assess and provide technical assistance on CDP use of force policies, officer training, internal investigations, RMS, and the early warning system. Assist Christine Cole in the construction of meaningful outcome measurements with respect to the same. Serve as dayto-day contact with respect to early warning system issues. Will be in Cleveland at least 1 out of every 8 weeks with significant capacity for off-site and remote participation. Chief Noble Wray (ret.) /hour 610.0 310.0 315.0 295.0 hour 170.0 40.0 40.0 130.0 hour 320.0 140.0 200.0 120.0 /hour 380.0 160.0 380.0 0.0 day 460.0 100.0 220.0 240.0 Participate in all aspects of initial appraisal of CDP processes, policies, and systems. Assist in coordination of Team’s community dialogue and outreach efforts. Serve as point of contact with community organizations. Provide real-time technical assistance with respect to community policing; use of force; bias-free policing; stops, searches, and arrests; and officer training. Will be in Cleveland at least 1-2 times per month, with specific commitment for regular, on-the-ground presence during the Team’s first year. Dr. Modupe Akinola Serve as lead expert in organizational change management. Assist Matthew Barge and Kelli Evans in construction of Monitoring Plan. Partner with Christine Cole in development of rigorous methodology for assessing progress, compliance with the consent decree, and realworld outcomes. Participate in initial appraisal of community engagement, bias-free policing, officer theft, and discipline issues. Sean Smoot 37 Direct outreach with CDP officers and unions. Serve as lead expert on employment and labor issues related to the consent decree. Assist in evaluation of community policing efforts. Review and assess proposed changes in policy, officer training, and business practices. Will be present in Cleveland 4-6 days per month. Ayesha Hardaway With Chiefs Noble Wray and Joseph Brann, direct community outreach, engagement, and input process throughout the consent decree. Serve as a liaison between monitoring team and Community Police Commission, community organizations, and individual members of the Cleveland organization. Review new policies, processes, procedures, and training. Participate in construction of outcome measurements and metrics. Chief Joseph Brann (ret.) Serve as expert on community policing, use of force, stops and detentions, discriminatory policing practices, misconduct and citizen’s complaint investigations, officer performance appraisal and promotion, the Officer Intervention Program, and officer training. Capacity and availability to engage in Cleveland in an on-the-ground capacity with whatever frequency is necessary. Dr. Ellen Scrivner Serve as expert on crisis intervention policy and training, bias-free policing, use of force, officer discipline, and additional officer training issues. Assess and analyze proposed changes to CDP policy, process, procedure, and training. Capacity and availability to engage in Cleveland in an on-the-ground capacity with whatever frequency is necessary. B. Overhead Transportation & Travel Expenses To enable the proposed PARC Team to have an ongoing, on-the-ground relationship with stakeholders in Cleveland, an investment in transportation & travel expenses is necessary. The allocated sum provides the 12 team members who will need to travel to Cleveland from various locations an average of $3,333 per year for transportation and travel expenses – which accommodates the Team’s significant commitment to being on-site as much as possible. Accommodations 38 This line item corresponds to traveling Team member accommodations in Cleveland when traveling from other locations to conduct monitoring in Cleveland. (The figure is based on hotel accommodations at an average rate over the year of $150/night.) To the extent that taking a “corporate” living arrangement can reduce the overall amount necessary for hotel accommodations, the Team will readily embrace such an arrangement. Likewise, the Team will attempt to secure a reduced group or government services rate if available. Office, Equipment & Supplies This line item corresponds to the total yearly cost of establishing a physical office in Cleveland and initial, one-time outlays of used office furniture and supplies. The location of the office will be intended to be located centrally to CDP, City stakeholders, and the Cleveland community. day 288.0 80.0 150.0 138.0 Appendix A: Summary of Team Member Monitoring, Oversight, and Assessment Work The Department of Justice’s Request for Applications to Serve as Court Monitor of the Cleveland Division of Police requests a list of project experience within the past 10 years, along with references and, where available, examples of work product. This Appendix summarizes each team member’s work that can squarely be considered as monitoring, oversight, or independent assessment. Appendix B provides the complete resumes for each team member. Matthew Barge Description Reference & Representative Work Product Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Monitoring PARC served as staff to the Monitor of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, the nation’s fifth-largest law enforcement agency, for the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.. Mr. Barge directed numerous studies and authoring numerous public reports. http://www.parc.info/l asd/ Seattle Police Department Consent Decree Monitoring PARC has been heavily involved in the monitoring of a consent decree between the city of Seattle and Department of Justice addressing unconstitutional use of force and concerns about discriminatory policing in the Seattle Police Department. Matthew has serve as the day-to-day project manager, a primary contact person for the Parties and community, and substantive expert in numerous areas. Peter Holmes Seattle City Attorney 600 4th Avenue, 4th Floor P.O. Box 94769 Seattle, WA 98124 (206) 684-8200 www.seattlemonitor.c om/resources Project Portland (Oregon) Independent Assessment Reviewed incidents, interacted with the police department, made recommendations, and drafted reports. Gary Blackmer Audits Division, Oregon Secretary of State Office Public Service Building Suite 500 255 Capitol St. NE Salem, OR 97310 (503) 986-2255 http://www.parc.info/ portland/ A-1 Denver Officer-Involved Shooting Independent Review University of California, Los Angeles Independent Review Los Angeles Unified School District Independent Review Conducted case file analysis, assisted in managing the project, and helped author the public report. Conducted independent investigation of highprofile use of force incident, making clear policy recommendations based on best practices for the campus police going forward. Matthew Barge was a member of the project team. Directed investigation of high-profile use of force incident. Richard Rosenthal Independent Investigations Office of B.C. 12th Floor 13450-102nd Ave. Surrey, BC V3T 5X3 (604) 586-5668 http://www.parc.info/ denver/ http://www.parc.info/ ucla/ Joseph Brann Louis Verdugo, Sr. Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Division (ret.) (310) 874-5360 lvkv@verizon.net California Department of Justice (Riverside and Maywood, California) Cincinnati Police Consent Decree Monitoring Oversaw police reforms negotiated between the California Department of Justice in both Riverside, California and Maywood, California. Served as federal court Special Master for the U.S. Department of Justice consent decree addressing the Cincinnati Police Department. A-2 Angela Sierra State of California Department of Justice 300 Spring St., Suite 5212 Los Angeles, CA 90013 (213) 620-6312 angela.sierra@doj.ca .gov Saul Green Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone 150 W Jefferson, Suite 2500 Detroit, MI 48226 (313) 496-7535 greens@millercanfie Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Jail Reform Seattle Police Department Consent Decree Monitoring Engaged as consultant to Los Angeles County to implement reforms in Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department concerning the county’s jail system. Served as consultant for city during consent decree negotiations and subsequently as a member of the monitoring team overseeing implementation of the decree. ld.com Brian Hershman Jones Day Law Firm 555 South Flower St., 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-2300 (213) 243-2445 Peter Holmes Seattle City Attorney 600 4th Avenue, 4th Floor P.O. Box 94769 Seattle, WA 98124 (206) 684-8200 www.seattlemonitor.c om/resources Brian Center Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC) Consultant to Los Angeles Regional Re-entry Partnership (LARRP) Managed the assessment of various efforts by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, including their canine unit, risk management and gang strategy. Also managed a comprehensive, year-long assessment of an Indian Tribe’s police department (the client and work product are confidential). Also work as part of the Monitoring Team related to the Consent Decree between the Department of Justice and Seattle, with a focus on issues related to crisis intervention and community trust. Helped design program to train community based organizations in evidence-based re-entry practice and best practices in organizational management. Merrick Bobb Executive Director Police Assessment Resource Center P.O. Box 27445 Los Angeles, CA 90027 merrickbobb@parc.i nfo (213) 623-5757 http://www.parc.inf o/lasd/ Peggy Edwards Executive Director LARRP 2202 S. Figueroa St. #717 Los Angeles, CA 90007 peggyedwards@lare entry.org (661) 253-2273 Christine Cole Harvard Kennedy School, “Policing Los Angeles Under a Consent Conducted leading study of the outcomes and effectiveness of the Department of Justice A-3 Christopher Stone Open Society Decree: The Dynamics of Change at the LAPD” consent decree concerning the Los Angeles Police Department. Developed rigorous metrics for measuring success pursuant to the decree. Foundations th 400 W. 59 St. #4 New York, NY 10019 (212) 548-0600 http://www.hks.harvar d.edu/content/downlo ad/67474/1242706/vers ion/1/file/Harvard_LA PD_Report.pdf COPS Office grant, evaluation of technical assistance provided under Collaborative Reform initiative U.S. v. City of New Orleans Through current employer, Community Resources for Justice, awarded a contract from Department of Justice’s Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office to evaluate the effectiveness of technical assistant provided under the Office’s Collaborative Reform Initiative Conducted preliminary review of New Orleans Police Department after investigation was complete to prepare for engagement on a survey of officers, community members, and arrested Surveys available on request Kelli Evans Federal Court Monitor of the Oakland Police Department Independent Review of OfficerInvolved Shooting, Rockford, Appointed by federal court to monitor the Oakland Police Department’s compliance with the terms of a settlement agreement. Chief Sean Whent swhent@oaklandnet.c om (510) 238-3365 http://www2.oaklandn et.com/Government /o/OPD/DOWD004 998#first%20imt Conducted independent review of fatal police Chief Chet Epperson Chet.Epperson@rockf shooting for Rockford, Illinois Police Department ordil.gov (815) 987-5839 Illinois PD Chief Tim Longo U.S. v. City of Cincinnati Agency audits with Public Agency Training Council Performed the duties of monitoring the MOA terms pertaining to Use of Force and Internal Affairs. Saul Green (Monitor) Richard Jerome (Deputy Monitor) Fort Lauderdale P.D., 2005-06 (Use of Force) Belmont, Ohio, 2006-07 (Use of Force, Internal Affairs) Jim Alsup director&patc.com A-4 Hartford, Connecticut, 2007-08 (Review of Litigation) Agency Audits with PSComm (no longer operational) Expert witness participation in 1983 litigation Denver Police Department, 2000 (Internal Affairs) Pasadena Police Department, 2000 (Dispatch, 9-11 Center) Washington, D.C., 2000 (Dispatch, 9-1-1 Center) John Cohen Bob Wasserman Testimony on behalf of both plaintiffs and defendants. Rule 26 disclosures are included in the attached resume. See resume, attached. Serve as police commissioner participating in adjudication of use of force cases, reviewing discipline, evaluating the performance of the Chief of Police, developing policies on use of force and in-car/on-body audio and video recordings, and numerous other areas (November 2007 – Present). Richard Tefank Executive Director Board of Police Commissioners 100 West First Street, Room 134 Los Angeles, CA 90012-4112 (213) 236-1400 Richard.Tefank.lapd.la city.org As monitoring team member, assessed officer training, served as subject-matter expert in crisis intervention issues. Merrick Bobb Executive Director Police Assessment Resource Center P.O. Box 27445 Los Angeles, CA 90027 merrickbobb@parc.i nfo (213) 623-5757 http://www.parc.inf o/lasd/ Robert Saltzman Los Angeles Police Department, Board of Police Commissioners Ellen Scrivner U.S. v. City of Seattle re: Seattle Police Department Denver Sheriff’s Office Consultant for reform activities in Denver Sheriff’s Office. A-5 Rob Davis Terry Hillard Hillard-Heintze, 30 South Wacker St., Suite 1730 Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 869-8500 Robert.davis@hillardh eintze.com Terry.hillard@hillard. heintze.com U.S. v. City of New Orleans Las Vegas Collaborative Reform Initiative Consultant for pattern or practice investigation of the New Orleans Police Department, which resulted in the consent decree. Conducted work for CAN Corporation on reform of Las Vegas Police Department and served as peer reviewer for Las Vegas report Steve Rickman CAN Corp. 4825 Mark Center Drive Alexandria, VA 22311 rickmanse@aol.com (571) 263-6651 Conducted ongoing, independent monitoring of Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) as part of Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC) Team reporting to Los Angeles County http://www.parc.info/l asd/ Julio Thompson Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Portland, Oregon U.S. v. City of Seattle re: Seattle Police Department U.S. v. District of Columbia re: Metropolitan P.D. Conducted in-depth, independent review of officer-involved shootings and made recommendations. Conducted series of follow-up assessments related to same. As monitoring team member, assessed officer training, policy, internal investigation procedure. Reviewed internal investigations and administrative reviews. Engaged as expert consultant by Department of Justice on consent decree regarding the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department. A-6 Gary Blackmer Audits Division, Oregon Secretary of State Office Public Service Building Suite 500 255 Capitol St. NE Salem, OR 97310 (503) 986-2255 http://www.parc.info/ portland/ Peter Holmes Seattle City Attorney 600 4th Avenue, 4th Floor P.O. Box 94769 Seattle, WA 98124 (206) 684-8200 www.seattlemonitor.c om/resources Steven H. Rosenbaum Chief of Housing & Civil Enforcement Section; U.S. Department of Justice MODUPE NYIKOALE AKINOLA Curriculum Vitae (617) 233-4020 E-mail: makinola@columbia.edu EDUCATION Ph.D. Harvard University Organizational Behavior 2009 M.A. Harvard University Social Psychology 2006 M.B.A. Harvard Business School General Management 2001 B.A. Harvard University Psychology 1996 ACADEMIC APPOINTMENTS Assistant Professor Columbia Business School Management Division Visiting Assistant Professor Sloan School of Management Organization Studies 2009 2013-14 PUBLICATIONS Milkman, K., Akinola, M. & Chugh, D. (forthcoming). What happens before? A field experiment exploring how pay and representation differentially shape bias on the pathway into organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology. Muhtadie, L., Koslov, K., Akinola, M., & Mendes, W.B. (in press). Vagal flexibility: A physiological predictor of social sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Page-Gould, E. & Akinola, M. (in press). Incorporating neuroendocrine methods into intergroup relations research. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations. Akinola, M. & Mendes, W.B. (2013). It’s good to be the king: Neurobiological benefits of higher social standing. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(1), 43-51. Ayduk, O., Gyurak A., Akinola, M., & Mendes, W.B. (2013). Consistency over flattery: Selfverification processes revealed in implicit and behavioral responses to feedback. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(5), 538-545. Milkman, K., Akinola, M. & Chugh, D. (2012). Temporal distance and discrimination: An audit study in academia. Psychological Science, 23(7), 710-717. Akinola, M. & Mendes, W.B. (2012). Stress-induced cortisol facilitates threat-related decision making among police officers. Behavioral Neuroscience, 26(1), 167-174. Akinola, M. (2010). Measuring the pulse of an organization: Integrating physiological measures into the organizational scholar’s toolbox. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30, 203-223. Akinola, M. & Mendes, W.B. (2008). The dark side of creativity: Biological vulnerability and negative emotions lead to greater artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34 (12), 1677-1686. MANUSCRIPTS UNDER REVIEW Akinola, M. & Page-Gould, E. Intra-individual variability in testosterone is related to dominance. Under Review. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. Crum, A., Akinola, M., Martin, A., & Fath, S. Stressing well in threat and challenge: Stress mindset enhances cognitive, affective, and neuroendocrine responses to stress. Under Review. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. MANUSCRIPTS IN PREPARATION Opie, T., Ho, G., Akinola, M., Unzueta, M., Castel, S., & Brief, A. Diversity isn’t what it used to be: The consequences of the managerialization of diversity. Manuscript in preparation. Akinola, M. & Page-Gould, E. The joint effects of intra-individual variability in cortisol and dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEAS) on judgments under uncertainty. Manuscript in preparation. Fridman, I., Crum, A., Mor, S., Akinola, M., & Morris, M. The adaptive role of cortisol responses in women’s salary negotiations. Manuscript in preparation. Martin, A., Akinola, M., & Phillips, K. Gender differences in delegation. Manuscript in preparation. Akinola, M. & Mendes, W.B. Narcissistic tendencies and sensitivity to social feedback: An examination of cardiovascular reactivity during social evaluative situations. Manuscript in preparation. Akinola, M., Koslov, K., & Mendes, W.B. Inspiration is facilitated by positive mood and vagal withdrawal. Manuscript in preparation. PRESENTATIONS Akinola, M. & Mendes, W.B. (October 2014). Intergroup contact: Can positive social contact enhance performance for cross-race relative to same-race dyads? Paper presented at the Society for Experimental Social Psychology Conference, symposium on Leveraging the Value of Diversity in Teams: Four Useful Processes (T. Vacharkulksemsuk and K. Phillips, chairs), Columbus, OH. Akinola, M. (August 2013). Inspiration is facilitated by positive mood and vagal withdrawal. