Provo Police Audit and City Response

8/7/2019 Provo Police Audit and City Response

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/provo-police-audit-and-city-response 1/67

Management ConsultantsFolsom (Sacramento)

2250 East Bidwell Street, Suite 100 Folsom, CA 95630

(916) 458 5100 F (916) 983 2090

Review of the

Police Department

for the

January 27, 2011

City of

Provo, UT



Table of Contents page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 1 Overview of the Community and Police Department ................................................. 1 Management Level Review of the Provo Police Department ..................................... 1

Departmental Strengths ...................................................................................... 2 Departmental Challenges and Issues .................................................................. 2 Key Recommendations....................................................................................... 4

Section 1 — Introduction and Background .................................................................................. 7 1.1 Report Organization ........................................................................................... 7 1.2 Background to the Study .................................................................................... 8 1.3 Project Approach and Research Methods .......................................................... 8 1.4 Provo Police Department Organization .............................................................. 9

1.4.1 Growth in the Provo Community ........................................................... 9 1.4.2 Organization of the Provo Police Department ....................................... 9 1.4.3 Growth in Police Department Personnel Staffing ................................ 10 1.4.4 Provo Crime Rates ................................................................................ 10

Section 2 —Citizens’ Complaint Process ................................................................................... 12 2.1 Overview of the Provo Police Department Citizens’ Complaint Process ........ 12 2.2 How Provo’s Citizens’ Complaint Process Stacks Up Against Other

Agencies ........................................................................................................... 14 2.2.1 Receipt of Complaints .......................................................................... 15 2.2.2 Method of Receiving Complaints......................................................... 16 2.2.3 Complaint Notification Response ........................................................ 16 2.2.4 Complaint Tracking .............................................................................. 17 2.2.5 Early Warning System .......................................................................... 17 2.2.6 Time to Complete an Internal Affairs Investigation ............................ 17



Table of Contents page ii

2.2.7 Who Investigates a Complaint? ............................................................ 17 2.2.8 Community Input into the Internal Affairs Process ............................. 18 2.2.9 Internal Affairs Training Procedures .................................................... 20

2.3 Analysis of Provo’s Citizens Complaint/Internal Affairs Investigations ......... 20 2.3.1 Category II Complaints ........................................................................ 22 2.3.2 Analysis of Category I Complaints ...................................................... 23

2.4 Findings Regarding Citizens’ Complaint Process............................................ 24 Section 3 — Professional Standards of Conduct and Ethics..................................................... 26

3.1 Professional Standards and Conduct ................................................................ 26 3.2 Monthly Training ............................................................................................. 28 3.3 Shift Training ................................................................................................... 28 3.4 Training Pursued Independently ...................................................................... 30 3.5 Traditions.......................................................................................................... 31

Section 4 — Officer Training ....................................................................................................... 33 4.1 POST Required Training .................................................................................. 33 4.2 Training Records .............................................................................................. 33 4.3 Shift Training ................................................................................................... 34 4.4 Field Training Officer (FTO) Program ............................................................ 34

Section 5 — Leadership and Management ................................................................................. 36 5.1 Departmental Management .............................................................................. 36 5.2 Management by Statistics ................................................................................. 36 5.3 Preparation for Promotion ................................................................................ 38

Section 6 — Hiring and Retention ............................................................................................... 39 6.1 Entry-Level Police Officer Hiring Process ...................................................... 39 6.2 Background Investigation................................................................................. 40 6.3 Oral Board Interviews ...................................................................................... 40 6.4 Competitive Labor Market ............................................................................... 41



Table of Contents page iii

Section 7 — Community Relations .............................................................................................. 42 7.1 Community Trust and Visibility of the Command Staff .................................. 42 7.2 Public Confidence in the Citizens’ Complaint Process .................................... 43 7.3 COPS Program ................................................................................................. 43

Section 8 — Recommendations.................................................................................................... 45 8.1 Citizens’ Complaint Process ............................................................................ 45 8.2 Professional Standards of Conduct and Ethics ................................................. 47 8.3 Officer Training ................................................................................................ 49 8.4 Leadership and Management............................................................................ 50 8.5 Hiring and Retention ........................................................................................ 51 8.6 Community Relations ....................................................................................... 53



Executive Summary page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

O VERVIEW OF THE C OMMUNITY AND P OLICE D EPARTMENT

The City of Provo, UT commissioned Citygate Associates, LLC to perform a focused review of

the Provo Police Department. Several recent events involving officers of the Department

prompted the City to undertake a review of the Police Department’s approach regarding the

implementation of its policies pertaining to Professional Standards of Conduct and ethics.

The Provo Police Department serves a thriving community of over 124,000. Between 2000 and

2010 the population of Provo increased by more than eighteen percent. It is the third largest City

in Utah. It is home to Brigham Young University, one of the country’s largest private

universities. Provo is also one of the leading technology centers in Utah.

Despite its population growth of more than eighteen percent over a ten-year period, the ProvoPolice Department’s staffing level has decreased. The Department’s current staffing level

provides for 95 officers. In response to the challenges imposed by financial circumstances, the

Department’s operating budget was reduced by approximately $400,000 between FY 2008-09

and FY 2009-10. The demand for Police Department services continues to increase. In calendar

year 2009 the Department logged 103,107 dispatched calls (this figure excludes Fire and medical

service calls).

M ANAGEMENT LEVEL R EVIEW OF THE P ROVO P OLICE D EPARTMENT

Citygate Associates conducted a thorough review of the Police Department’s leadership and

management approach to implementing its policies regarding the standards of conduct and

ethics. Specifically, Citygate Associates examined six key areas including:

Citizens’ Complaint Process

Professional Standards of Conduct

Officer Training

Leadership and Management

Hiring and Retention

Community Relations.




Departmental Strengths

The Provo Police Department has a number of strengths that are important for the reader to note

and consider when evaluating the findings and recommendations in this report. The strengths

include:

The Police Department has a strong “esprit de corps.” Officers with whom we

spoke are loyal to the Department and are motivated by a strong desire to serve

the community.

Most members believe there are strong ethical standards and values in the

Department. Most believe that the recent incidents are not reflective of the

character and quality of the people in the Department. They recognize that the

recent incidents may have compromised the community’s confidence in the

Department and they are committed to working hard to regain that trust.

The Department does not have a systematic or organic problem pertaining toProfessional Standards of Conduct and behavior that result in officers violating

the law or engaging in inappropriate activities. This view is shared by the

community members as well as members of the Provo Police Department.

There are many talented leaders and managers in the Department. This talent will

need to be developed in order for the Department to meet its future service

mission.

The Community Oriented Policing Program (COPS) is well respected in the

community and many community members would like to see the program

expanded.

Departmental Challenges and Issues

This report details a number of findings and recommendations which, when implemented, will

improve the operation, training and development of employees, the citizens’ complaint process,

and community relations. Each finding and recommendation is discussed in further detail later

in this report. Some of the more crucial shortcomings identified in the review of the Department

include:

Citizen s’ Complaint Process

The Department’s policy regarding internal affairs investigations is not

consistently followed. Category II complaints (the less serious allegations against

officers) are not consistently investigated and documented as required by policy.

Supervisors and managers do not receive training upon promotion related to their

new roles under the Internal Affairs Investigation Policy.






Key Recommendations

Citygate Associates gave considerable thought and attention to making commonsense

recommendations that the Department can implement to address the shortcomings noted above.

In later sections of this report, further detail is provided to the reader explaining the findings or

each recommendation. Presented below are the most important and critical recommendations:

Citizen s’ Complaint Process

The citizens’ complaint process currently used in the Provo Police Department uses a simple

system to categorize complaints. More serious complaints (Category I) are forwarded to the

Chief who assigns them to an investigator. Less serious complaints (Category II) are handled at

the Division Commander level. The review of procedures disclosed that handling of Category II

complaints is not done per the Department’s policy. In order to remedy the shortcomings

associated with the complaint process, Citygate Associates recommends that the Department

change its approach to how it conducts and maintains records pertaining to Category IIcomplaints.

Recommendation: It is recommended that the Provo Police Department create an

Office of Professional Standards and Training. This bureau

should report directly to the Chief of Police and be charged with

the responsibility for managing the investigation of citizen

complaints made against officers. It is also recommended that this

bureau take over the responsibility for developing, implementing

and recordkeeping for the Department’s training program which

is currently done by the Patrol Division Captain.

Professional Standards of Conduct and Ethics

The Police Department’s approach to providing sworn and civilian staff with appropriate training

about Professional Standards of Conduct and ethics varies considerably by shift and supervisor.

Citygate Associates determined that a supervisor has developed a training curriculum on the

subject, but the program was only used on that supervisor’s shift. Further, the amount of training

that officers, supervisors and managers take in this area is limited.

Recommendation: At the earliest convenience the Interim Chief should meet with

staff to review the monthly training calendar to ensure that the

schedule of training features PSC at least once during the year

and that each officer, supervisor and manager take a minimum of

two hours of training per year. Professional standards, conduct

and ethics training will assist in institutionalizing the positive

values that are the foundation of the Police Department.




Training and Development

The Department is in compliance with Utah POST with regard to the number of annual hours

training officers receive. However, the Department’s overall approach to training is not based on

a systematic assessment of training needs, either organizationally or for each individual

employee.

Recommendation: It is recommended that the responsibility for the Department’s

training program be reassigned from the Patrol Captain to the

Office of Professional Standards and Training. Following that

reassignment, it is recommended that there be a department-wide

training needs assessment conducted. This assessment will

document the short- and long-term training needs and will enable

a better alignment between the development of the annual

training calendar, monthly training and shift training with the

expressed training needs of the staff.

Hiring and Retention

The hiring process for entry-level police officer is a shared responsibly between Human

Resources and the Police Department. The goal of the hiring process is to recruit, assess and train

individuals who go on to have successful careers in the Police Department. In order to ensure

this goal is met, there are several changes in the current process that ought to be implemented.

Most significant relates to the background investigation. Polygraph examination is a standard

component of a thorough background investigation and is used by almost every police

department in the county. The use of a polygraph exam helps ensure that only the most qualifiedcandidates are hired and is an effective tool to screen applicants for matters pertaining to their

personal conduct and ethics that can go undetected without it.

Recommendation: It is recommended that the Department add a polygraph

examination administered by a qualified, trained and experienced

examiner as part of the Department’s background investigation

process.

Leadership and Management

In order to correct the “silo” approach to management which results in a low level of unity of

command, a starting point is to redefine the mission, vision and values of the Department.

Recommendation: It is recommended that the Police Department implement a

facilitated strategic planning process which should include a

comprehensive review of the Police Department’s Mission

Statement, Vision and Values. We also recommend that a




strategic planning process include the establishment of short- and

long-term goals and objectives along with benchmarks for

measuring progress toward meeting the established goals.

Community input into the strategic planning process should be

welcomed.

Community Relations

Despite recent events, the Police Department benefits by a high level of community support.