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Conference, symposium on The Heart of the Matter: Cardiovascular Measures in Organizational Research (A. Passarelli, chair), Orlando, FL. Akinola, M. (January 2013). Heterogeneity in discrimination? A field experiment with university faculty. Paper presented at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology Conference, symposium on Turning the Tables: Social Psychologists as Subjects of Research (A. Tomiyama, chair), New Orleans, LA. Akinola, M. (August 2012). Heterogeneity in discrimination? A field experiment with university faculty. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Conference, Diversity Research Publishing Workshop (R. Ely and B. Ragins, chairs), Boston, MA. Akinola, M. (August 2011). Measuring the pulse of an organization. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Conference, symposium on Implicit Measures in Management Research (W. Becker, B. Hardy, and J. Menges, chairs), San Antonio, TX. Last Updated January 31, 2015 Page 2 of 5 Akinola, M. & Mendes, W.B. (May 2011). Accuracy is in the eye of the beholder: Physiological responses influence emotion detection among police officers. Paper presented at the Association for Psychological Science Conference, symposium on Hierarchy, Judgmental Accuracy, and the Person-In-Context (M. Kraus, chair), Washington, DC. Akinola, M. & Mendes, W.B. (August 2010). Decision making under threat. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Conference, symposium on Wisdom through Emotions: Multi-Cultural, Multi-level Analyses of How Emotions Can Make Us Wiser (L. Rees and J. Sanchez-Burks, chairs), Montreal, Canada. Akinola, M. & Thomas, D.A. (August 2008). Defining the attributes and processes that enhance the effectiveness of diversity initiatives. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Conference, Anaheim, CA. Akinola, M. & Mendes, W.B. (August 2008). Biological and Psychological Factors Linked to Creativity. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Conference, symposium on Using Physiological Measures to Explore the Questions We Ask (M. Akinola and M. Zyphur, chairs), Anaheim, CA. Akinola, M. & Mendes, W.B. (January 2008). Vigilance and intergroup interactions. Paper presented at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology Conference, symposium on Taking a Relational Approach to Intergroup Contact: When Stigmatized and Non-Stigmatized Group Members' Experiences Diverge and Converge (J. Richeson and S. Neuberg, chairs), Albuquerque, NM. Akinola, M. & Mendes, W.B. (August 2007). Intergroup contact: Can positive social contact reduce threat during cross race encounters? Paper presented at the Academy of Management Conference, symposium on Diversity’s Embeddedness (M. Akinola and B. Ragins, chairs), Philadelphia, PA. Akinola, M. & Mendes, W.B. (August 2006). The effects of social contact on enhancing performance and reducing intergroup tension in organizations. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Conference, symposium on Managing across Difference in Organizations (M. Akinola, chair), Atlanta, GA. Akinola, M., Mendes, W.B. & Amabile, T. (August 2005). Benign stress and cognitive performance in organizations. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Conference, symposium on Integrating Biopsychological Measures and Outcomes into a New Vision of Management (E. Heaphy, chair), Honolulu, HI. INVITED TALKS Boston University (2008), University of Michigan (2008), University of California at Berkeley (2008), London Business School (2009), Kellogg (2009), Columbia Teachers College (2011), Harvard University (2011), Harvard Kennedy School (2012), University of Utah (2014), Stanford Graduate School of Business (2014), Fuqua School of Business (2014), The Wharton School (2014), Carnegie Mellon University (2014), UCLA Anderson School of Management (2015), Olin Business School (2015), Rotman School of Management (2015), Princeton University (2015) TEACHING EXPERIENCE  Leadership Development (Columbia Business School, average rating 4.7/5.0) Last Updated January 31, 2015 Page 3 of 5     Dissertation Committee Member for Columbia Business School PhD Candidates William Welch and Shira Mor. Teaching Fellow for Introduction to Social Psychology at Harvard University (2007). Supervision of Honors Thesis for Harvard undergraduates Marina Nasman (2006), Shimon Sapphire-Bernstein (2007), Amanda Willis (2008), and Erin Blackstock (2008). Extensive corporate training and coaching experience, with consistently high teaching ratings, for organizations including Bain & Company, CoreNet Global, Harvard Divinity School’s Summer Leadership Institute, Harvard Business School’s Public Education Leadership Project, and KIPP Schools Summer Leadership Program. GRANTS  Women and Public Policy Program Grant, Harvard Kennedy School of Government. Project Title: Joint Separate Preference Reversals and Gender Diversity. Grant Amount: $9,000 (2007)  Fellowship Recipient, NIMH/NRSA. Project Title: The Disjunction between Mental and Physical Health Outcomes for African Americans (F31). Grant Amount: $85,076 (2007)  Columbia University Professional Schools Diversity Research Fellowship. Project Title: Power and its Embodiment. Grant amount: $10,000 (2009)  Russell Sage Foundation Small Grant in Behavioral Economics Research. Project Title: A Study of Discrimination and Intertemporal Choice. Co-PI with Katherine Milkman (PI) and Dolly Chugh (Co-PI). Grant Amount: $5,000 (2010)  Eugene M. Lang Support Fund Supplemental Research Grant. Project Title: Hormones and Leadership Development. Grant amount: $15,000 (2010) AWARDS & HONORS  SSRN Honor: Author of One of the 10 Most Downloaded Papers of the Year (2014)  Massachusetts Institute of Technology Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Fellowship (2013-2014)  Association for Psychological Science Rising Star (2011)  Society for Personality and Social Psychology Best Graduate Student Paper Award (2009)  Wyss Award for Excellence in Doctoral Research (2009)  Society for Psychophysiological Research Student Poster Award (2008)  Society for Personality and Social Psychology Diversity Fund Award (2006)  Wyss Fellowship for Graduate Study (2004 to 2009) EDITORIAL BOARD International Journal of Stress Management AD HOC REVIEWER Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin; Journal of Experimental Social Psychology; Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes; Group Processes and Intergroup Relations; European Journal of Social Psychology; Motivation and Emotion; Biological Psychology; International Journal of Psychophysiology; Human Relations; Small Group Research; California Management Review ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIPS Academy of Management Association for Psychological Science International Association for Conflict Management Society for Personality and Social Psychology Society for Psychophysiological Research Last Updated January 31, 2015 Page 4 of 5 OUTSIDE ACTIVITIES Consulting assignment with KIPP Schools and CoreNet Global; Board member: The Brearley School, Bert King Foundation, and International Youth Leadership Institute CORPORATE AND NON-PROFIT WORK EXPERIENCE Harvard Business School Research Associate 2003-2004 Developed an Executive Education program (The Public Education Leadership Project) for urban superintendents and their leadership teams in an effort to build on principles at the intersection of general management and education management to help schools deliver improved student achievement. Collaborated and co-authored academic materials with nine professors from Harvard Business School and Harvard Graduate School of Education as part of a dedicated research team. Conducted sophisticated remote and on-site field research on selected school districts across the country. Bain & Company Consultant & Head of Diversity 2001-2003 Associate Consultant 1997-1999 Member of management consulting client service teams. Conducted analysis, managed associates, interacted with clients, developed conclusions, and assisted in implementing recommendations. Key industries: Retail, Consumer Products, High Technology, Utilities, and Manufacturing. Received and accepted offer to return to firm post-MBA with business school funded. Led the firm’s diversity recruiting and professional development efforts. Merrill Lynch Summer Associate, Investment Banking 2000 Conducted analyses for clients in retail and apparel industry. Work included financial modeling, comparable company analysis, due diligence, and development of marketing and roadshow materials. Street Babies Project Founder 1996-1997 Awarded national fellowships to create a public service project reflecting an entrepreneurial vision in Accra, Ghana. Designed project aimed at providing child care for underprivileged babies, teaching literacy to homeless mothers and children, and offering them the opportunity to learn a trade or receive formal education. Established four centers in one year. Generated $700,000 in funding to sustain project for six years. Last Updated January 31, 2015 Page 5 of 5 MATTHEW D. BARGE 535 W 23rd St., # N5G • New York, NY 10011 (202) 257-5111 • matthewbarge@parc.info EXPERIENCE POLICE ASSESSMENT RESOURCE CENTER Vice President & Deputy Director, 2013–Present, New York, NY Consultant, 2009–2012, New York, NY Research Analyst, 2006–2009, Los Angeles, CA Conduct independent monitoring of police agencies as part of public policy firm. Manage ongoing, federal court-supervised monitoring of consent decree between U.S. Department of Justice and City of Seattle relating to excessive force and biased policing in Seattle Police Department. Direct and perform complex qualitative and quantitative assessments of internal affairs investigations, use of force policies, officer training, and administrative practices for numerous agencies, including Farmington, New Mexico; Los Angeles, CA; Denver, CO; New York; Portland, OR; Mesa, AZ. Lead factual investigations of highprofile use of force incidents. Co-authored national standards for monitors and police oversight managers. Hire and manage staff. QUINN, EMANUEL, URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP, New York, NY Associate, May 2013–September 2013 SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP, New York, NY Associate, 2012–2013; Summer Associate, Summer 2011 Served as initial member of Mass Torts and Products Liability group at Quinn, Emanuel pursuant to invitation from departing head of Skadden’s Mass Torts group. Participated in all aspects of complex litigation matters. Drafted briefing at Court of Appeals, federal district court, and state court levels. Led pre-trial briefing writing in bellwether mass torts action against medical instrument manufacturer. Managed briefing and researching responsibilities in mass action against major chemical company. Researched and drafted briefing in purported class actions and qui tam actions against a major insurer. Coordinated deposition preparation for witnesses in multi-district litigation. Provided pro bono representation to individuals seeking asylum in the U.S. and social security benefits. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, CIVIL DIVISION, Los Angeles, CA Legal Extern, Summer 2010 Prepared legal memoranda on civil penalties for mortgage fraud, the False Claims Act, and judicial conflicts of interest. Drafted arguments for summary judgment motions. Created monograph on procedural requirements in employment discrimination litigation involving government agencies for ongoing attorney use. BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF GREATER LOS ANGELES AND THE INLAND EMPIRE, Los Angeles, CA Development Associate, 2006 Implemented and promoted an innovative, data-driven model for matching at-risk and disadvantaged youth in South Los Angeles with adult mentors. Secured major foundation grants. Coordinated market research and community outreach. FACTCHECK.ORG, Washington, DC Researcher, 2005 Authored in-depth articles evaluating the accuracy of claims in advertisements, speeches, and other political discourse for award-winning, non-partisan political journalism website. Cultivated sources for deadline-sensitive reporting. EDUCATION NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, New York, NY J.D., 2012 Honors: Executive Editor, Journal of Legislation and Public Policy (2011–2012) GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, Washington, DC B.A. in Government, summa cum laude, 2004 Minor: Psychology Honors: Phi Beta Kappa Valerie A. Earle Award–for excellence in study of American Government Pi Sigma Alpha National Political Science Honor Society Psi Chi National Honor Society in Psychology Honors with Distinction, Government Honors Program JOSEPH E. BRANN 4232 Pascal Place Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA 90274 310-265-7479 jbrann@jballc.com EMPLOYMENT HISTORY CEO Joseph Brann & Associates 2001 – present Founder and CEO of Joseph Brann & Associates (also known as JBA), a consulting firm serving public sector clients, JBA provides tailored services to achieve improvements in policing, specializing in management performance and accountability, successful implementation of crime reduction strategies, and the adoption of effective policies and problem solving measures. Particular emphasis is placed on diagnosing the organizational and community culture so that community policing and community governance solutions developed are suitable to the unique aspects of the particular community. New and evolving best practices, policies, information system technologies and other considerations are evaluated for their ability to improve organizational accountability, crime reduction and public safety goals. The firm also provides monitoring and oversight services related to police reform measures on behalf of federal and state courts and DOJ authorities. Mr. Brann has served as a special consultant to the California Attorney General in evaluating and monitoring police departments in California and as a Special Master for the Federal Court in Ohio in monitoring police reform efforts in Cincinnati. Currently he is serving as a member of the monitoring team for the Seattle, WA consent decree; is a consultant to Los Angeles County on Jail Reform efforts; is working with the City of Anaheim on the development of a civilian public safety board/commission; and serves as an expert witness on police policies and practices in federal court litigation. He also works with an executive search firm, Teri Black & Company, LLC, on their executive recruitments of Police Chiefs. Senior Vice President PSComm, LLC 1999 – 2001 Served as Senior Vice President with this international public safety consulting firm, working with public sector organizations to address organizational development challenges, policy analysis and the development and application of crime reduction strategies and evolving technologies to improve police performance. The firm was headquartered in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. Director COPS Office, U.S. Department of Justice 1994 – 1999 Appointed by President Clinton to serve as the founding Director of this newly created component of the Department of Justice, with responsibility for implementing key elements of the 1994 Crime Act. The COPS Office was the lead agency at the federal level for advancing community policing and administering grant programs to support over 13,000 local and state law enforcement agencies, further “best practices” in the field, and drive research regarding policing strategies and programs. The budget for this program was $9.6 billion. Chief of Police City of Hayward, CA 1989 - 1994 Served as Chief of Police in this ethnically diverse, urban community of approximately 150,000 residents located in the San Francisco Bay area. The Hayward Police Department received national recognition as a model community-policing agency during Chief Brann’s tenure as Police Chief, based on the innovations undertaken and leadership displayed in merging the concepts and philosophy of community policing with problem solving training and strategies. Police Officer to Captain City of Santa Ana, CA 1969 – 1989 Rose through the ranks and commanded various divisions and bureaus of the agency, including Field Operations, Personnel & Training, Narcotics & Vice, and Management & Budget. Santa Ana is a densely populated and very ethnically diverse community of more than 355,000 residents. The SAPD was one of the earliest pioneers in the community policing movement. Beginning in the 1970’s the SAPD was instrumental in developing innovative organizational strategies and programs that have long been recognized for their effectiveness in changing traditional policing culture and institutionalizing the community policing philosophy. PROFESSIONAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS Joseph Brann & Associates Established a consulting practice that provides organizational assessments, conducts performance audits and engages in monitoring reform efforts of police agencies. Services have been provided to several dozen clients serving communities with populations ranging from 1,500 to over 1,000,000. Many of these clients have subsequently retained JBA to assist with the implementation of the recommendations made and in evaluating subsequent organizational progress. Serve as a subject matter expert on investigations involving allegations of civil rights violations by law enforcement agencies; provide technical expertise related to the development, implementation and evaluation of reform measures and solutions undertaken as a result of such investigations. Working with local policymakers and agency executives, JBA stresses the importance of establishing goals and devising meaningful performance measures to evaluate progress in achieving desired outcomes (as opposed to utilizing more traditional measures of police performance that favor and emphasize the measurement of activities rather than results). COPS Office, United States Department of Justice Appointed by President Clinton as the founding Director of a new federal agency within the U. S. Department of Justice. The COPS Office provided funding for the hiring and redeployment of more than 100,000 police officers in over 13,000 law enforcement agencies, launching national strategies to support the adoption and expansion of community policing at the state and local level. Created a national network of 35 Regional Community Policing Institutes to provide training and promote the sharing of best practices among law enforcement agencies and community partners. Advocated for and provided funding to support research initiatives, launch new strategies and evaluate programs dealing with critical contemporary policing issues including: Racial Profiling, Police Ethics/Integrity, Youth Firearm Violence, Gangs, Domestic Violence, the Reintegration of Ex-Offenders and initiatives dealing with “Community Justice” and “Restorative Justice” models. Pioneered the development and funded the implementation of “3-1-1” in communities across the United States. 