That support is essential if the Department is going to achieve its service mission. By the same

token, the leadership of the Department must make an effort to be more visible in the

community. Several individuals from the community interviewed for this report stated that they

had never seen a member of the command staff participate in the various service clubs, programs

and working groups that serve Provo.

Recommendation: It is recommended that the command staff of the Department

become active in the life of the Provo community by participating

in various service organizations, neighborhood groups and other

similar organizations.



Section 1—Introduction and Background page 7

SECTION 1—INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1.1 R EPORT O RGANIZATION

This report provides the results of Citygate Associates’ focused review of the Provo Police

Department. It is a description, analysis and assessment of the Police Department’s approach to

implementing systems and procedures essential to operating a department in accordance with

generally accepted Professional Standards of Conduct and ethics. The report also identifies in

broad terms the shortcomings of several of those crucial systems and procedures. The end

product includes recommendations and policy choices for Provo’s policy makers.

This report is structured into the following sections:

Section 1 Introduction and Background: Background facts a bout Provo’s

Police Department, its services and future challenges.

Section 2 Citizens’ Complaint Process: Analysis and findings related to the

citizens’ complaint process and internal affairs investigation.

Section 3 Professional Standards of Conduct and Ethics: Analysis and findings

related to the Department’s approach to implementing Professional

Standards of Conduct and ethics.

Section 4 Officer Training: Analysis and findings related to the Department’s

employee training and development program.

Section 5 Leadership and Management: Analysis and findings related to the

leadership and management challenges facing the Police Department.

Section 6 Hiring and Retention: Analysis and findings related to the

Department’s procedures for hiring entry-level police officers.

Section 7 Community Relations: Analysis and findings related to the

Department’s approach to community relations.

Section 8 Recommendations: Presentation of Citygate Associates’

recommendations.

As each of the sections mentioned above provides information, this report will cite specific

findings. To provide a comprehensive summary, a complete listing of all these same findings is

presented in Section 8, along with recommendations that specifically relate to the findings. The

findings have been numbered to correspond with related recommendations in Section 8, so that

all related findings and recommendations pair together. This numbering system is carried

forward for findings that appear in Sections 2 through 7 of the report.




1.2 B ACKGROUND TO THE S TUDY

The City of Provo commissioned this study to assess the Police Department’s implementation of

Professional Standards of Conduct and ethics. Recently there were several incidents involving

Provo Police Officers that called into question the Police Department’s approach to variousaspects of internal systems and procedures relating to Professional Standards of Conduct and

ethics. The City’s principle interest is to determine if there are systematic or organic issues in

the Department that result in unacceptable officer behavior – either on or off duty – and if so,

how they can be corrected so that the Provo community has confidence in the Police Department.

1.3 P ROJECT APPROACH AND R ESEARCH M ETHODS

In conducting the review of the Police Department Provo asked Citygate to analyze and review

several key operating systems and procedures. The analysis of these elements was to include a

review of officer training records and the citizens’ complaint process including the InternalAffairs Investigation Policy.

Citygate began these studies with a large document request to gain background information on

the Provo Police Department, its organizational structure, leadership and management

environment and public information pertaining to recent incidents involving several Provo Police

Officers. This permitted us in site visits to focus our interviews and additional information

requests in a productive way. Our objective was to understand as much as possible about the

City before Citygate team members arrive on site. While on site we reviewed additional

documents including, but not limited to, training records, lesson plans and tests. Citygate

Associates staff also did a ride-along with a member of the Patrol Division.

We reviewed the Police Department’s Policy and Procedures Manual, the Department’s annual

report including data pertaining to service and staffing levels and budget. Prior to Citygate’s on-

site visit, a series of interviews with key stakeholders was planned. The stakeholders selected for

interviews included a wide array of individuals including officers, supervisors, managers and the

Department’s command staff. Members of the community were also included and scheduled for

interviews with Citygate staff. The stakeholders scheduled for interview were selected by the

City.

In order to facilitate the stakeholder interview process and to help ensure the reliability of the

data, a standard set of interview questions was developed. The questions were designed to elicit

important information regarding the work environment as it pertains to ethics and standards of

conduct in the Department. Citygate staff also met and shared information with a Citizens’

Committee appointed by the Mayor. That meeting and subsequent communication proved vital

in understanding the community’s concerns regarding the Police Department. We invited those

who were not able to participate in the interview process to contact Citygate staff by telephone or

via e-mail.




Citygate staff spent four days onsite conducting detailed stakeholder interviews, reviewing

training records and meeting with the Mayor, Police Chief and Chief Administrative Officer.

1.4 P ROVO P OLICE D EPARTMENT O RGANIZATION

1.4.1 Growth in the Provo Community

Provo is the third largest city in the state of Utah, located about 43 miles south of Salt Lake City

along the Wasatch Front. Provo is the county seat of Utah County and lies between the cities of

Orem to the north and Springville to the south. With a population of 125,123 Provo is also the

principal city in the Provo-Orem metropolitan area, which has an estimated population of

555,551 residents. It is the second largest metro area in the state behind Salt Lake City.

The City is home to Brigham Young University, one of the largest private higher education

institutions in the United States, which is operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-daySaints. Provo is also home to the largest Missionary Training Center for the LDS church. The

City is a key operational center for Novell and has been a focus area for technology development

in Utah. The City is also home to the Peaks Ice Arena, which served as a venue for the Salt Lake

City Winter Olympics in 2002. Sundance Resort is located 13 miles northeast at Provo Canyon.

Between 2005 and 2010 it is estimated that the City’s population increased by eight percent to a

record population estimated at 125,123.