3-1-1, a national non-emergency phone number, was established to create improved access to non-emergency public safety and other local government services while reducing demands on the 9-1-1 system. Hayward, California Police Department Established a strategic planning process, involving broad-based employee and community participation, which guided the implementation and evolution of HPD's Community Oriented Policing and Problem Solving (COPPS) philosophy. Implemented a centralized data and information services bureau to support and oversee the installation of a state-of-the-art computer system capable of meeting the department's dispatching, records management and information systems (CAD/RMS/MIS) needs. Instituted a decentralized patrol (Area Command) system in order to improve police department responsiveness and management accountability at the neighborhood level. Substantially revised recruitment, hiring and training practices and significantly improved the Department’s ability to attract successful candidates and establish a representative workforce. Many of these personnel strategies involved innovative approaches that have since been widely adopted by other agencies. Successfully addressed major budget shortages and organizational downsizing by leading the agency through a process to identify alternative funding sources (new fees, grants, and enterprise fund charges) and service delivery strategies (service prioritization, creation of volunteer programs, expanded use of civilians, etc.) Santa Ana, California Police Department Chaired the development of SAPD’s "Five Year Plan" to develop long-term organizational strategies to deal with increasing service demands, growth and diversity in the community while also promoting improved collaboration with other governmental agencies. Designed, developed and managed a wide array of crime prevention programs that received recognition as national models by the National Crime Prevention Institute, FBI, American Association of Retired Persons, California Department of Justice and Office of Criminal Justice Planning. In concert with other local agencies, created a Regional Narcotics Suppression Program that resulted in asset seizures exceeding $100,000,000 in five years and major reductions in street level narcotics activity. This program later served as a model touted by DEA for other regional drug enforcement programs involving federal, state and local agencies. Implemented personnel and financial practices to correct significant financial and human resource problems associated with disability retirements and worker’s compensation claims. Disability retirements were reduced by 50% annually and industrial injuries by 47%. Initiated and chaired the development of the California Model Building Security Ordinance. This document was subsequently adopted by the International Conference of Building Officials as Chapter 41 of the Uniform Building Code and has contributed to significant reductions in burglaries and thefts across the country. EDUCATION Master of Public Administration - University of Southern California Bachelor of Arts in Criminal Justice - California State University, Fullerton Graduate, FBI National Academy, 144th Session PUBLICATIONS 2012 Brann, J.E. “Asking the Tough Questions”, American Policing in 2022: Essays on the Future of a Profession, COPS Office, USDOJ. 2004 Campbell, J., J. Brann, D. Williams. “Officers-Per-1,000 and Other Policing Myths: A Leadership Model for Better Police Resource Management”, Public Management, ICMA. 1999 Brann, J.E., J. Travis. Measuring What Matters: Proceedings from the Policy Research Institute Meeting. NIJ & COPS Office, USDOJ. 1997 Brann, J.E., “COPS: Partnerships With Communities”, Law Enforcement in a Free Society, Vol. II, No. 4, USIA 1997 Brann, J.E., J. Travis. “Police Integrity: Public Service With Honor”, NIJ & COPS Office, USDOJ. 1992 Brann, J.E., S. Wallace. “COPPS: The Transformation of Police Organizations”, Community Oriented Policing and Problem Solving. California Attorney General’s Crime Prevention Center. 1992 Brann, J.E., C. Calhoun, Paul Wallace. “A Change in Policing Philosophy”, Community Oriented Policing and Problem Solving. California Attorney General’s Crime Prevention Center. PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS/HONORS National Advisory Board Member, Community Safety Initiative, Local Improvement Support Corporation Member, International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) Member, Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) Former Ex-Officio Member – U.S. Attorney General’s National Advisory Committee on Domestic Violence Former Member – Advisory Committee for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, Glencoe, GA Past President and Member, Alameda County Police Chiefs’ and Sheriff’s Association Former Member, International City/County Management Association • Advisory Board Member, Community Policing Task Force Former Member, California Attorney General's Advisory Committee on Community Oriented Policing and Problem Solving (COPPS) Recipient of the “New Pioneer” Award, National Association of Drug Court Professionals, 2000 Honored as the “1998 Person of the Year” by Law Enforcement News for the creation of 3-1-1, the national non-emergency public safety phone number Distinguished Alumni Award (1998) – California State University, Fullerton BRIAN DAVID CENTER 2007 Stratford Avenue South Pasadena, California 91030 (626) 590-4388 bcenter@thecentersolutions.com EMPLOYMENT HISTORY Center Solutions September 2012 to Present Principal Provide consultation related to best practices in policing and police oversight, as well as evidence-based practice in justice systems. Manage projects as a Senior Advisor for the Police Assessment Resource Center, including as part of the Monitoring Team for the Consent Decree between the Department of Justice and Seattle. Projects involve a broad array of law enforcement issues, including issues related to gangs, use of force, management, training, policy review and development, crisis intervention and building trust between communities and police. A Better LA June 2008 to September 2012 Executive Director Oversaw all aspects of the non-profit, including implementing programs to reduce gang violence in Los Angeles. Spent thousands of hours in neighborhoods with high crime rates and gang involvement to develop an understanding of the community. Designed and helped facilitate processes to build relationships between the community and police. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department July 2005 to June 2008 Unit Commander, Community Transition Unit Oversaw 22 employees in the LA County Jail who linked inmates to services to reduce recidivism. Created and served as Chair of the Los Angeles County Re-entry Advisory Board. Served as a County-wide point person on numerous policy issues, including re-entry, homelessness, crisis intervention, mental health and youth issues. Los Angeles County Supervisor Gloria Molina November 2001 to July 2005 Justice Deputy Advised Supervisor Molina on a wide range of policy matters involving law enforcement, juvenile justice, and public agency law as it pertained to the Sheriff’s Department. Helped the Supervisor direct efforts related to police oversight, deployment patterns, patrol staffing levels, Department budgeting, training, community policing, and gang task forces. Served as point person for use of force and civil rights litigation analysis. Helped design structure for the County’s Office of Independent Review. Davis Wright Tremaine LLP May 1999 to November 2001 Attorney Represented and advised clients in complex legal matters concerning general business, employment, copyright and constitutional law. Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro, LLP July 1996 to May 1999 Attorney Represented and advised clients in complex legal matters concerning general business, entertainment, employment, and trade secret law. p. 2 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT Candidate for State Assembly, 2006 Past Judge Pro Tem for Los Angeles County Superior Court Mediation Panel, United States District Court, Central District PUBLICATIONS Evidence-based Practice In Los Angeles County Corrections: A Top 5 List Of Real World Foes, LJN Exchange, Annual Issue, 2007 EDUCATION UCLA School of Law, Juris Doctor, May 1993 University of Kansas, B.A. Political Science, May 1990, Honors Program Macintosh HD:Users:matthewbarge:Library:Caches:TemporaryItems:Outlook 2 Temp:Resume.po2.doc Los Angeles Christine M. Cole cmc919@hotmail.com • +1.508.826.4207 EDUCATION Harvard University, Kennedy School of Government, Cambridge, Massachusetts Master of Public Administration – June 2001 University of Massachusetts, Lowell, Massachusetts Master of Arts in Community and Social Psychology – May 1996 Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts B.A. Human Development and B.A. Alternatives in Special Education – May 1984 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Vice President, Executive Director, Crime and Justice Institute November 2014-present Community Resources for Justice, Boston, Massachusetts § Provide policy and managerial oversight for $40m, 650 employee charitable organization on Executive Team § Strategic leader of CJI, one of CRJ’s three divisions, a $4m entity providing technical assistance services § Design, stimulate, facilitate, and promote the full range of activities of CJI § Utilize evidence based models, data and research to drive reform and demonstrate results in safety and justice agencies Executive Director, Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management April 2007- November 2014 Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Cambridge, Massachusetts § Conceptualized and implemented a range of safety and justice action research projects with expertise in measurement and accountability, international development and coordination with multilateral partners § Convened and moderated several dozen discussions with senior scholars and high-level practitioners § Successfully raised funds over $6m through gifts and sponsored research to finance action research supporting new and existing work and expand successful projects both internationally and domestically § Nurtured the network of scholars, practitioners, alumni, students and supporters through the action research, and dissemination and promotion of the Program’s intellectual products. § Supported and partnered with justice and security sector government collaborators, donors and multilateral organizations in the US, Europe, Africa, Asia, Caribbean and Latin America § Coached, coordinated and supervised the work of Program staff of 15 Director of Business and Technology April 2006 – March 2007 Springfield, Massachusetts Police Department § Designed and implemented sound business practices in the police department of the third largest city in Massachusetts during chronic and severe financial problems § Management of $35 million budget and all human resource functions – recruitment, hiring, sick and injured, and payroll processes – in 590 person agency § Direct management and supervision of 75 sworn and civilian staff § Identified need and coordinated implementation of technology and policy solutions department-wide § Instituted financial and other internal controls to ensure accountability and sound fiscal management § Developed capital plan for facility improvement and the purchase of 77 new police vehicles § Successfully negotiated collective bargaining agreement with civilian dispatchers achieving significant reform for management and employees. Participated in union negotiations with other civilian and police unions § Managed complex political relationships across all levels of government, consultants and academics § Served as key advisor and strategist for Commissioner of Police Chief of Staff August 2004-April 2006 Executive Office of Public Safety, Commonwealth of Massachusetts § Designed, led and monitored policy and operational reform efforts throughout the secretariat’s four divisions and 14 state agencies – particularly Corrections, Parole, Sex Offender Registry Board and the Department of Public Safety § Liaison for and to executive and administrative staff for all 14 public safety state agencies and 22 boards and commissions -- anticipated problems, proposed solutions, coordinated strategy C. M. Cole § Directed the search, recruitment and hiring of several top executive positions including Undersecretary for Criminal Justice, Undersecretary for Forensic Sciences, Commissioner of Corrections, the Chief Medical Examiner, Colonel of the State Police, Adjutant General of the Joint Forces MA National Guard as well as nominees for members of the Board of Parole and several state commissions § Served as liaison to the Secretary for the investigative team on a high profile in-prison homicide § Recruited 15 corrections professionals for the Governor’s Commission on Corrections Reform § Managed policy and fiscal operations of statewide public safety and homeland security agencies totaling $1 billion in operational dollars and 10,000 employees § Directed operations in executive office for all daily functions and direct supervisor for the legislative media; fiscal; IT; and human resources functions in the executive office Director of Programs and Planning March 2002-February 2003 Community Resources for Justice, Crime and Justice Institute, Boston, MA § Created fundraising and program plan for 125 year-old non-profit agency committed to research and social justice work that contributes to the criminal and juvenile justice systems with a specific focus on recidivism reduction § Authored grants yielding over $1million for the Institute § Co-authored the integrated model for National Institute of Corrections sponsored Implementing Effective Correctional Management of Offenders in the Community § Provided technical assistance in organizational development, management, and justice policy Project Manager August 2001 – March 2002 Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, Commonwealth of Massachusetts § Managed gubernatorial performance measurement initiative in cabinet level office of state government that provides managerial, policy and budget oversight of six state environmental regulatory agencies in environmental protection, recreation, agriculture, fish and wildlife, and environmental law enforcement § Designed and managed a process engaging staff of the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs and all five agencies in the secretariat to comprehensively review mission, goals and strategic objectives to improve efficiency and results § Created and implemented plan to enhance security for staff and building at the agency headquarters after 9-11 attack, including a comprehensive ID system, sign-in process, and target hardening § Authored operating principles and by laws for the legislatively mandated Community Advisory Council of the Massachusetts Military Reservation to engage citizens on Cape Cod and provide performance expectations for the Air &Army National Guard during the hazard mitigation of aquifer contamination § Developed expanded protocol for the Massachusetts Environmental Police disaster response and inter and intraagency communication strategy Community Liaison and Policy Advisor July 1994 – August 2000 Lowell Massachusetts, Police Department § Created and secured funding for this position designed to link community policing efforts within the 300 person department, across government and within neighborhoods. Served as primary civilian advisor to the Superintendent of Police in this multi-ethnic community of 105,000 § Implemented community policing initiative that in six years resulted in a 60% reduction in crime, 100% increase in community groups and triple the number of partner organizations § Designed, managed, and facilitated 25 community safety symposia leveraging relationships with federal, state, and local government agencies, non-profit organizations, citizen groups and the media. § Wrote concept papers, speeches, policy articles, and grant applications. Received grant awards in excess of $10m § Designed and recruited participants for community-wide discussions on topics including racial profiling, narcotic investigations, gang violence and police performance C. M. Cole § Part of the design and implementation team of “Safety First,” an innovative collaboration of criminal justice personnel, government, business, human service agencies and school officials designed to decrease violence and increase community safety § Supervised department’s “Weed and Seed Project”a $200,000 federally funded program to eradicate crime in the inner city. Implemented by a diverse community team of 50 including fulltime staff and community volunteers § Represented police chief and department at more than 1,500 community meetings and events § Recommended solutions and delegated responsibility for ameliorating neighborhood safety concerns Victim Witness Advocate July 1986 – July 1994 Office of the Middlesex District Attorney, Cambridge, Massachusetts § Implemented the Victim’s Rights Law as prescribed by the state legislature in the Commonwealth’s largest district attorney’s office serving 54 municipalities in eastern/northeastern Massachusetts § Provided crisis intervention and counseling services for victims and witnesses of violent crime § Coordinated and maintained relationships with victims and witnesses to ensure stability and availability throughout the pre-trial and trial process § Engaged a wide array of social service providers and ancillary criminal justice system players to prevent further victimization by the system and trial process § Provided community based training and crisis intervention services in both preventative and response capacities § Managed ethnically diverse caseload of more than 300 clients contemporaneously COMMUNITY EDUCATION AND TRAINING § Presents and moderates regularly at workshops, conferences and summits in the US and Europe § Instructor with Harvard Kennedy School Program in Crisis Leadership, 2014 § Northeastern University, Adjunct Lecturer, 2002, Created and instructed graduate course in Community Corrections PROFESSIONAL AND COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP § § § § Advisory Board to Commissioner of Probation and Court Administrator (MA), Chair, May 2012 to Present New England Institute of Addiction Studies, Board Member, 2005 – 2014, President 2009-2014 National Criminal Justice Association, Board of Directors 2010, 2012, Advisory Board 2008, 2010, 2013-2015 Lowell Parks and Conservation Trust, Board Member, 2003 – present, Treasurer, 2009 – present PUBLICATIONS Why Was Boston Strong? Lessons from the Boston Marathon Bombing, Herman B. “Dutch” Leonard, Christine M. Cole, Arnold M. Howitt, Philip B. Heymann. Published by Program on Crisis Leadership, Harvard Kennedy School. Available at: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/var/ezp_site/storage/fckeditor/file/pdfs/centersprograms/programs/criminal-justice/WhyWasBostonStrong.pdf Moving the Work of Criminal Investigators towards Crime Control, Anthony A. Braga, Edward A. Flynn, George L. Kelling, and Christine M. Cole. Published by the National Institute of Justice and Harvard Kennedy School. March 2011. Available at: http://cms.hks.harvard.edu/var/ezp_site/storage/fckeditor/file/pdfs/centers-programs/programs/criminaljustice/ExecSessionPolicing/NPIP-MovingtheWorkofCriminalInvestigatorsTowardsCrimeControl-03-11.pdf Policing Los Angeles under a Consent Decree: They Dynamics of Change at the LAPD, Christopher Stone, Todd Foglesong, Christine M. Cole, May 2009 Available at: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/var/ezp_site/storage/fckeditor/file/pdfs/centersprograms/programs/criminal-justice/Harvard_LAPD_Report.pdf ) C. M. Cole Master’s Thesis, 1996 - “Using GIS as a Tool in Police and Community Relations in a Community Problem Solving Model”. Submitted as part of the requirements for the MA degree in Community and Social Psychology, University of Massachusetts, Lowell Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research, 1995 Winner - Invitation to Change, Better Government Competition “Community Policing, Success in Lowell” KELLI M. EVANS 1000 Galvin Street Oakland, CA 94602 (510) 531-1196 evans.m.kelli@gmail.com PROFILE Twenty years proven experience protecting and advancing civil rights while working in non-profits, government, and the private sector Highly effective senior organizational developer and manager with ability to plan, manage, and execute high impact administrative and programmatic initiatives EXPERIENCE Senior Director, Administration of Justice Jan. 2014-present State Bar of California, San Francisco, CA Plan, direct, and administer Access to Justice activities of the State Bar, including the Office of Legal Services. Serve as a member of the State Bar’s Senior Management Team, responsible for overseeing the budget and personnel for Access to Justice activities. •Oversee the administration of the Legal Services Trust Fund Program, including the distribution of over $20 million in annual grants to California legal services organizations. •Direct and manage the activities of the Center on Access to Justice, including planning and implementing a range of public policy initiatives to promote Access to Justice and coordination of legal services •Manage and oversee the direction of the Standing Committee on the Delivery of Legal Services; the Commission on Access to Justice; the Trust Fund Commission, the Civil Justice Strategies Task Force; and other committees, boards and commissions. •Provide policy guidance and develop goals to improve the efficiency and efficacy of the State Bar’s Administration of Justice programs. Consultant Jan. 2013-Jan. 2014 Self-Employed, Oakland, CA Provided independent consultation on a range of topics, including organizational development, strategic planning, public policy, law enforcement accountability, and advocacy campaigns. Associate Director Feb. 2010-Jan. 2013 American Civil Liberties Union, San Francisco, CA Supervised and managed wide-reaching, interdisciplinary civil liberties and civil rights policy and program work of largest ACLU affiliate in the country. Responsibilities included overall leadership, management, and support of staff and facilitation of resources to ensure maximum impact. Programs and projects supervised included the following: Racial Justice, Organizing & Community Engagement, Educational Equity, Criminal Justice & Drug Policy, Reproductive Justice, Death Penalty, and Technology & Civil Liberties. •Convened and guided staff in conception and development of project and campaign goals, Kelli M. Evans content, strategies, and tactics. •Worked with staff to implement innovative public education, public engagement, and lobbying strategies to advance legal and policy goals. •Provided legal and strategic guidance to staff and board of directors on diverse issues, including ballot measures, public policy, and electoral and political developments. •Served as a public spokesperson and liaison to various coalitions on a wide range of topics. •Participated in individual donor fundraising, working with development staff to steward and solicit support from a portfolio of donors and prospects. •Coordinated with program and development staff to secure foundation grants and to evaluate and report grant outcomes and deliverables. •Developed and led organizational strategic planning process using an integrated advocacy approach that included staff from across departments. •Created and implemented systems for improving overall organizational effectiveness, including a management dashboard and an organizational contacts database. Partner July 2006-Feb. 2010 Independent Assessment & Monitoring, LLP Founded and managed consulting firm specializing in civil and constitutional rights and risk management issues. Consultation included an emphasis on law enforcement accountability. •Personally handled the firm’s routine business operations, including contract negotiations, payroll operations, personnel issues, financial management and budgeting, and supervision of employees and subcontractors. •Appointed to serve as federal court monitor of Oakland Police Department (see below) as part of a multi-year complex institutional reform case. •Conducted independent review of fatal police shooting and made recommendations for improvements in police officer training, supervision, policies, and accountability systems. •Served as a participant in various police accountability working groups including: DOJ Taking Stock Roundtable on the State and Local Law Enforcement Police Pattern or Practice Program, and the National Guidelines for Police Monitors Working Group. Federal Court Monitor July 2003-Feb. 2010 U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco, CA Monitored the Oakland Police Department’s compliance with a consent decree requiring broad reforms in police practices including: complaint intake and internal investigations of police misconduct; incident reporting; integrity testing; development of early warning system; performance evaluations; supervision; use of force; and academy and field training. •Advised the Court and parties regarding a range of constitutional and criminal law and procedure Page 2 Kelli M. Evans issues. •Developed appropriate metrics for measuring compliance outcomes with the varied substantive requirements of the decree. •Evaluated compliance using a variety of fact gathering and analytical methods, including statistical sampling of data sets, random samples, field observations, and testing. •Provided ongoing expert technical assistance to Court, police department, city officials, and plaintiffs’ attorneys and had frequent interaction with diverse stakeholders, including City officials, police officers and commanders, and community groups to facilitate cooperation and compliance. •Mediated disagreements between and amongst the stakeholders to facilitate cooperation and compliance •Engaged in extensive fact gathering, including reviewing and approving police department policies, procedures, and systems. •Audited and reviewed hundreds of use of force incidents and reports, including on-scene observation of officer-involved shooting investigations and use of force review boards. •Audited and reviewed hundreds of misconduct complaint investigations. •Audited and reviewed police officer training classes and curricula, including field observation of officer performance. •Drafted numerous reports to the parties and Court detailing audit and review findings and the status of consent decree compliance. Attorney July 2001- Oct. 2004 Relman & Associates, Washington, D.C. Represented clients in civil rights litigation including employment discrimination, fair housing, fair lending, public accommodations, and police misconduct. •Advised companies regarding measures to prevent, identify, and address workplace and public accommodations discrimination and harassment. •Investigated claims, conducted legal research, met with and corresponded with clients, drafted complaints, handled all aspects of discovery, briefed and argued motions, and conducted mediations and other settlement negotiations. •Recruited, hired, and supervised junior associates and law student interns. •Regularly gave presentations on civil rights issues at various conferences, workshops, and panels. •As a senior member of the firm, advised and implemented firm development strategies including plan to diversity docket to ensure adequate revenue streams Page 3 Kelli M. Evans Senior Trial Attorney Sept. 1998- June 2001 U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Washington, D.C. Investigated, negotiated, and litigated institutional conditions cases and cases involving police misconduct in jurisdictions nationwide, including New Jersey (State Police); Washington, D.C. (police department); New York City (police department); Tulsa (police department); Wyoming (state prison system); Puerto Rico (juvenile correctional facilities); U.S. Virgin Islands (prison). Areas of concentration included jails, prisons, juvenile correctional institutions, police use of force, and racial profiling. •Regularly met with diverse stakeholders, including state, local, and federal government officials; police officers, supervisors, and commanders; and community members. •Provided technical assistance to law enforcement agencies and public institutions. •In addition to investigating and litigating cases, served on internal DOJ working group focused on ensuring that DOJ’s own law enforcement components adopted policies consistent with protecting civil rights. •Served as a board member of DOJ Pride, the agency’s LGBT employee group. As part of the group, I worked on ensuring that DOJ’s hiring practices and security clearance procedures were free from bias. Staff Attorney Oct. 1995- July 1998 American Civil Liberties Union, San Francisco, CA Protected and expanded civil rights and civil liberties through litigation in state and federal courts, legislative advocacy, and public education. Areas of expertise included juvenile and adult criminal justice issues, race discrimination, and LGBT rights. •Developed cases and conducted all phases of litigation, including factual and legal research, drafting complaints, discovery, and drafting and arguing motions. •Worked closely with and supervised cooperating attorneys and law student interns. •Drafted amicus briefs in a number of cases raising significant civil rights issues, including the legality of a federal school desegregation consent decree (Ho v. San Francisco Unified School District) and whether a San Francisco civil rights ordinance should be pre-empted by federal law (Air Transport Association v. San Francisco). •Made regular media appearances, consulted with other attorneys, and conducted trainings and workshops on a variety of civil rights topics. Assistant Public Defender/Contract Attorney April 1995- Oct. 1995 Sacramento County Public Defender, Sacramento, CA Office of the State Public Defender, San Francisco, CA Represented juveniles charged with misdemeanor and felony offenses during pre- trial, trial, and posttrial proceedings. Assisted in capital appellate litigation. •Conducted factual and legal research, prepared cases for trial, conducted bench trials, and handled post-trial proceedings. Page 4 Kelli M. Evans •Negotiated plea agreements and drafted pre-trial and trial motions. •Prepared client’s life history chronology for use in appeal of a death penalty verdict. Ruth Chance Litigation Fellow Sept. Sept. 1994- Aug. 1995 Equal Rights Advocates, San Francisco, CA Assisted staff attorneys with ongoing litigation in state and federal courts in individual and class action employment and workers’ rights cases involving a range of issues including employment discrimination, sexual harassment, and pay disparities. •Designed and delivered public education programs to labor unions and community groups regarding their rights on the job. •Educated and lobbied legislators regarding equal employment opportunities. •Advised and represented employees who had experienced racial or sexual discrimination or harassment on the job. •Drafted a US Supreme Court amicus brief regarding the constitutionality of affirmative action in government contracting (Adarand v. Pena). •Managed Advice & Counseling program and hotline, including recruiting, hiring and supervising law student interns. EDUCATION University of California, Davis, School of Law J.D., 1994 Public Interest Law Certificate, 1994 Co-Chair, King Hall Legal Foundation Secretary, Black Law Students Association Martin Luther King, Jr. Award for Public Service, 1994 Commencement Speaker Stanford University B.A. Public Policy, 1991 Substantial Course work in political science, economics, and Spanish Universidad de Salamanca, Salamanca Spain 1989-90 SELECTED HONORS, SKILLS, & ACTIVITIES Harvard Law School Wasserstein Fellow (awarded for outstanding contributions to public interest law) Proficient Spanish Speaker Recipient, Medal of Achievement, Washington Metropolitan Police Department (awarded for outstanding act that improves Department operations, results in cost savings, and furthers agency’s mission and goals) Rockwood Leadership Institute, Art of Leadership training program graduate Vice Chair (former), American Bar Association Section on Individual Rights and Responsibilities Page 5 Kelli M. Evans SELECTED SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS Witness, State Bar of California, Civil Justice Strategies Task Force Witness, U.S. House of Representatives, Judiciary Committee Hearing on Civil Liberties Witness, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Hearing on Civil Liberties Post 9/11 Witness, San Francisco Police Commission, Hearing on Tasers Guest Lecturer, Boalt Hall School of Law Guest Lecturer, Harvard Law School Guest Lecturer, Georgetown Law School Keynote Speaker, ACLU of Northern California Benefactor’s Dinner Keynote Speaker, ACLU Monterey Chapter Annual Meeting Keynote Speaker, ACLU Sacramento Chapter Annual Meeting Presenter, American Constitution Society, Public Safety Realignment Presenter, Hastings Pro Bono Orientation Presenter, Hastings Women’s Law Journal Symposium Presenter, Legal Services for Prisoners With Children, Public Safety Realignment Presenter, National Asian Pacific Bar Association Conference Presenter, National Black Police Association Presenter, National League of Cities, Public Safety Division Annual Conference Presenter, National Police Accountability Project Annual Conference Presenter, Police Pattern and Practice Litigation Ten Year Anniversary Conference Presenter, San Diego Lawmakers’ Forum on Criminal Justice Challenges and Opportunities Presenter, Stanford Law School, Black Law Students Association Forum on Criminal Justice Presenter, State Bar Annual Minority Attorneys' Conference Presenter, Women’s Foundation Forum on Criminal Justice Realignment Page 6 AYESHA BELL HARDAWAY Case Western Reserve University School of Law 11075 East Boulevard Cleveland, OH 44106 (216) 368-6360 ayesha.hardaway@case.edu SSRN: http://ssrn.com/author=2298541 ACADEMIC EMPLOYMENT Case Western Reserve University School of Law, Cleveland, OH June 2012 – present Visiting Assistant Professor of Law (2012 – present) Schubert Center for Child Studies Faculty Associate Center for Genetic Research Ethics and Law Affiliated Faculty Courses: Health Law Clinic, Civil Litigation Clinic, Criminal Justice Clinic, Public Health Law Lab, Trial Tactics Faculty Liaison EDUCATION Case Western Reserve University School of Law, Cleveland, OH Juris Doctor, 2004 Honors: • Merit Scholarship • Anderson Publishing Company Book Award • CALI Excellence for the Future Award, Criminal Justice Law Clinic • Dean's List – Spring 2003, Fall 2004, Spring 2004 The College of Wooster, Wooster, OH Bachelor of Arts, Sociology, May 1997 Honors & Activities: • Campus Leadership Award, Campus Council, Judicial Board, Dean's List OTHER LEGAL EMPLOYMENT Tucker Ellis, LLP Litigation Department CLEVELAND, OHIO Counsel Associate January 2011 – June 2012 May 2006 – December 2010 Practiced as a member of a National Coordinating Counsel team responsible for managing and organizing the defense of two major manufacturers against product liability cases throughout the country. Responsible for managing and collaborating with local counsel, defend clients’ interests from the inception of the case to completion by