1.4.2 Organization of the Provo Police Department

The Police Department is headed by a police chief who is appointed by the Mayor. The

Department is organized into four divisions described below:

Administration – headed by the Police Chief, this division is responsible for the overall

administration, management and leadership of the Department. There is a total of 2

employees assigned to this division.

Patrol Division – headed by a Captain, this is the largest division in the Department. The

Patrol Division operates in three shifts: day, swing and graveyard. Each shift is managed

by a Lieutenant and two Sergeants. This Division is also responsible for several

specialized functions including the Community Oriented Policing Program, AnimalControl, Traffic and Parking Enforcement, Traffic Accident Investigation and the Bike

Patrol. There is a total of 92 staff assigned to this division.

Criminal Investigations – headed by a Captain, this division is responsible for

investigating all criminal activity in the City. This Division has four units including the

investigations unit, Utah County Major Criminal Task Force, Victims Services, and a

School Resource Officer program. There is a total of 24 staff assigned to this division.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Utah_(by_population)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_state

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Lake_City,_Utah

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasatch_Front

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_seat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_County,_Utah

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orem,_Utah

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springville,_Utah

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provo-Orem_metropolitan_area

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_area

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Lake_City_metropolitan_area

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigham_Young_University

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missionary_Training_Center

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaks_Ice_Arena

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Winter_Olympics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provo_Canyon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provo_Canyon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Winter_Olympics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaks_Ice_Arena

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missionary_Training_Center



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigham_Young_University

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Lake_City_metropolitan_area

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_area

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provo-Orem_metropolitan_area

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springville,_Utah

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orem,_Utah

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_County,_Utah

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_seat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasatch_Front

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Lake_City,_Utah

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_state

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Utah_(by_population)




Support Services – headed by a Captain, this division provides a variety of essential

support and administrative services including budget and expense monitoring and

control. This division also is responsible for managing the 9-1-1 dispatch center, the

Property Bureau, Mountain Rescue Program, SWAT, Crisis Negotiating Team, the

School Crossing Guard Program and the Police Records Section. There is a total of 43FTE’s and 9 part-time staff assigned to this division.

The 2011 budget provides a total staffing compliment of 134 sworn and civilian positions with a

budget of approximately $12.9 million.

1.4.3 Growth in Police Department Personnel Staffing

Staffing levels in the Provo Police Department have been a topic of discussion for a considerable

period of time. In 2009, the total number of sworn officers in the Department was 95. From

2005 to 2009 the number of sworn officers declined by two, yet the population growth during the

same period increased by almost eight percent. Many people interviewed for this report cited theneed to increase the staffing levels of the Department, particularly in the Patrol Division where a

typical shift is staffed with six to eight officers. The table below summarizes the number of

sworn officers between 2005 and 2009.

Provo Police Department Sworn Officer Staffing 2005 - 2009

Year Number of Sworn Officers

2005 97

2006 98

2007 100

2008 96

2009 95

1.4.4 Provo Crime Rates

Data published by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for 2010 ranks Provo as one of the

safest large cities in the country. Rates of violent and property crimes in Provo as compared to

the state as a whole show that Provo ranks among the safest cities in Utah. The table below

compares Provo’s violent crime rate with other Utah cities along with the total staffing levels in

each police department.




Violent Crime Rates for Comparable Utah Cities by Population and Size of Police

Department

City

2009

Estimated

Population

2009

Number of

Reported

Violent

Crimes

2009 Total

Police

Department

Staffing

2009 Rate of

Violent Crimes

per population

(#crimes/pop)

2009 Rate of

Violent Crimes per

Total Size of

Police Department

(#crimes/dept

size)

Provo 119,472 167 147 .0014 1.136

Lehi 51,307 26 43 .0005 1.654

South Jordan 54,042 39 58 .0007 1.487

Orem 93,785 50 126 .0005 2.52

St. George 75,391 92 141 .0012 1.53

Layton 65,947 115 98 .0017 1.173

West Jordan 107,113 165 142 .0015 1.162

Sandy 97,031 167 145 .0017 1.151

Taylorsville City 58,472 190 60 .0032 3.167

Ogden 83,016 391 157 .0047 2.459

West Valley 124,472 564 232 .0045 2.43

Salt Lake City 180,724 1276 584 .0071 2.184

Average 92,584 270 161 .00241 1.43522

The reader is urged to review the above data with caution. Violent crimes are only one type of

crime, although considered by many to be a good indicator of crime trends. Further, efforts to

compare and rank crime rates among cities is often misleading as there are many factors

contributing to crime rates that extend well beyond a simple statistical analysis. Despite the

limitations of this type of analysis, the data can be a starting point for discussions pertaining to

staffing levels, crime rates and the cost of providing police services.

The table above suggests that violent crimes in Provo are below the average for comparable

large-sized cities in Utah. Further, it appears that the ratio of violent crimes per population isless than the average. Finally, the data suggests that Provo’s ratio of crimes per size of

department is less than average of the above comparator cities as well.





Section 2—Citizens’ Complaint Process page 13

Although it is not required, whenever possible, a supervisor should obtain the complaining

party’s signature and as much detail as possible along with any other documentation necessary.

It is also the supervisor’s responsibility to assure the complaining party that there will be a

thorough investigation and that the complaining party will be advised of the outcome of the

investigation.If the supervisor makes a commitment to the complaining party as to the anticipated length of

time it will take to investigate the matter, or other expectations, the supervisor is required to

record that information in a report and it should be attached to the misconduct report.

The policy also provides for accepting anonymous complaints, from any source, and they are to

be given the same attention as any other complaint.