interviewing and preparing witnesses to be deposed, taking and defending depositions, drafting relevant motions, arguing motions before the court, conducting settlement negotiations and reporting to the client. Also practiced as defense counsel for various pharmaceutical and medical related clients in product liability and medical malpractice suits. Additional experience in defending against medical malpractice suits and pharmaceutical product liability actions in the MDL. Responsible for supervising associates and managing staff. Cuyahoga County Prosecutor, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney General Felony Unit Juvenile Division/Delinquency Juvenile Division/CSEA March 2006 – May 2006 December 2005 – March 2006 November 2004 – December 2005 Represented the State of Ohio in the prosecution of adult felony offenses, juvenile delinquency misdemeanors, and child support enforcement actions. Prosecuted cases from the beginning at the pre-trial stage through sentencing, completing discovery, subpoenaing witnesses, as well as responding to various defense motions concerning suppression and competency. Law Clerk Appellate Division May 2003 – November 2004 Worked directly with various prosecutors to research, draft and finalize appeals for a variety of criminal issues. Drafted responses to motions on issues such as habeas corpus and genetic testing. Assisted major trial prosecutors in the investigation and indictment of suspected felony offenders. Compiled and organized exhibits for felony trials. PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLICATIONS Debate, Fisher v. University of Texas – Debate on Affirmative Action, Case Western Reserve University School of Law (sponsored by Black Law Student Association) November 2012 Paper Presentation, “The Breach of the Common Law Trust” Midwest People of Color Legal Scholarship Conference, Loyola University Chicago School of Law April 2013 Invited Speaker, Annual Conference on Clinical Education “The Globalization of Legal Education: Integrating International LLM and JD Students into Litigation and Non-Litigation Clinics in the U.S.” (The Association of American Law Schools) April 27 – May 1, 2013 Moderator, Zaremski Law-Medicine Forum “The Hobby Lobby Decision: It’s Effect on Reproductive Rights and Judicial Precedent,” Case Western University School of Law September 2014 Invited Panelist and Moderator, 50th Anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act: Has America Moved Beyond Race? “Future Outlook” (Norman S. Minor Bar Association) November 2014 Moderator, The Institute for Global Security and Law Panel Discussion “Police Brutality, Race, and the Law,” Case Western University School of Law January 2015 Moderator, Zaremski Law-Medicine Forum “Will the Supreme Court Upend the Affordable Care Act?” Case Western University School of Law April 2015 Invited Panelist, “#BlackLivesMatter: Law Clinic, Field Placements and Clinical Response in Sanford, Ferguson, Staten Island, Cleveland and Our Communities” (The Association of American Law Schools) May 2015 Paper Presentation and Discussion, “The Paradox of the Right to Contract” The Association of American Law Schools May 2015 Panelist, Sesquicentennial Conference: The Thirteenth Amendment through the Lens of Class and Labor Symposium “The Paradox of the Right to Contract,” Seattle University School of Law June 2015 The Breach of the Common Law Trust Relationship between The United States and African Americans – A Substantive Right to Reparations, 39.3 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change (forthcoming 2015) Compensating Fact Witness: Unpatriotic or Commonplace Practice? – For the Defense, April 2010 BAR MEMBERSHIP State of Ohio, 2004 United States District Court Northern District of Ohio, 2009 INSTITUTIONAL SERVICE Admissions Committee (2014 – present) Alumni Admissions Interviews (2013-2015) PROFESSIONAL/CIVIC AFFILIATIONS • United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio Advisory Group (2013 – present) • Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association Stokes Scholars Internship Program Co-Chair (2011-2015) 3Rs Team Leader and Team Member (2007-2010) Mock Trial Competition Coach (2008-2009) • Norman S. Minor Bar Association • Cleveland Rape Crisis Center, Board of Directors and Executive Committee • Go Red for Women – American Heart Association, Corporate Leadership Team (2008-2010) • Olivet Housing and Community Development Corporation (2014 – present) • The College of Wooster Alumni Board • Eighth District Judicial Committee, Lifetime Member (2013 – present) Timothy John Longo, Sr. 1114 St. Charles Court Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Education: • • • University of Baltimore, School of Law Juris Doctor, 1993 Towson University Bachelor of Science, 1985 Senior Management Institute for Police, P.E.R.F. Boston, 1997 Employment: • City of Charlottesville, Virginia Chief of Police 2001- Present The Charlottesville Police Department has an authorized strength of 119 sworn police officers and 39 civilian support personnel. The department’s annual budget is approximately 14 million dollars. Our community of approximately 40,000 residents is home to three of our nation’s Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello estate, and the nationally renowned University of Virginia. As the Chief of Police, I serve as the Chief Law Enforcement Official for the city and have responsibility for the leadership of a corps of highly professional police officers, a commitment to our community policing philosophy, adherence to state accreditation standards, management of modern computerized incident reporting systems, and the coordination of a host of specialized units. The collaboration of these systems, processes, and people has resulted in measurable crime reductions, a renewed trust and confidence in policing, and a better quality of life for our citizens. • PSComm, LLC Rockville, Maryland Senior Associate April 2000-February 2001 PSComm, LLC was a global strategic management-consulting firm formerly based in Rockville, Maryland. The consulting division provided organizational analysis, strategic planning, technical systems and policy development to public sector agencies, with a particular emphasis on law enforcement. I served as project 1 coordinator for the District of Columbia and the Metropolitan Police Department’s Communications Technology initiatives. • City of Baltimore Police Department Colonel/Chief, Technical Services June 1981-March 2000 June 1999-March 2000- Colonel/Chief of Technical Services As Chief, I was responsible for leading a team of sworn and civilian professionals in the efficient operation of the Communications, Records, Management Information, and Property Divisions. Within these divisions existed projects in excess of 100 million dollars, to include implementation of a state of the art Communications Center, and the mass renovations of the existing Police Headquarters Building. Dec. 1998-June 1999- Chief of Staff/Office of the Police Commissioner As Chief of Staff to Police Commissioner Thomas C. Frazier, my responsibilities included ensuring the proper and efficient operation of the Chief Executive’s office, review of pending discipline, and management oversight of projects forwarded to the Bureau Chiefs for action. Dec. 1996-Dec. 1998- Major/Commanding Officer, Southeastern District As district commander for the city’s most diverse community, I was responsible for the leadership of 204 sworn officers, the efficient deployment of operational resources, management of an 11 million dollar budget, and implementation and management oversight of several community outreach initiatives. Sep. 1995-Dec. 1996- Major/Director Communications Division The city’s 9-1-1 center is housed in the Baltimore Police Department Headquarters and is staffed by approximately 200 Emergency Communications personnel. During my tenure as the Director, I was tasked with the implementation of the nation’s first three digit non-emergency number (3-1-1). The infrastructure of this system was developed by AT&T and was funded by the Department of Justice. As a result of this initiative, the department received the prestigious Weber Seavey Award and has served a model for cities across America. Apr.1993-Sep. 1995- Detective Lieutenant, Internal Investigations Division, Special Investigations Section. The Special Investigations Section focused on serious violations of departmental rules and regulations, violations of criminal laws, abuse of authority, and the use of deadly force. While this unit engaged in aggressive and proactive Internal Affairs activity that focused on the identification and detection of police corruption, it worked just as diligently to protect the reputation and integrity of the department and its membership. 2 Jan.1993-Apr. 1993- Lieutenant/Shift Commander, Northwestern District As a shift commander, I was responsible for the leadership of a platoon of 50 uniformed police officers. In addition to the efficient deployment of these operational resources, I was responsible for the identification of emerging crime trends and the implementation of strategies aimed at aggressively addressing those without compromising the constitutional rights of our citizens. 1992-1993- Sergeant, Central District In this capacity, I was responsible for the supervision and management of the district’s booking facility and related patrol staff, and the investigation of command level cases forwarded for inquiry by the Internal Investigation Division. 1990-1992- Police Agent/Sergeant, Education and Training Division Served as the department’s primary law instructor for recruit, in-service, and command level training. 1987-1990- Police Agent, Central District Drug and Vice Enforcement Unit Responsible for the investigation of street level drug and vice related activity. 1984-1987- Police Officer, Central District Assigned to the patrol division in the Murphy and Lexington Terrace Public Housing complexes. 1981-1983- Police Cadet Served in an administrative support capacity in the Central Records and Internal Investigations Divisions. Special Duties and Accomplishments: 1984199619972000- Recipient of Police Commissioner’s Award of Excellence Operational Design and Implementation of 3-1-1 Webber Seavey Award Recipient Appointed Chairman, State of Maryland, Emergency Numbers Systems Board (2000-2001) 2001- Appointed Chief of Police, City of Charlottesville, Virginia 2003- 2007 – Served as part of a team of Independent Monitors on behalf of the Department of Justice for the City of Cincinnati 2007- Consultant, Lecturer, and Sub-Contractor- Public Agency Training Council, Legal Liability and Risk Management Institute 3 Instructor/Trainer: Baltimore Police Department (Past) Maryland Police and Correctional Training Commission (Past) Maryland Chiefs of Police (Past) Benchmark Professional Seminars (Past) Leadership Training Associates (Past) Center for American and International Law, Plano, Texas Johns Hopkins University (Guest Lecturer) (Past) Towson University (Adjunct Professor) (Past) Public Agency Training Council, Indianapolis, Indiana University of Virginia, School of Law (Guest Lecturer) University of Virginia, Darden School of Business (Guest Lecturer) University of Virginia, Sorensen Institute for Political Leadership (Guest Lecturer) Center for the Constitution at James Madison’s Montpelier (Adjunct Faculty) Rutherford Institute (Summer Institute Guest Lecturer) Agency Audits: Washington DC, Metropolitan Police Department, Communications Division (2000) City of Pasadena, California Police Department, Communications Division (2000) City of Denver, Colorado Police Department, Internal Affairs Division (2000) City of Ft. Lauderdale Police Department, Use of Force (2007) City of Hartford, Connecticut Police Department (2008) Belmont, Ohio Sheriff’s Office (2009) Publications: Virginia Search and Seizure for Law Enforcement Officer, Lexis-Nexis, 5th,, 6th , and 7th Editions 4 Depositions/Trial Testimony Disclosure: Kolhoff v. Fuchs, No. 08-cv-05780, United States District Court, District of Minnesota Huthnance v. Disrict of Columbia et al, No. 06-ca-1871 (RCL), United States District Court, District of Columbia State of Rhode Island v. Robert DeCarlo, Ind. No. P1/10-06440A, Superior Court, State of Rhode Island. Burr v Ohio State Highway Patrol, No. 2009-04688, Court of Common Claims of Ohio. Jude v. Milwaukee, No. 06—cv-1101, United States District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin. Garcia v. Daniel, No. 1:11-cv-1226, United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia. Gambrill et al v Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas, 2:11-cv-02699 RDR-KGG Doe v. City of San Diego et al, 12-cv-00689 MMA Coates v. Montgomery County, MD., et al, 12-cv-03055-AW, United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Ross v. City of Philadelphia, No. 4023, Court of Common Pleas, County of Philadelphia. Flythe v. District of Columbia, No. 1:10-cv-02021 (RBW), United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Professional & Fraternal Affiliations: International Association of Chiefs of Police Virginia Chiefs of Police Association, Immediate Past-President Charlottesville Police Foundation, Board of Directors, Ex Officio Virginia Law Enforcement Professional Standards Commission, Past- Chair Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail, Board Member Chair, Community Criminal Justice Services Board 5 Personal: Married to Robin Jeannette Longo. Father of Timothy (27), Alexandra (24), (17), and (15). . 6 Robert M. Saltzman Home Address                             USC Professional Address Professor  of  Lawyering  Skills   USC  Gould  School  of  Law   699  Exposition  Boulevard,  MC  0071   Los  Angeles,  CA  90089-­‐0071   213-­‐740-­‐2591   rsaltzma@law.usc.edu   Current Employment and Professional Activities   Associate Dean, University of Southern California Gould School of Law  (June  1988  to   2015)       Professor of Lawyering Skills  (2015-­‐present)   Adjunct Professor of Law  (1999  to  2015)   Adjunct Associate Professor of Law  (1992-­‐1999)     Law  school  officer  whose  current  responsibilities  include  teaching  and  supervision   of  the  Academic  Support  Program.    Past  responsibilities  have  included:  supervision   of  admissions  and  student  recruitment,  registration  and  records,  financial  aid  and   scholarships,  career  services,  and  student  activities,  conduct  and  bar  certification;   supervision  of  a  staff  of  15  including  the  Dean  for  Admissions  and  Enrollment   Services,  Dean  of  Students,  Dean  for  Career  Services,  the  Director  of  Admissions,  the   Director  of  Financial  Aid,  the  Registrar  and  Director  of  Registration  and  Records,   Director  of  Student  Affairs,  and  the  Director  of  Academic  Support;  and  frequent   interaction  with  students,  faculty,  staff,  graduates,  news  media  and  the  public.         Notable  accomplishments  include:    significant  success  in  recruitment  of  ethnically   and  racially  diverse  student  body  within  limited  budget;  public  presentations  and   publications  in  support  of  affirmative  action  in  law  school  admissions  and  diversity   in  law  school  enrollments;  creation  of  Academic  Support  Program  designed  to  foster   academic  success  by  lower-­‐performing  students.     Courses  taught:   • Legal  Analysis  of  Evidence  (2004-­‐2006;  2010-­‐present)   • Professional  Responsibility;  the  Regulation  of  Lawyers  (2002-­‐2006;  2011-­‐ 2013)   • Legislation/Statutory  Interpretation  (1992-­‐2000)       2   Police Commissioner, Los Angeles Police Department Board of Police Commissioners   (November  2007  to  present;  appointed  by  Mayor  Antonio  Villaraigosa  and  confirmed  by   the  Los  Angeles  City  Council  in  November,  2007;  reappointed  and  re-­‐confirmed  in  August,   2011;  currently  serving  under  Mayor  Eric  Garcetti  with  term  expiring  June  30,  2016)     • The  Los  Angeles  Board  of  Police  Commissioners    (“Police  Commission”)  is  a  five-­‐ member  Commission  created  under  the  Los  Angeles  City  Charter  and  charged  with   providing  civilian  oversight  of  the  Los  Angeles  Police  Department  (LAPD).    The   Commission  determines  policy  for  the  LAPD  including  appropriate  uses  of  force,   counter-­‐terrorism,  Constitutional  and  community  policing,  and  diversity  and  outreach.         • The  Commission  selects  candidates  for  appointment  as  Chief.  The  Commission   evaluates  the  performance  of  the  Chief  of  Police  quarterly  and  annually.    The   Commission  determines  whether  to  reappoint  the  Chief  at  the  end  of  one  five-­‐year   term.    The  Commission  has  the  authority  remove  the  Chief  of  Police     • The  Police  Commission  adjudicates  all  serious  uses  of  force  by  the  LAPD  to  determine  if   actions  were  within  LAPD  policy.    These  adjudications  include  all  officer-­‐involved   shootings  and  all  significant  uses  of  force  that  result  in  hospitalization  or  death.    Many   adjudications  also  include  uses  of  less-­‐lethal  force.    The  adjudications  reach  conclusions   regarding  tactics,  drawing  and  exhibiting,  and  use  of  lethal  force.    The  Commission   adjudicates  between  100  and  150  use-­‐of-­‐force  cases  each  year.    (While  serving  on  the   Commission,  Saltzman  has  participated  in  over  800  use-­‐of-­‐force  adjudications.)     • The  Commission  appoints  and  oversees  the  LAPD  Inspector  General  charged  with   investigation  and  evaluation  of  all  aspects  of  conduct  of  the  LAPD,  including  personnel   complaints  and  resulting  litigation;  allegations  of  use  of  excessive  force;  charges  of   biased  policing;  and  overall  compliance  with  the  terms  of  the  Los  Angeles/United  States   Department  of  Justice  Consent  Decree  and  the  requirements  of  Constitutional  Policing.       • The  Commission  sets  policy  for  the  LAPD.    Examples  of  such  enacted  policies  include:     o Determination  that  the  evaluation  of  on  officer’s  use  of  force  should  include  the   totality  of  the  circumstances,  including  tactical  conduct  and  decisions  made   preceding  the  use  of  deadly  force.   o Establishment  of  limited  circumstances  in  which  shooting  at  a  moving  vehicle  is   within  policy.   o Evaluation  of  aggregate  data  regarding  allegations  of  biased  policing  (including   “racial  profiling”)  and  evaluation  of  LAPD  response  to  charges  of  biased  policing.   o Oversight  and  evaluation  of  training  and  policies  regarding  interaction  with   individuals  with  mental  health  issues,  autism,  communication  limitations  and   other  disabilities.     • The  Commission  employs  a  staff  of  100  employees  (including    those  of  the  Inspector   General  (33),  Commission  Investigation  Division  (43),  and  Commission  support  staff).   3   Commissioner, White House Commission on Presidential Scholars  (August  2011  to   present;  appointed  by  President  Barack  Obama)     Commission  is  advisory  to  the  White  House  and  the  Department  of  Education,  and   responsible  for  selection  of  Presidential  Scholars  from  among  candidates  who   demonstrate  exceptional  accomplishments  in  academics,  the  arts,  and  an   outstanding  commitment  to  public  service.    The  Presidential  Scholars  represent   excellence  in  education  and  are  honored  by  the  President  at  a  White  House   ceremony.     Director, Board of Directors of the Gay and Lesbian Victory Institute  (2005-­‐2014)     The  Gay  and  Lesbian  Victory  Institute  (GLVI)  is  a  non-­‐partisan,  tax-­‐exempt   educational  and  research  organization  whose  mission  is  to  increase  the  number  of   lesbian,  gay,  bisexual  and  transgender  people  in  public  office.    Through  its  training   and  professional  development  programs,  GLVI  helps  qualified  individuals  to  pursue   influential  careers  in  politics,  government,  and  advocacy.     Member, Board of Advisers of the David Bohnett Foundation  (1999-­‐present)     The  David  Bohnett  Foundation  is  a  non-­‐profit  foundation  dedicated  to  improving   society  through  social  activism.  The  Foundation  provides  funding,  state-­‐of-­‐the-­‐art   technology  and  technical  support  to  innovative  organizations  and  institutions.             4   Past Employment and Professional Activities    Trustee, Law School Admission Council  (1994-­‐1997;  2009-­‐2011)     The  Law  School  Admission  Council  (LSAC)  is  a  non-­‐profit  association  of  American   and  Canadian  law  schools  that  administers  the  Law  School  Admission  Test  and   provides  data  and  logistical  support  to  law  schools  and  applicants  to  law  schools  for   the  admissions  process.    Notable  activities  included  service  on  the  Governance   Restructuring  Task  Force,  Finance  and  Legal  Affairs  Committee,  serving  as  chair  of   the  Committee  on  Misconduct  and  Irregularities  in  the  Admission  Process,  service   on  the  Test  Development  and  Research  Committee,  and  serving  as  chair  of  the  Skills   Readiness  Inventory  Subcommittee  (charged  with  creating  a  testing  instrument  to   assist  potential  law  school  applicants  in  assessing  their  readiness  for  law  school),   serving  as  chair  of  the  committee  charged  with  planning  and  teaching  the  annual   training  workshop  for  law  school  admissions  professionals,  and  serving  as  chair  of   the  committee  charged  with  planning  the  annual  meeting  and  educational   conference.     Ethics Commissioner, Los Angeles City Ethics Commission  (August,  2005-­‐October,   2007;  appointed  by  Mayor  Antonio  Villaraigosa  and  confirmed  by  the  Los  Angeles  City   Council)     Vice  President,  Los  Angeles  City  Ethics  Commission  (July,  2007-­‐October,  2007;   resigned  from  the  Ethics  Commission  when  appointed  to  the  Los  Angeles  Police   Commission.)     Five-­‐member  commission  charged  with  enforcement  of  the  Los  Angeles  City   campaign  finance  and  disclosure  regulations.    Regulated  individuals  include  all  Los   Angeles  City  elected  officials  and  many  senior  Los  Angeles  City  employees.   Board Member, Board of Visitors of the Rockefeller Center for Education and Research in Public Policy and Civic Leadership, Dartmouth College  (1994-­‐2000)     The  Rockefeller  Center  supports  interdisciplinary  public  policy  research,  teaching   and  deliberation,  and  prepares  students  for  lives  of  leadership  and  service.       Special Counsel to the Director of Health Services, Los Angeles County    (January  1985   to  May  1988)         Senior  Staff  to  Director  of  a  complex  public  agency  responsible  for  operation  of   multiple  public  hospitals  and  health  centers,  and  public  health  services.    Principal   responsibilities  included  advising  Health  Services  Director  and  senior  managers  on   hospital  and  public  health  issues  facing  the  Department  and  the  County  Board  of   Supervisors.    During  1987,  accepted  special  assignment  as  Director  of  AIDS   Programs  charged  with  hiring  staff  and  creating  a  multi-­‐million-­‐dollar  budget  for   coordinating  AIDS-­‐  and  HIV-­‐related  services  and  programs.     5     Senior Deputy to Los Angeles County Supervisor Edmund D. Edelman    (February  1981   to  December  1984)     Senior  staff  to  elected  official  responsible  for  policy  counsel  regarding  legal  and   justice  matters  (including  Sheriff,  District  Attorney,  Public  Defender  and  Trial   Courts),  labor  relations,  provision  of  senior  and  low-­‐income  housing,  various   community  matters  including  LGBT  concerns.     Adjunct Assistant Professor of Law, USC Law School    (August  1980  to  June  1981)       Courses  Taught:    Legal  Writing  and  Analysis     Attorney, Holme, Roberts & Owen, Colorado Springs, Colorado      (September  1979  to   May  1980)                     Educational and Personal Data   Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts J.D.,  1979     • Student  Member,  Harvard  Law  School  Faculty  Committee  on  Career  Placement   • Third-­‐Year  Paper  Topic:    Indemnification  of  Corporate  Officers  and  Directors   under  the  Amended  Colorado  Corporate  Code   • Member,  Student  Advisory  Committee,  Institute  of  Politics,  John  F.  Kennedy   School  of  Government     Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire A.B.  1976,  Summa  Cum  Laude,  Phi  Beta  Kappa     • Graduated  with  Highest  Distinction  in  Department  of  Government     • (James  Fairbanks  Colby  Prize)   • Honors  Major  in  Government   • Senior  Fellowship  Thesis,  "To  Run  and  To  Wait:    The  U.S.  Vice  Presidency."     • (Eight  Senior  Fellows  were  selected  from  a  senior  class  of  950.    The   Senior  Fellowship  involved  independent  research  and  writing  under  the   supervision  of  a  senior  member  of  the  faculty.    My  research  included  an   interview  of  then  Vice  President  Nelson  Rockefeller.)   • Student  intern  to  Dartmouth  President  John  G.  Kemeny   • Recipient  of  Public  Service  Internship  financial  stipend   • Rufus  Choate  scholar  (Dean's  List):    1972-­‐1976   • Citations  for  Academic  Excellence  in  courses  in  American  Government  and   National  Policy  Economics   • Andrew  Edson  Prize  for  outstanding  work  in  American  Government   • Elected  President  of  Freshman  Class  Council   • Student  Member  of  Faculty  Committees  on:    Educational  Planning;     Freshman  Year;  and  Housing  Priorities   • Elected  to  5-­‐year  membership:    1976  Class  Executive  Council  (1976-­‐1981)   • Awarded  Dartmouth  General  Fellowship  to  support  graduate  study     Born:    November  16,  1954,  in  Bloomington,  Indiana     Admitted  to  practice  law  in  California  (1981;  active)  and  Colorado  (1979;  currently   inactive)   • Member:     • American  Bar  Association   • State  Bar  of  California   • State  Bar  of  Colorado  (Inactive)   • Los  Angeles  County  Bar  Association   • Lesbian  &  Gay  Lawyers  Association  of  Los  Angeles   6     7   Presentations     “LAPD,  Reform  and  Los  Angeles,”  presented  at  the  USC  Sidney  Harman  Academy  for   Polymathic  Study  (January  14,  2015).     “Civic  Leadership  and  Reforms  in  the  LAPD,”  presented  to  the  Los  Angeles  Service  Academy   of  the  Huntington-­‐USC  Institute  on  California  and  the  West  (November  9,  2013).     “LAPD+LGBTQ:    Taking  Stock  of  Progress  Made,”  presented  at  Southwestern  Law  School,   Southwestern  Law  Review  Symposium,  “40  Years  of  LGBT  Legal  Activism;  Taking  Stock  and   Looking  Ahead,”  (Febrary  8,  2013).     “The  Role  of  Civilian  Oversight  in  Improvement  of  LAPD’s  Relationships  with  Minority   Communities  in  Los  Angeles,”  presented  at  the  National  Association  for  the  Civilian   Oversight  of  Law  Enforcement  (NACOLE)  national  conference  (September,  2011).       Presentation  made  at  Dartmouth  College  in  November  2009:    “Reform  in  the  LAPD;  Lessons   Learned.”     Presentations  on  “Constitutional  Policing  and  the  LAPD”  made  to  various  community  and   academic  groups  (2007-­‐present)     Presentations  made  at  Association  of  American  Law  Schools,  Law  School  Admission   Council,  and  Pre-­‐Law  Advisers’  National  Council  conferences  on  the  following  topics  (1988-­‐ present):       • Affirmative  Action  and  Legal  Education   • Disabilities  Issues  in  Law  School  Admissions  and  Student  Services   • Developments  in  the  Legal  Job  Market     • Preparing  for  Standardized  Tests             8   Publications   “LAPD+LGBTQ:    Taking  Stock  of  Progress  Made.”    Southwestern  Law  Review;  Volume  42,   #4  (at  795);  Fall  2013.     “Time  for  LAPD  to  do  the  Right  Thing  on  Discrimination.”    LAObserved.Com  (Op-­‐Ed),   October  14,  2009.     “Respect  for  Civilian  Oversight  a  Key  Priority  for  LAPD  and  Chief  Beck.”    The  Los  Angeles   Daily  News  (Op-­‐Ed),  November  19,  2009.     “What  Would  Homer  Do?:  Bringing  Professionalism  to  Legal  Education  and  Beyond.”  USC   Law  16  (Summer  2002).     “The  Big  Lie  about  Affirmative  Action.”    The  Boston  Globe  (Op-­‐Ed)  A15  (May  11,  1998).     “Affirmative  Action  in  Law  School  Admissions  and  Legal  Employment:  Facts,  Observations,   and  Suggestions  for  Gatekeepers.”    Insights:  Issues  and  Opportunities  for  Law  Deans  and   Hiring  Attorneys  12  (1998).     “Race  and  Law  Schools.”    105  Commentary  5  (April,  1998).     “We  Want  Students  with  Drive  and  Compassion.”    Newsweek:  How  to  Get  Into  Graduate   School  (1998).     “Report  of  the  Liaison  to  Pre-­‐Law  Advisors’  National  Council.”    National  Association  for  Law   Placement  Annual  Review  (1992-­‐1993),  at  23.     “Report  from  the  National  Association  for  Law  Placement.”    Newsletter  of  the  Pre-­‐Law   Advisors  National  Council  #1  (spring,  1993),  at  6;  reprinted  at  I  Midwest  Association  of   Pre-­‐Law  Advisors  “Briefs”  #2  (Summer  1993),  at  5.     “Judge  with  AIDS  Will  Enlighten  Us  About  the  Disease.”    The  Los  Angeles  Daily  Journal,   December  26,  1991  at  7.                       9   Additional Professional and Civic Honors and Activities   Member  of  the  Board  of  Directors  of  the  Gay  and  Lesbian  Victory  Fund  (2001-­‐2005).     Member  of  the  Board  of  Directors  of  the  Gay  and  Lesbian  Victory  Institute  (2005-­‐2014)     Member  of  the  Dartmouth  College  Alumni  Council  (2000-­‐2003).     Member  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  of  the  National  Association  for  Law  Placement   Foundation,  the  non-­‐profit  association  of  law  schools  and  legal  employers  dedicated  to   expanding  legal  professional  opportunities  in  the  public  interest  (1999-­‐2002).     Member  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  of  the  Los  Angeles  Gay  &  Lesbian  Center,  the  nation's   largest  community  center  serving  the  LGBT  community  (1999-­‐2001).     Twice  awarded  Honor  presented  by  the  Black  Law  Students’  Association  in  recognition  of   efforts  and  success  in  recruiting  an  ethnically  and  racially  diverse  student  body  (1995  and   again  in  1999).     Appointed  by  the  National  Association  for  Law  Placement  as  Liaison  to  the  Pre-­‐Law   Advisers’  National  Council,  professional  organization  devoted  to  assisting  college  students   interested  in  law  school  (1992-­‐1994).     Member  of  the  Association  of  American  Law  Schools  (AALS)  Student  Services  Section   (1990-­‐present),  member  of  the  Section  Nominating  Committee  (1992),  and  Director  at   Large  (1993).     Member  of  the  AALS  Section  on  Pre-­‐Legal  Education  and  Admission  to  Law  School  (1990-­‐ present),  Section  Secretary  (1993),  Vice-­‐Chair  (1994)  and  Chair  (1995).     Received  Honor  awarded  by  the  USC  Law  School  Student  Bar  Association  in  recognition  of   efforts  to  create  a  "humane  and  meaningful  academic  environment"  at  the  Law  School   (1989).     Member  of  the  State  Bar  of  California  Loan  Forgiveness  Task  Force  charged  with   encouraging  expansion  of  loan  forgiveness  programs  for  law  students  in  California  (1990-­‐ 93).     Member  of  the  Finance  and  Planning  Committee  of  the  Los  Angeles  County  Commission  on   AIDS  charged  with  advising  County  government  on  AIDS  funding  priorities  (1990-­‐92).     Ellen Scrivner, Ph.D. (239) 472-6262 (202) 669-2100 Cell 2959 West Gulf Drive #102 Sanibel Island, FL 33957 PROFESSIONAL RESUME Ellen Scrivner, Ph.D., ABPP, was appointed by President Obama to serve as the Deputy Director of the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. September 2009-June 2011. At NIJ, participated on the OJP Leadership Team and provided oversight for NIJ Research, Development and Technology Divisions. Served as the NIJ liaison to the Civil Rights Division (CRD/DOJ) while coordinating the National Roundtable convened to discuss DOJ’s Police Pattern and Practice Program and Authority under 42 USC Section 14141 (June 2010).Also participated on DOJ’s Team assigned to investigate the New Orleans Police Department and contributed to the final Consent Decree. In June, 2011, continued as a political appointee and assumed the director position for a national program (High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Program--HIDTA), Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), Executive Office of the President (EOP), Washington, DC. Served as Director until leaving government service (June, 2012). Recently appointed as an Executive Fellow at the Police Foundation, Washington, DC. and engaged as a Subject Matter Expert in Police Reform Initiatives and as a member of the PARC Monitoring Team. Career Highlights: A thirty year career in the public sector has been characterized by executive level expertise and a track record for creating innovative public safety initiatives that respond to pressing criminal justice needs. Held a key position on the initial team that created a new federal agency, the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office), U.S. Department of Justice, and subsequently was appointed as the COPS Office Deputy Director for Community Policing Development. As a national expert on police behavior and community policing, oversaw a billion dollar grant program that provided funding to 75 percent of police chiefs and sheriffs in the country. Had oversight for all training and technical assistance initiatives, all applied research, the police technology program, and COPS in Schools. Following an Assistant Director appointment to the COPS Office Executive Management Team, developed the Training and Technical Assistance Division and created a national training strategy that launched a nationwide network of innovative Regional Community Policing Institutes designed to deliver state-of-the-art learning opportunities. This program is frequently referred to as a major legacy of the COPS Office and has trained significant numbers of officers and deputies across the country and produced over 500 training products. 1 Provided oversight for the COPS Office Police Integrity Initiative and coordinated U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno’s National Conference and Presidential Roundtable: Strengthening Police and Community Relationships (1999). Additional responsibilities included oversight for all COPS Office racial profiling initiatives, programs funding Best Practices in Policing, the COPS Conference series, and the Police CEO Symposia. Provided leadership in developing national crime policy to advance and institutionalize community policing and subsequently linked this predominant policing strategy to homeland security. Acknowledged as national expert on policing issues and enjoys wide name recognition throughout the policing field. Post September 11, assisted the Federal Bureau of Investigation in developing the Office of Law Enforcement Coordination (OLEC) and held Top Secret (TS) security clearance. From 2004-2007, served as Deputy Superintendent, Bureau of Administrative Services, City of Chicago Police Department and from 2007-2009, served as the Director of the John Jay Leadership Academy, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York and was on the doctoral faculty. In April, 2009, was selected to moderate Attorney General Eric Holder’s Law Enforcement Summit, U.S. Department of Justice. Prior to experience as a senior Federal official, developed significant expertise with local and Federal law enforcement. Developed the first Police Psychological Services Program in the Metropolitan Washington area, served on the Command Staff of an urban county police department, and achieved national recognition of professional contributions through a Visiting Fellow appointment at the National Institute of Justice, U.S. DOJ. Recognized for leadership in the American Psychological Association (APA) and elected by peers to APA Division offices including President of Division 18, Psychologists in Public Service. Published author, keynote speaker and recognized facilitation skills. Licensed Psychologist: Maryland, License No. 02221 1987-Present Board Certification in Police and Public Safety Psychology 2013-Present Professional History: 2014-Current Subject Matter Expert (SME) on Early Intervention Systems for the Office of Justice Programs (OJP/DOJ); and SME on Leadership for the Bureau of Justice 2 Assistance (BJA/OJP/DOJ), Police Leadership Executive Sessions. 