The policy provides that all investigations be conducted promptly and that Category I complaints

be completed in ten days and Category II complaints be completed in seven days. If it appears

that an investigation will take longer than the time allotted, the investigating officer is required to

prepare a progress report which includes an anticipated completion date. The progress report is

then forwarded to the Chief of Police or Division Commander.

The policy sets forth the investigatory procedures to be used in conducting internal affairs

investigations. The key elements of the investigatory process include the following:

All recognized investigatory methods for determining the facts surrounding a

complaint shall be used including interviews with the complainant and all

witnesses; written reports may be obtained when necessary.

The application of truth verification shall not be made without the expressed

approval of the Chief of Police.

Members of the Department who refuse to answer questions properly placed

before them shall be immediately referred to the Chief of Police.

The investigating officer shall maintain confidentiality and shall report only to the

Chief of Police.

The investigating officer will keep detailed accurate records of all the

investigative steps and findings; all records, notes, pictures, etc. will be attached

to the final report forwarded to the Chief of Police; the investigator shall not keep

copies of any material or data accumulated in the course of the investigation.

For Category I complaints, the investigator shall submit a written report using the

AEM form and will synopsize the investigation and conclusions in the appropriate

space on the form.




Upon receiving the file from the investigator, the Chief of Police will make a determination as to

whether the allegation will result in discipline. The investigating officer has no responsibility for

making a recommendation for discipline.

The policy also provides for the use of a standard classification of dispositions. The Chief is

responsible for making the final determination and disposition using one of the followingcategories:

Sustained – the accused employee committed all or part of the alleged acts of

misconduct

Not Sustained – the investigation produced insufficient information to prove

clearly or to disprove the allegation

Exonerated – the alleged act occurred, but was justified, legal and proper

Unfounded – the alleged act did not occur.

When a determination of “sustained” is made or when misconduct is discovered during the

investigation that was not alleged in the complaint, disciplinary action will be taken in

accordance with the rules governing such action.

If it is determined that probable cause exists for believing that an employee is guilty of criminal

conduct, the evidence will be presented to an appropriate prosecutor for action.

Whenever a complaint is sustained and the Chief of Police believes that civil litigation could

result for the actions of the employee, the Chief will promptly notify the City Attorney.

All internal affairs files shall be maintained in the Chief of Police’s office filed by chronologicalorder. The allegations of misconduct made against specifically named employees will not be

placed in the employee’s personnel file unless there is a finding of “sustained.”

For Category I complaints, the complaining party shall be notified by letter from the Chief of

Police. Such notification includes the outcome and actions taken. For Category II complaints, it

is the responsibility of the Division Commander to contact and notify the complaining party of

the outcome of the investigation, but does not disclose information pertaining to any disciplinary

action that may have been imposed.

2.2 H OW P ROVO ’ S C ITIZENS ’ C OMPLAINT P ROCESS S TACKS U P AGAINST O THER

AGENCIES

The U.S. Justice Department published a study in 2008 titled “Linking Law Enforcement

Internal Affairs Practices and Community Trust Building Documenting Past Successes and

Failures, and Settling Goals for the Future.” The purpose of the study was to identify trends and

common procedures among large, midsize and smaller agencies for conducting internal affairs




investigations. The data used in this study was collected via survey from more than seventeen

hundred police agencies throughout the United States.

In this section of the report, we compare the main features of Provo’s Internal Affairs Policy

with industry practices as documented in the above-referenced study.

2.2.1 Receipt of Complaints

Respondents in the survey were asked “What are the criteria for accepting a complaint?” The

responses are contained in the table below:

Criteria for Accepting Citizen Complaints against an Officer

No Criteria For

Accepting

Complaints

Complaints Not

Accepted if Certain

Criteria Are Not Met Provo Policy

Responses 78% 22%

No criteria for accepting complaints;

anyone in the Department can

accept a citizen’s complaint

Surveyed agencies reporting that they have established criteria for accepting complaints stated

the criteria included the following:

Complaint must be in writing

Complaint must have a sworn affidavit

Complaint must be signed

Complaint must be taken by a supervisor

Complainant must be sober

Time limitation must not have expired

Complaint cannot be anonymous.

Provo’s policy does not include any specific criteria for accepting a complaint. The policy

provides that anyone in the Department can receive a complaint, complaints do not have to be inwriting, complaints do not have to be signed (although it is recommended that the complaining

party signs a complaint), and complaints can be made anonymously.




2.2.2 Method of Receiving Complaints

This pertains to the methods police agencies employ to receive complaints. Agencies were asked

to identify who in their Department can receive complaints. The table below summarizes the

responses:

Method of Receiving Citizen Complaints

Area Yes No Provo Policy

There is a specific person

assigned to receive

complaints

12% 87.9%

Any Police Department

employee can receive a

citizen’s complaint

All complaints are received

by an IA unit intake officer9.8% 90.2%

Any employee can receive a


All levels of personnel are

required to receive a

complaint and pass it on to

a supervisor/chief/IA intake

officer

73.6% 26.4%

Employee receiving acomplaint is required to take

notes of the complaint and

pass it on to a supervisor;

Category I complaints are

referred to the Chief; Category

II to the Division Commander

Only the Chief can receive

a complaint3.6% 96.4%



Complaints are received by

the first-line supervisor77.9% 22.1%



Provo’s policy regarding the receipt of complaints is broader than comparator police agencies.

Provo places no restrictions on who may receive a complaint, while the survey results indicate

that in almost seventy-eight percent of responding agencies, the first line supervisor takes

complaints.