2013-Current Member of the PARC Monitoring Team and engaged in monitoring the City of Seattle and the Seattle Police Department’s compliance with the US Department of Justice Settlement Agreement. December 2012-Current Executive Fellow, Police Foundation, Washington, DC. June 2011-2012: National HIDTA Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of the President (EOP) Sept. 2009-June 2011: Deputy Director, National Institute of Justice (NIJ), U.S. Dept. of Justice. February 2007-2009: Director, John Jay Leadership Academy John Jay College of Criminal Justice, Member, Doctoral Faculty July 2004–January 2007: Deputy Superintendent, Bureau of Administrative Services, Chicago Police Department. May 2003-July 2004: Public Safety Innovations-Law Enforcement and Homeland Security Consultant. Consulting Contracts included: - Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Office of Law Enforcement Coordination (OLEC) - Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) - Police Foundation, Washington DC. - Community Policing Consortium, Washington, DC - Voxiva, Washington, DC. - Caliber Research, Fairfax, Virginia. - International Association of Chiefs Of Police (IACP), Alexandria, Virginia - Center of Naval Analysis (CNA), Policy Research Center, Alexandria, Virginia. 3 - City of Lowell, MA Police Dept; City of Los Angeles Police Department - City of Chattanooga, Tennessee (Mayor’s Office) Doctoral Faculty (2008-2009): City University of New York, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, NY. Adjunct Professor (2006): University of Illinois at Chicago. Department of Criminal Justice. Critical Issues in Law Enforcement. Senior Research Associate (2003-2004): Center for the Management of Risk Behavior, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC. Adjunct Professor (2004): George Mason University, Department of Public Administration. Leadership: Theory and Practice. September 2002-May 2003. Detail to Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), FBI Director’s Office, U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, D.C. June 2000-2002. Deputy Director, Community Policing Development. Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, D.C. July 1999-2000. Acting Deputy Director, Community Policing Development, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services U.S. Department of Justice. Washington D.C. 1996-1999. Assistant Director, Training & Technical Assistance Division, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. Washington D.C. 1994-1996. Section Chief, Grants Administration Division, office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, D.C. 1992-1994. Visiting Fellow, National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice 1993-1994. Adjunct Faculty, Institute of Criminal Justice, University of Maryland. College Park, Maryland. 1985-1995. Guest Lecturer, FBI Academy, Quantico, Virginia. 1987-1992. Director, Psychological Services Division. Prince George’s County Police Department, Prince George’s County, Maryland. Program Development and Training (1983-1992): 4 FBI Academy, Behavioral Sciences Unit, Quantico, Virginia. Drug Enforcement Administration, Washington, D.C. U.S. Secret Service, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Inspector General, Washington D.C. Prince George’s County Police Department, Landover, Maryland. The Halen Group, Greenbelt, Maryland Human Technology, Inc. Arlington, Virginia. Fairfax County Police Department, Fairfax, Virginia. 1985. Post-Doctoral Training (Police Psychology) Prince George’s County Police Department, Psychological Services Unit; Halen Group, Greenbelt, Maryland. Professional Affiliations: American Psychological Association Member-APA Task Force on Workplace Violence (2001-2003). Member-APA Governance, Committee on Urban Initiatives (1998-2001) President-Division 18 Psychologists in Public Services (1992) Past Chair, Division 18 Task Force on Workplace Violence (1992) Secretary-Treasurer, Division 18 Psychologists in Pubic Service (1988-1990) APA Consultant: Commission on Youth and Violence (1992-1993) Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family (1993-1994) Steering Committee: Violence Research Agenda-Human Capital Initiative, (1994-1995) Provided Congressional Testimony on Police Family Stress to U.S. House Of Representatives, Select Committee on Children, Youth, & Families, (May, 1991) Member: Maryland Psychological Association. (2000-2012) Other Affiliations: Member, Steering Committee, Executive Sessions on Policing and Public Safety, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, (2010-2011) Board of Trustees, Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC), Los Angeles, CA. (2005-2009). 5 Advisory Board, Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC), New York, N.Y. (2003-2009). Image and Ethics Committee. International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP). (2006-2009) Institutional Review Board (IRB). Police Foundation, Washington, D.C. (2003-2009). Counter-Terrorism Training Working Group. U.S. Department of Justice. (2001-2004). Co-Chair: Steering Committee for SafeCities Initiative. (2000-2002) Executive Board. Community Policing Consortium. (1997-2002) Advisory Board. Criminal Intelligence Sharing Summit IACP. (January-June 2002). Member: Advisory Board. Domestic Violence in Police Families. IACP. (1998-2004). Honors and Awards: Who’s Who of America: 2013. O.W. Wilson Award (2010) for Outstanding Contributions to Police Education, Research and Practice, Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences. Who’s Who of American Women. (2006-Current). Women of Courage and Vision Award. U.S. Department of Justice (2001). U.S. Attorney General’s Appointment: Task Force on Police Misconduct. (19952000). Lifetime Achievement Award for Service to Policing. Women in Policing 2000). Distinguished Service Award. Division 18, American Psychological Association (1990). Chiefs Award (1987; 1991; 1992). Prince George’s County Police Department. Recognition for Dedicated Service (1992). Prince George’s County Council, Prince George’s County, Maryland. 6 Dissertation Award (1984). Delegate to NATO Conference. Skiathos, Greece. National Science Foundation, Washington, DC... EDUCATION: St. Louis University St. Louis, Missouri B.S. Psychology St. Louis University St. Louis Missouri M.S. Psychology Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C. PhD. Psychology Doctoral Dissertation: Eyewitness Memory for Violent Events PUBLICATIONS: y Scrivner, E., Tynan, W.D. & Cornell. (2013). What Works: Gun Violence Prevention at the Community Level in Gun Violence: Prediction, Prevention, and Policy. APA Panel of Experts Report. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC. Scrivner, E., Corey, D. & Greene, L. (2013). Law Enforcement and Psychology. In I.B. Weiner & R. Otto (Eds.) Handbook of Forensic Psychology, 4th Edition: New York, Wiley & Sons. Batts, A.W., Smoot, S.J. & Scrivner, E. (2012). Police Leadership Challenges in a Changing World. Harvard Executive Session, NIJ New Perspectives Bulletin, NCJ 238338. Melekian, B. & Scrivner, E. (2011). The Evolution of Community Policing: The Case for Procedural Justice. Subject to Debate, PERF Newsletter, Washington, DC. Scrivner, Ellen. (2008). Public Safety Leadership Development: A 21st Century Imperative. John Jay Leadership Academy Monograph. John Jay College of Criminal Justice. New York, NY Scrivner, E.M. (2007).Recruitment and Hiring in Law Enforcement: Crisis or an Opportunity for Change? In The Challenge to Lead: Issues in Law Enforcement Leadership. The Center for American and International Law. Plano, TX. 7 Scrivner, E.M. (2005). Building Training Capacity for Homeland Security: Lessons Learned from Community Policing. The Police Chief, October, 26-30. Scrivner, E.M. (2005). Innovations in Recruitment and Hiring. Community Policing Consortium Monograph; U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC. . Scrivner, E.M. (2005). Law Enforcement Psychology. In A.K. Hess & I.B. Weiner (Eds). The Handbook of Forensic Psychology, 3rd Edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Scrivner, E.M. (2003). When the Community is the Victim. Networks, National Center for Victims of Crime. Winter/Spring 12-13. Scrivner, E.M. (2003). The Impact of September 11 on Community Policing. In L. Fridell & M. Wycoff (Eds. The Future of Community Policing. PERF Monograph: Washington, D.C. Scrivner, E.M. (2002) Psychology and Policing: A Dynamic Partnership. Monitor on Psychology. June 66. Kurke, M.I., and Scrivner, E.M. (Eds) 1995. Police Psychology into the 21st Century, Hillsdale. N.J: Earlbaum. Reese, J.T. & Scrivner, E. (1995). Law Enforcement Families: Issues and Answers, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Scrivner, E.M. & Reese, J.T. (1995). Family Issues with No Easy Answers. In Reese, J.T. & Scrivner, E.M. (eds.), Law Enforcement Families: Issues and Answers, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Governing Printing Office. Scrivner, E.M. (1994). Public Safety Benefits From Technology. Defense Today, December, 38-39. Scrivner, E.M. (1995) Community Policing: New Roles for Police Psychology. In Kurke, M.I. & Scrivner, E.M. (Eds). Police Psychology into the Twenty-First Century, Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum. Scrivner, E.M. (1994) Controlling Excessive Force: The Role of the Police Psychologist. Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. Scrivner, E.M. The Role of Police Psychology in Controlling Excessive Force. Research Report, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice April, 1994. 8 Scrivner, E.M. (1994) Police Brutality. In Oskamp. S. & Costanzo, M. (eds.) Violence and the Law Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Kirschman, E., Scrivner, E., Ellison, K., & Marcy, C. (1992) Work and Well Being: Lessons From Law Enforcement. IN J.C. Quick, L.R. Murphy, and J.J. Hurrell (eds.) Stress and Well Being at Work: Assessments and Interventions for Occupational Mental Health. Washington, D.C: American Psychological Association. Scrivner, E.M. (1991). Helping Police Families Cope with Stress. Law Enforcement News, XVII (336.337) 6-7. Scrivner, E.M., (1991) Integrity Testing: A New Frontier for Psychology. Forensic Reports. 4(2), 75-90. Scrivner, E.M. & Safer, M.A. (1988). Eyewitnesses Show Hypermnesia for Details about a Violent Event. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(3), 371-377. Scrivner, E.M. (1986). An Alternative to Psychological Tests. In J.C. Yuille (Ed), Police Selection and Training: The Role of Psychology, Holland: Martinus Nijhoff. Scrivner, E.M., (1986). Utilizing Psychological Techniques to Develop Management Skills. In J.T. Reese & H.A. Goldstein (eds.,), Psychological Services for Law Enforcement, Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office. Scrivner, E.M., (1985). Psychological Reactions to the Use of Deadly Force. The National Sheriff. Technical Assistance to Law Enforcement-Criminal Justice US DOJ CRD: Team Member on Project Providing Assistance in Assessing New Orleans Police Dept. (2009). Steering Committee, Harvard Executive Sessions on Policing and Public Safety, JFK School of Government, (2009-2012). Facilitated Series of National Community Policing Roundtables for the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (2008-2009). Facilitated IACP Leadership Roundtables, International Assn. of Chiefs of Police (20032004). Facilitated FBI Director’s Law Enforcement Advisory Group. (2002-2004). 9 Facilitated LAPD National Gang Conference, Los Angeles, CA. (January 2004). Technical Reviewer. Report on LAPD Police Training. RAND Corporation. (May, 2003). Technical Reviewer. Grant Proposals and Draft Reports. National Institute of Justice (1992-1995) Technical Assistance to the National Institute of Justice Working Group(s): Policing in the 21st Century and Related Community Policing Focus Groups, (1993-1995). Provided Review and Comment on Draft Legislation from Senate Committees. National Institute of Justice (1992-1994). Advised New York City Council and Provided Written Testimony for Council Hearing on Multiple Suicides in the New York City Police Department. October 17, 1994. Technical Review of Bureau of Justice Assistance (DOJ) Grants. (August, 1994). Technical Review of Summer of Safety Grant Proposals. Corporation for National and Community Services. (March, 1994). California POST Commission: Provided Televised Interview for National Tele-Video Conference on Police Stress. (September, 1994). Drug Enforcement Administration: Developed and Implemented Symposium on Organizational Response to Recent Death(s) of Federal Agents. West Palm Beach, Florida (September, 1994). City of Chicago Police Department: Developing Early Warning Systems to Monitor Police Misconduct. (March-April, 1994). New York City Transit Police Department: Managing Excessive Force. (January, 1994). Office of the Governor, State of Maryland, Juvenile Justice Advisory Council: Mental Health Police Collaboration to Respond to the Needs of Mentally III Juveniles. (October 1993). FBI Academy, Quantico, Virginia: Developed and Co-hosted Conference on Law Enforcement Family Stress (July, 1993). Fairfax County Police Department: Peer Support Training Program (September 1992). 10 Reviewer: Book Proposals on Police Psychology. Earlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ. October, 1992). Drug Enforcement Administration, Washington D.C.: Designed and Implemented Psychological Screening and Follow Up Protocol for Performance Assessment for Highly Sensitive Intelligence Assignments (1989-1990). Technical Evaluation: Proposals for Nationwide Contractual Employee Assistance Program (1990; 1995). Consulted on Developing Organizational Response to Agents Exposed to Traumatic Situations; Trained Trauma Team Members to Provide Trauma Team System Response (1985-1995 Professional Presentations Plenary Speaker, Police Use of Force: Issues and Answers. APA Division 18, MiniConference, Orlando, Florida (2012) Panel Moderator, The Life-Study of Policing: What Research is Telling Us. American Society of Criminology, San Francisco, CA. November 2010. Panel Moderator, Research in Policing Platform, IACP Annual Conference, Orlando, Florida, October, 2010. Panel Moderator, APA Division 18 Mini-Convention. San Diego, CA. August, 2010. Conference Moderator, Predictive Policing, Roger Williams University, Rhode Island, October 2010. Plenary speaker at NIJ Conferences (2009; 2010). Invited Participant: Crime Control in Metropolitan America: An Agenda for Federal Action. Metropolitan Policy Program, Brookings Institution, Washington, DC. Sept. 2008. Invited Observer: Harvard Executive Session on Policing and Public Safety. JFK School of Government, Cambridge, MA. June, 2008; November, 2008. Presentation: Symposium, Psychology and Police: A New Paradigm Beyond Psychological Assessment and Clinical Intervention. APA Annual Convention. Boston, MA. August, 2008. Presentation: Symposium. COMPSTAT, Community Policing and the Diffusion of Innovation. National Institute of Justice Research and Evaluation Conference, Arlington VA, July, 2008. 11 Presentation: The Changing Workforce: Hiring Crisis versus Hiring Opportunity. RAND Center on Quality Policing. Arlington, VA. June, 2008. Plenary: Where We’ve Been: Where Are We Now? Women in Law Enforcement Conference, Fairfax County, VA. December, 2007. Presentation: Future of Women in Policing. National Center for Women & Policing Annual Conference. Lexington, KY. October, 2007. Presentation: Community Policing in the Digital Age. National Center for Victims of Crime Annual Conference. Washington, DC. June, 2007. Panel: Recruitment and Hiring: Challenge or Opportunity? Northwestern University Institute for Public Safety. October 2006. Executive Workshop: Recruitment and Hiring. IACP Annual Conference, Boston, MA, 2006. Workshop: Diversity in Recruiting: Hiring in the Spirit of Service. Human Performance Institute. Arlington, Virginia, February, 2004. Workshop: Post 9-11 Policing: Controlling New Realities. IACP Annual Conference. Philadelphia, PA. October, 2003. Panel Presentation: Hiring in the Spirit of Service. IACP Annual Conference, Philadelphia, PA. October 2003. Panel Presentation: The Future of Community Policing. COPS Office Annual Conference. Washington, D.C. June 2003. Panel Presentation: The Impact of 9-11 on Policing PERF Annual Conference. Washington, D.C. April 2003. Plenary Panel Presentation: Organization Integrity Issues: The Individual-Organization Intersect. Johns Hopkins University (MARCPI) Integrity Conference. Baltimore, Maryland. November 2002. Plenary Panel Presentation: Criminal Intelligence Sharing. IACP Annual Conference. Minneapolis. Minnesota. October 2002. Panel Presentations: COPS Keeping America Safe Conference. Washington, D.C. July, 2002. Panel Chair: Exemplary COPS Programs. PERF Annual Meeting Phoenix, Arizona May 2002. 12 Panel Presentation: Innovative Federal Programs in Community Policing. East Coast Community Policing Conference. Ocean City Maryland. April, 2002. Opening Remark: Criminal Intelligence Sharing Summit: Overcoming Barriers to Enhance Domestic Security. Crystal City, Virginia, March 2002. Discussant: Police Problem Solving: Linking Research with Practice. American Society of Criminology Conference. Atlanta, Georgia November 2002. Plenary: CEO Symposium On 21st Century Issues for Law Enforcement. Washington, D.C. August 2001. Presenter: Problem-Based Learning: A Model Training Program for FTO Training, PERF Annual Meeting. Chicago, Illinois. March 2001. Presenter: Police Integrity and Racial Profiling. International Association of Chiefs of Police Annual Conference. San Diego, California. October, 2000. Moderator: APA Police Chiefs Roundtable. American Psychological Association Convention. Washington, D.C. August, 2000. Pre and Post Elements of Workplace Violence: The Organizational Context. Symposium on Workplace Violence-What Psychology Can Contribute. American Psychological Association Convention. August, 2000. Washington, D.C. Plenary Session: Government Innovators Talk About Drug Courts NADCP Annual Conference. June, 2000. San Francisco, California. Panel Moderator: Ethics and Integrity in Policing Advancing Community Policing Conference, May, 2000. Baltimore, Maryland. Panel Moderator: Goldstein Award Presentation PERF Conference. April 2000. Washington, D.C. Panel Moderator: Police Chiefs and Problem Solving. Weed & Seed Conference. April, 2000. Dallas Texas. Presenter: Ethics and Integrity in Policing. Women in Policing Annual Conference. March 2000. Baltimore Maryland. Chair: Police Chief Forum. American Psychological Association Annual Conference. August, 1999. Boston, Massachusetts. Keynote Address: Creating Police Community Problem Solving-Partnerships Technical Assistance Conference. Miami, Florida: U.S. Department of Justice. 13 Workshop: Innovations in Community Policing. Annual Weed & Seed Training Conference, August 1997. St. Louis Missouri. Symposium Moderator. Innovations in Community Policing. International Association of Chief of Police. October, 1996. Phoenix, Arizona. Symposium Moderator. National Symposium on Police Integrity. U.S. Department Justice (National Institute of Justice. COPS Office). July, 1996, Arlington, Virginia. Opening Address. Community Policing Conference. June, 1996. Spokane, Washington. Presenter. COPS Office Initiatives. National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives. June, 1996 Detroit, Michigan. Workshop: Stopping Police Officer Violence. Conference on Police Leadership for the 21st Century: The Emerging Role of Women. (1995) Washington D.C. Panel Chair. Psychosocial and Behavioral Factors in Women’s Health: Creating and Agenda for the 21st Century. American Psychological Association Conference. Washington, D.C. 1994. Workshop. Surviving Personal Crises on the Job. Interagency Committee on Women in Federal Law Enforcement Training Conference. Arlington, Virginia, 1994. Police Brutality Revisited: Police Psychology Strategies Post Rodney King. Symposium Chair. American Psychological Association Annual Conference, Toronto, Canada. 1993. Police and Public Safety Psychology: Risky Business. American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada. 1993. Behavioral Profiles of Excessive Force. American Society of Criminology, Phoenix, Arizona, 1993. Presenter. National Institute of Justice Fellowship Program. American Society of Criminology, Phoenix, Arizona, 1993. Reciprocal Relationships Between Work and Family as Predictors of Health & Psychological Well Being. APA Division 42 Mid-Winter Practice Conference. San Diego, California 1993. Workshop. Using Community Service in Private Practice. Professional Practice Conference. Maryland 1993. 14 Presenter. Conference on Community Policing for Safe Neighborhoods: Partnerships for the 21st Century. National Institute of Justice. Arlington, Virginia. 1993. Workshop. Psychological and Sociological Impediments in a Male Dominated Profession. Women in Policing National Conference. New York City Transit Authority Police Department, New York. January 1992. American Psychological Association and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Work and Well Being: An Agenda for the 90’s Conferences, Interplay of Work and Family Stress, (1992); Prevention of Stress in the Workplace, (1990). Washington, D.C. Workshop. Police Use of Excessive Force: A National Perspective. International Association of Chiefs of Police Annual Conference. Detroit. Michigan. October, 1992. Challenges Of Public Service Psychology Revisited. Presidential Address (Division 18). Presented at the American Psychological Association. Washington, D.C. 1992. An Ethical Code for Criminology: Reflections from an Applied Perspective. American Society of Criminology, San Francisco, California. 1991. Critical Incident Stress Debriefing. Discussant, American Psychological Association Annual Conference. San Francisco, 1991. Workshop. Police Reliability: Selection, Intervention, Retention. Transitioning into the Nineties. Conference. Psychological Resources Institute. Alexandria., Virginia. 1990. Escalating Violence: A New Dimension of Police Stress. American Psychological Association Convention. Boston, Massachusetts. August, 1990. Psychological Services for Law Enforcement. American Society of Criminology. Baltimore, Maryland. 1990. Critical Issues in Public Service Psychology. American Psychological Association Convention. New Orleans, Louisiana, 1989 Organizational Interventions in Law enforcement. American Psychological Association Convention. Atlanta, Georgia, 1988. Organization Interventions. University of Miami, Florida, 1987. Repeated Testing of Eyewitnesses. American Psychological Association, Los Angeles, California, 1985. Cognitive Interviewing Techniques. World Conference on Police Psychology. FBI Academy, Quantico, Virginia, 1985. 15 Stress Factors in Police Families. Police Management Association Annual Conference. London, England 1985. Career Development in Law Enforcement. George Mason University, Institute of Public Management. Fairfax, Virginia, 1985. Police Selection Chairperson, National Symposium on Police Psychology. F.B.I. Academy., Quantico, Virginia, 1984. The Police Spouse. Police Management Association Annual Conference. Ocho Rios, Jamaica, 1984. 16 SEAN MICHAEL SMOOT, ESQ. 840 S. Spring Street - Springfield, IL 62704 Cellular (217) 725-9979 Office (217) 523-5141 Fax (217)523-7677 Director & Chief Legal Counsel, Police Benevolent & Protective Association of Illinois Treasurer, National Association of Police Organizations Educational Background •         •         •       Southern  Illinois  University  School  of  Law,  Juris  Doctor  -­‐  1994   Illinois  State  University,  Bachelor  of  Science  degree  in  Criminal  Justice  Sciences  -­‐  1991   Completed  over  200  post-­‐graduate  hours  of  training  in  mediation,  arbitration,  win-­‐win  bargaining,  and  other   forms  of  ADR.     Licenses &Certifications   • • • Admitted  to  practice  State  of  Illinois,  United  States  District  Court  –  Central  District  Illinois,  and     U.S.  Court  of  Appeals  for  the  Seventh  Circuit,  1995   Admitted  to  Bar  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  2011   Police  Union  Leadership,  Harvard  Law  School,  2006-­‐2015   Professional Activity: Member  –  President’s  Task  Force  on  21st  Century  Policing,  Presidential  Appointment,  December  18,  2014   Member  -­‐  Executive  Session  on  Policing  &  Public  Safety,  Kennedy  School  of  Govt.,  Harvard  University,  2008-­‐2014   Policy  Advisor,  Obama-­‐Biden  Presidential  Transition  Team,  2008-­‐2009   Advisory  Committee  for  the  National  Law  Enforcement  Officers'  Rights  Center  in  Washington,  D.C.  since  1996.       Member  of  the  Advisory  Committee  and  a  featured  speaker  at  the  Chicago-­‐Kent  College  of  Law's  Annual  Public   Sector  Labor  Relations  Law  Program.       • Use  of  Force  Advisory  Committee,  the  Police  Pursuit  Advisory  Committee,  the  Racial  Profiling  Advisory   Committee,  and  the  Task  Force  on  Police  Integrity  for  the  Illinois  Law  Enforcement  Training  and  Standards   Board.       • Active  Member  in  following  Associations  -­‐  American  Bar  Association  -­‐  Illinois  State  Bar  Association  –  Trial   Lawyers  Association  -­‐  American  Corporation  Counsel  Association  -­‐  Sangamon  County  Bar  Association  -­‐  Illinois   Society  of  Association  Executives.   • Pro-­‐Bono  General  Counsel  for  Illinois  Peace  Officers'  Memorial  Committee,  Ride  to  Remember  9/11,  and     Illinois  Police  Foundation     Scholarly Lectures and Writings: • • • • • • • •       •       •       •       •       Author,  “Punishment-­‐Based  vs.  Education-­‐Based  Discipline:  A  Surmountable  Challenge”    Mending  Justice:   Sentinel  Event  Reviews,  2014  (US  Department  of  Justice,  National  Institute  of  Justice)   Co-­‐author  “Police  Leadership  Challenges  in  a  Changing  World,”  2012  (Harvard  University,  US  Department  of   Justice,  National  Institute  of  Justice)   Stockholm  Criminology  Symposium,  Stockholm,  Sweden,  Speaker,  2011 Chapter  Author,  Military  Service  and  the  Law,  Illinois  Institute  for  Continuing  Legal  Education,  2009   Speaker,  The  Rights  of  Employees  in  Military  Service,  National  Academy  of  Arbitrators,  2008   Adjunct  Professor,  Criminal  Law,  Administration  of  Justice  Department,  Southern  Illinois  University,  College  of   Liberal  Arts,  1993-­‐1994   Featured  Speaker,  Several  CLE  programs  regarding  collective  bargaining,  employee  rights,  and  legal  updates.   Author  of  several  articles  for  The  Policemen's  Magazine,  American  Police  Beat,  as  well  as  numerous  police  labor   publications  and  newsletters.     JULIO A. THOMPSON 1711 BLISS ROAD • EAST MONTPELIER, VERMONT • 05651 PHONE: 802.828.5519• E-MAIL: JULIO_THOMPSON@HOTMAIL.COM PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Office of the Vermont Attorney General (September 2004 – present) Assistant Attorney General. Director, Civil Rights Unit, 2009 – present. Lead counsel in office’s enforcement of state civil rights laws, including hate crimes and discrimination statutes. Hate crimes instructor at Vermont Police Academy. Provide legislative review and advice. Coordinate joint state / federal civil rights investigations. Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC) (June 2002 to September 2004) Consultant, police oversight and best practices. Emphasis upon use of force and other search and seizure issues. Provide police-related risk management and best practices advice to various police monitors and municipalities. Conduct best practices-related research in numerous jurisdictions. Overland & Borenstein (February 2002 to September 2003) Of Counsel, Litigation, Employment/Labor, Risk Management. Practice included a broad range of complex commercial litigation with a focus on employment / civil rights litigation. Shapiro, Borenstein & Dupont, LLP (December 2000 – February 2002) Partner, Litigation, Employment/Labor, Risk Management. Tuttle & Taylor, Los Angeles, California (1990-2000) Partner, Litigation, Employment/Labor, Risk Management. Deputy Special Counsel to Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (1991-September 2004) Served on Kolts Commission’s investigation of alleged excessive force and lax discipline by Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (LASD), 1991-92. Conducted with Special Counsel Merrick Bobb semi-annual audits of LASD’s implementation of sweeping reforms. Law Clerk to Judge Cynthia H. Hall, U.S. Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit (1989-90) EDUCATION University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan J.D., Law School, 1989 (Cum Laude) Associate Editor, Michigan Law Review, 1987-88 Executive Note Editor, Michigan Law Review, 1988-89 Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan B.A., Economics, 1986 (Summa Cum Laude) PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES Member, Employment Law Section, California State Bar; Member, Employment Law Section and Access to Justice Committee, Los Angeles County Bar Association; Member, Constitutional Rights Foundation. PUBLICATIONS Modern Tools For Litigators, ABA Pretrial Practice (Summer 2001); Smart Surfing: A Litigator’s Guide To Internet Research, ABA Pretrial Practice (Summer 2000); Employee Contracts and Waivers, The Employment Severance Answer Book (1998-2001); A Board Does Not A Bench Make: Denying QuasiJudicial Immunity To Parole Board Members In Section 1983 Damages Actions, 87 Mich. L. Rev. 241 (1988). JULIO A. THOMPSON POLICE OVERSIGHT / AUDITING State of Vermont Hate crimes instructor, Vermont Policy Academy. Assist in drafting Attorney General’s model bias-free policing policy. Evaluate deadly and serious force incidents occurring within the state, including those involving municipal police agencies. Duties ongoing. Seattle Police Monitor Engaged in December 2012 to present. Serve as expert consultant to court-appointed independent monitor oversee implementation of federal consent decree between the U.S. Department of Justice and City of Seattle concerning Seattle Police Department. Engagement includes review of policies, training, and investigative materials in following subject areas: • Use of Force, De-escalation, and Team Tactics; • Firearms Skills and Tactics • Force Reporting and Investigation; • Early Intervention Systems; • Misconduct Investigations; and • Supervisor Training and Accountability United States Department of Justice Engaged from 1999-2009 by Civil Rights Division regarding (1) 1999-2000 civil rights investigation of Metropolitan Police Department (Washington, D.C.) and (2) oversight of department pursuant to consent decree. Engaged to provide expertise in analyzing variety of police practices, including: • Use of Force and Force Reporting; • Internal Affairs Investigations; • Early Intervention Systems; • Officer Discipline (including arbitration and civil service appeals); and • Risk Management. City of Oakland, California Engaged in 2011 to analyze Oakland Police Department’s Internal Affairs policies, practices, and investigations. County of Los Angeles, California Deputy Special Counsel to Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors since 1991 regarding implementation of reforms designed to reduce alleged excessive force and sexual harassment by members of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD). • Trained numerous county investigators (including LASD’s Internal Affairs Bureau) in advanced sexual harassment investigation techniques. • Conducted numerous audits and studies of Los Angeles County Jail System relating to use of force, complaint investigation, and handling mentally ill inmates. City of Denver, Colorado Engaged in March 2006 to conduct study of Denver Police Department’s deadly force incidents, force training, and internal investigations. City of Los Angeles, California Engaged in April 2004 to audit and advise Los Angeles Police Department regarding investigations of officer-involved shootings and serious force incidents. Project funded by national grant from Police Foundation. City of Portland, Oregon Engaged in fall of 2002 and fall of 2007 to conduct two separate studies of Portland Police Bureau’s officer-involved shootings and in-custody deaths for the periods 1997-2000 and 2002-2004. Responsible for case review and best practices research. Engagement ongoing City of Detroit, Michigan Engaged in 1997 to conduct in-depth, independent analysis of alleged patterns of police excessive force and lax discipline. Provided expertise re officer-involved shootings, Internal Affairs investigations, and early warning systems. NOBLE WRAY, Interim President & CEO, Urgan League of Greater Madison Chief of Police (Retired) Madison, Wisconsin Police Department (608) 345-3835 (Retired) Chief Noble Wray had been with the Madison Police Department for almost 30 years. He was promoted through the ranks and was appointed Chief of Police of the City of Madison in 2004. Before becoming Chief, he received Life Saving and Outstanding Service Awards as a member of the Madison Police Department. (Retired) Chief Wray has been a very visible and active member of the Madison Police Department throughout his career. He has led the Madison Police Department with an emphasis on building trust both inside and outside of the organization; he refers to it as trust-based policing. It is a recognition that policing is a challenging profession, but it is our relationships based on trust and shared values that help us keep our communities safe and maintain police legitimacy. Wray learned this early on in his career, and in 1993 he was invited to speak on the nationally televised Today show as a law enforcement representative to discuss the impact of the “drug war” on communities across the United States. (Retired) Chief Wray has also excelled as a nationally recognized consultant for law enforcement organizations such as the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) and the Police Foundation in the areas of problem solving, community policing and trust-based policing. He has served on staff from 1997 to 2004 at the Police Leadership Institute at the University of Lowell Massachusetts for a course he developed for police managers called “Problem Solving Lessons Learned.” Chief Wray continues to be a national presenter on these topics. He is also a certified trainer/consultant for both Steven Covey and COPS Office Fair and Impartial Policing. (Retired) Chief Wray has been very active serving on a number of non-profit Boards in the Madison area. He just completed his tenure as Board President for the United Way of Dane County. He has also served on numerous Boards and Commissions at the County and State level. In 2007 Chief Wray was asked by Wisconsin’s Governor James Doyle to co-chair the State Commission on Reducing Racial Disparity in the Criminal Justice System. The Governor was nationally recognized by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency for the Commission’s Report in October 2008. Some of his Awards and Recognitions: 1996 2007 2008 2008 2010 2011 City of Madison Affirmative Action Award Madison Community Juneteenth “UnSung” Hero Award Madison Magazine Person of the Year Herman Goldstein Finalist for Excellence in Problem Oriented Policing Fellowship Award by the International Association of Chiefs and Target Corporation UW Milwaukee Alumnus of the Year – School of Social Welfare 2012 Shorewood School’s Tradition of Excellence as Community Leader in Public Safety Award (an Award also received by US Supreme Court Justice William H. Rehnquist) 2012 Public Service Peace and Dialogue Award from the International Niagara Foundation 2013 100 Black Men of Madison, Inc. Distinguished Community Service Award 2013 Madison Chapter Links, Inc. Distinguished Community Service Award 2013 Paul Harris Fellow Award (Rotary Foundation) Chief Wray was born in Milwaukee, Wisconsin in 1960. He has lived in Wisconsin most of his life and has been married for over 30 years with two adult children. He has a Bachelor of Science degree in Criminal Justice from the University of WisconsinMilwaukee and is a graduate of the Wisconsin Department of Justice Executive Leadership Course for future police leaders. o S e r v e a s C o u r t M o n ito r o f th e N e w a r k P o lic e D e p a r tm e n t ! PARC Police Assessment Resource Center 1