2.2.3 Complaint Notification Response

Respondents were asked if the complainant is notified of the disposition of the internal affairs

investigation upon its conclusion. Almost ninety-five percent (94.8%) notify the complaining

party of the results of the investigation. Provo’s policy requires that the complaining party be

notified as to the disposition of the internal affairs investigation. For Category I complaints, the

policy provides that notification be made by the Chief of Police and for Category II complaints,

notification be done by the Division Commander.




2.2.4 Complaint Tracking

Respondents were asked if their agency documents and tracks complaints. Almost ninety-three

percent (92.8%) document and track complaints while over seven percent (7.2%) do not.

According to Provo’s policy all complaints are required to be documented and tracked.

2.2.5 Early Warning System

Respondents were asked if their internal affairs complaint process contains an early warning

system. Thirty-seven percent (37.3%) responded they have an early warning system while sixty-

two percent (62.7%) did not. The departments with an early warning system were asked how

effective that system is in identifying problem officers. Fifty-one percent (51.3%) responded

that their early warning system was “effective” or “very effective” in identifying problem

officers, while almost four percent (4%) stated it was “not effective.” Almost forty-five percent

(45%) of the respondents replied “neutral.” According to the Provo policy, of ficers receiving

“an inordinate amount of Category II complaints (three or more in a 24-month period), or anyCategory II allegations that are sustained where profanity and/or temper are issues, will have

their file referred to the Chief of Police for review with the officer’s Division Commander.”

2.2.6 Time to Complete an Internal Affairs Investigation

Respondents were asked, “What is the initial timeline for the completion of an internal affairs

investigation?” The table below summarizes the responses:

Timeline for Completing Internal Affairs Investigations

Days to Complete Initial IA

Investigation Percent of Respondents

30 days 69.6%

45 days 13.10%

60 days 9.20%

90 days 4.0%

According to Provo’s internal affairs policy, the initial timeline for completing Category I

complaints is ten days and for Category II complaints is seven days.

2.2.7 Who Investigates a Complaint?

Respondents were asked, “Who investigates a complaint in the Department?” and were offered

six response choices. The table below summarizes their responses:




Who Investigates Citizen Complaints

Who Investigates Percent of Responses

Senior Officer 8.40%

First-line Supervisor 19.30%

IA Unit Member 24.50%

Chief of Police 10.40%

Outside Agency 2.90%

Other 34.50%

Responses listed in the “other” option included Assistant Chief, Captain, Lieutenant, Sergeant or

Administrative Personnel.

Provo’s Internal Affairs Policy provides that Category I complaints are assigned by the Chief of

Police to an investigator; Category II complaints are assigned a first-line supervisor or watch

commander for investigation.

2.2.8 Community Input into the Internal Affairs Process

Respondents were asked a series of questions pertaining to community input into the internal

affairs process. The questions and responses are noted below:

Does the community have input into the investigatory process within your

agency?

Yes – 8.3%

No – 91.8%

The respondents selecting “yes” indicated that community input is provided in several forms

including general policy input, direct oversight (Civilian Review Board) or other means such as

through a police commission, city council, civil service commission an ombudsman board or

police committee.

Provo’s policy does not include community involvement in internal affairs investigations.

Is community input valued in the internal affairs process?

Respondents selecting “yes” to the above question were asked their views regarding the value or

benefit of community input. The table below summarizes their responses:




Benefit or Value of Community Input into the Internal Affairs Process

Area

Strongly

Agree Agree

Neither

Agree or

Disagree Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

Valuable help when

conducting IA

investigations

3.7% 13.3% 44.4% 26.5% 12.5%

Is important for the

sake of transparency8.2% 24.9% 38.7% 22.6% 5.8%

Can jeopardize an

investigation14.2% 40.7% 34.5% 8.6% 2.2%

Decreases the

autonomy and

authority of theorganization making

the IA decisions

14.4% 34.9% 36.2% 12.9% 1.9%

As noted above, Provo’s policy does not include provisions for community input into its internal

affairs policy or investigation process.

How is the Internal Affairs Policy communicated to the public?

Respondents were asked how the Internal Affairs Policy is communicated to the public. The

table below summarizes their responses:

Methods of Communication with the Public about the Internal Affairs Policy

Method of Communication Percent Responses

Brochure 40%

Website 46.3%

Other 46.9%

The “other” category includes advertisement, annual report, available at police stations, bulletin

boards, citizen’s academy, city clerk’s office, handouts, in-person, orally or records unit.

The Provo Police Department has not posted the policy or information pertaining to how to file a

complaint on its web site nor does it provide a brochure describing the policy for the public.




2.2.9 Internal Affairs Training Procedures

Respondents were asked a series of questions relating to the training of officers assigned to

conduct internal affairs investigations. Several of the questions and responses are noted below.

Does your agency have an internal affairs unit or specific person to handle

internal affairs investigations? Sixty-six percent (66%) responded that they have

someone designated to handle internal affairs investigations and thirty three-

percent (33%) indicated that no one specifically is assigned within the

Department to handle an internal affairs investigation.

Provo’s internal affairs policy provides for Category I investigations; the Chief directly assigns

the investigation to an investigator who is assigned to the Department’s investigation unit.

Category II complaints are investigated by a first-line supervisor under the control of a watch

commander.

Respondents were asked if they provide training to the internal affairs staff inconducting investigations. More than ninety percent (90.3%) responded that they

provide training and slightly over nine percent (9.7%) responded that they do not

provide training for internal affairs staff.

As previously noted, the Provo Police Department does not have an internal affairs unit;

Category I investigations are assigned by the Chief to the investigations unit. Members of the

investigation unit have the opportunity to receive training from a variety of sources and several

supervisors interviewed for this report stated they had received some training.

Respondents were asked if newly promoted supervisors receive mandatory

training regarding internal affairs upon promotion. Almost forty percent (39.9%)

responded that new supervisors received internal affairs training and slightly more

than sixty percent (60.1%) reported they do not receive training.

The Provo Police Department does not provide internal affairs training to newly promoted

supervisors.

2.3 ANALYSIS OF P ROVO ’ S C ITIZENS C OMPLAINT /I NTERNAL AFFAIRS I NVESTIGATIONS

Citygate Associates was provided with a summary document titled “Alleged Employee

Misconduct/Internal Affairs 2005-2010.” The document contains a listing of all Category I

complaints against officers in the Department for the period 2005 – 2010. Included for each

entry is the AEM number, the date the allegation was reported, the date in investigation was

completed, a summary of the allegation(s) and a summary of the finding. In several cases the

allegations included more than one employee; in several instances the internal affairs

investigation included multiple employees consolidated into a single investigation. For purposes




of this analysis, we counted each employee as a single case; therefore if there were two

employees who were the subject of an allegation, it is counted as two allegations.

Our review of the summary document disclosed the following information:

Category I Complaints against Provo Police Officers

By Calendar Year (CY 2005 – 2010)

YearNumber of Category

I ComplaintsResults

2005 1 1 – unfounded

2006 8

2 – unfounded

2 – unsubstantiated

4 – sustained2007 3 3 – unsubstantiated

2008 11

8 – unfounded


2 – sustained

2009 5 5 – unfounded

2010 10

2 – unfounded


5 – sustained

1 – investigation not

complete




The table below categorizes the above complaints by type of complaint by calendar year:

Category I Complaints by Type of Complaint by Calendar Year

Year

Excessive

Force

Criminal

Conduct

Civil

Rights

Violation

Conduct/Rude

Behavior

Domestic

Violence Other

2005 1

2006 2 3 2 1

2007 1 1 1

2008 6 5

2009 4 1

2010 3 1 5 1

Totals 13 7 2 14 2

The table below summarizes sustained complaints by type of complaint by calendar year:

Category I Sustained Complaints by Complaint Type by Calendar Year

Year

Excessive

Force

Criminal

Conduct

Civil

Rights

Violation

Conduct/Rude

Behavior

Domestic

Violence Other

2005

2006 3 1

2007

2008 2

2009

2010 2 3

Totals 2 8 1

2.3.1 Category II Complaints

The internal affairs policy requires that all complaints, regardless of the category of complaint,

are to be recorded and their disposition noted in the departmental records. Further, according to

the policy, Category II complaints are referred to the employee’s supervisor for investigation and

appropriate action.




During our interviews of the sworn supervisors, we asked each of them a series of questions

regarding their knowledge of the policy as it pertains to the handling of Category II complaints.

With regard to the questions about the policy requirement that each complaint be recorded, the

responses ranged from writing down every complaint regardless of how minor it is to several

supervisors who responded that they do not record any of the complaints.

This lack of consistency makes analysis of the data impossible.

2.3.2 Analysis of Category I Complaints

The review of the above data shows that almost twenty-nine percent (29%) of the complaints

received resulted in a finding of “sustained,” meaning the officer involved has been found to

have violated a departmental rule, regulation, policy or procedure (11/38).

For the eleven (11) sustained complaints, eight (8) or almost seventy-three percent (72.7%) were

for issues of conduct or rude behavior.

There is no national or state-wide data source that can be used to compare Provo’s data. Police

Departments in Utah are not required to report internal affairs data to POST; rather, POST

conducts independent investigations of serious claims of misconduct and has the authority to

revoke an officer’s police officer certification thereby effectively ending his/her service as a

police officer.

The Salt Lake City Police Department publishes quarterly reports regarding internal affairs

investigations. A review of data of civilian complaints filed against police officers for the period

July 1, 2003 through March 31, 2007 shows that there were 151 civilian complaints filed and that

thirty-two percent (32%) were sustained. Because of differences in reporting procedures and

disposition categories, it is not possible to compare the types of sustained complaints in Salt

Lake City with Provo.

A 2009 study published by the ACLU included internal affairs data for more than 500 police

departments covering the period 1996 – 2005 in the state of New Jersey. The data in that report

shows that during the period 1996 – 2005 there were 96,488 citizen complaints lodged against

officers and that 27,695 or nearly twenty-nine percent (28.7%) were sustained.

Based on the data presented, it does not appear that Provo has a higher percentage of sustained

complaints against its officers than other departments.




2.4 F INDINGS R EGARDING C ITIZENS ’ C OMPLAINT P ROCESS

Finding #1: The Department maintains a file of all internal affairs

investigations in the office of the Chief of Police; however, thesummary document we were provided does not follow the

disposition categories stated in the policy. The category

“unsubstantiated” is used in the summary document when ther e is

no such category in the policy.

The internal affairs policy uses standard disposition classifications. In several instances the

summary document provided used the disposition “unsubstantiated.” It is not clear if the

intended disposition in those instances was “Not Sustained” or “Unfounded.”

Finding #2: Fourteen (14) investigations were completed within the ten-day

time window provided in the policy; seventeen (17) investigations

took longer than the ten-day window; one (1) investigation is on-

going and in one investigation the length of time it took to

investigate cannot be determined. In instances where it took

longer than ten days to investigate the complaint, the summary

document includes a notation explaining the delay.

Forty-two percent (42%) of the investigations were completed within the ten-day time periodwhile fifty-two percent (52%) were not. In cases where it took longer than ten days to complete

the investigation the records document the reasons why. Generally those reasons were the

difficulty in locating witnesses and the complexity of the investigation.

Finding #3: The Department does not follow the policy pertaining to Category

II allegations in that there is disparate handling of cases from

supervisor to supervisor in terms of creating a written record of the

allegation and recording the memo in an appropriate location;

some supervisors write memos on all complaints regardless of theseriousness of the issue, while other supervisors do not document

the allegation in accordance with the policy. Failure to maintain

proper records of Category II complaints also serves to deprive the

Department of an effective early warning system to alert managers

to potential issues of officer stress and other potentially more

serious allegations.




Interviews conducted with supervisors disclosed significant differences in how Category II

complaints are handled. Some supervisors stated that they followed the policy and documented

the complaint, followed up with the officer taking appropriate action, memorialized the

complaint and forwarded the memo to the Division Commander who is responsible for filing the

complaint and notifying the complaining party of the result of the investigation; othersupervisors stated that they did not memorialize the complaint in memo form, but stated that they

followed up with the officer who was the subject of the complaint and notified the complaining

party of the result.

Finding #4: Newly promoted supervisors do not receive training at the time of

promotion regarding their responsibilities under the current policy.

Newly promoted supervisors stated that they do not receive any training regarding Professional

Standards of Conduct. Many stated that while they understood the policy, their new role as asupervisor requires them to instruct others in the policy and that refresher training would be

helpful.

Finding #5: It does not appear that the Department has a higher than average

percentage of “sustained” findings than their counterparts in Salt

Lake City; however, due to the significant differences police

agencies use in categorizing complaints by type, it is not possible

to compare Provo with other departments.



Section 3—Professional Standards of Conduct and Ethics page 26

SECTION 3—PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS OF CONDUCT AND ETHICS

3.1 P ROFESSIONAL S TANDARDS AND C ONDUCT

The objective in Citygate Associates’ review of this area was to examine the process by which

Professional Standards and Conduct are translated and incorporated into the Department’s

Values, Mission, Vision and Goals and how those Professional Standards are then communicated

to sworn and professional staff within the Department.

To accomplish this objective we reviewed randomly selected training records, training calendars

for the last three years, training outlines, including the 40-hour training course for newly hired

sworn officers and available shift training records. We interviewed randomly selected sworn and

professional staff at all ranks and visually inspected the Department for outward signs or

expressions of the organization’s Values, Mission, Vision and Goals.

The phrase “Professional Standards and Conduct” (PSC) includes education, instruction and

training in all areas related to ethics, ethical standards, and values.

Finding #6.1: Training and the transmission of the Department’s philosophy with

regard to PSC is sporadic and inconsistent.

Sworn officers initially receive training in PSC at an accredited Police Academy. Every officer

must attend an accredited academy to be eligible for employment as a sworn officer at the Provo

Police Department.

After being hired at the Department officers may receive training, with regard to PSC and their

relation to the Department’s Values, Mission, Vision, and Goals, in three ways. First, by

attending a required 40-hour training course for newly hired officers; second, at shift training (if

any); third, at scheduled monthly training; and fourth, at training independently sought by the

individual officer.

In interviews with sworn members of the Department, it was stated that the training provided at

shift training largely depends on the shift supervisor and watch commander. One watch

commander has developed an impressive training curriculum and uses it to provide training and

education to officers assigned to his shift, but that training is not provided to officers on other

shifts and assignments.

Professional non-sworn staff receive this information as part of their orientation with the Chief of

Police and then, depending on their division, during a review of Department policy, voluntarily

attending shift training, training or education sought independently, or not at all.




Finding #7: Training in Professional Standards of Conduct and ethics for newly

hired police officers is personally conducted by the Chief of

Police.

Former Chief Geslison described his training block as a review of the Law Enforcement Code of

Ethics as detailed by the Utah Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST). The Chief also

conveyed his general philosophy about ethical behavior and sets the tone for his expectations of

new officers. This is a good investment of the Chief's time and he should be commended for

having taken the initiative to incorporate this block of time with the new officers. Strong

consideration should be given by the Department’s next Chief to continue this practice.

Finding #8: The training curriculum materials used for newly hired officers are

inconsistent and in some instances lack clear learning outcomes.

Newly hired sworn officers in the Provo Police Department are required to take a 40-hour

course. The purpose of this course is to orient them to the Department ’s policies, procedures and

expectations for performance and to ensure that they have a proper foundation to begin their law

enforcement career. Following this course new officers are assigned to a field training officer.

The most recent iteration of the 40-hour course schedule (the schedule itself is not dated but is

part of a three-ring binder that purports to contain all the lesson plans, syllabi and tests from the

last 40-hour In-House Training for New Police Officers) shows a two-hour block at 2:00 PM

entitled, Ethics, conducted by Chief Geslison.

We carefully reviewed the materials related to each subject. While some of the subjects included

a syllabus, class outline, learning outcomes and tests, they did not have a consistent template for

each subject area. There was significant inconsistency in the type and quality of the materials.

Some of the individual courses contained various types of Student Learning Outcomes (SLO).

None of the student learning outcomes were consistent with the current educational best

practices for articulating student learning outcomes.

Student learning outcomes are an articulation of what learners will achieve and describe the

means by which learners will demonstrate that achievement. As the discipline to be taught

changes, so too do the student learning outcomes. The process of developing student learning

outcomes takes time and thoughtful consideration. It is best done in a collaborative effort with

specific area experts and individuals with education and experience in teaching. In the

environment of the Provo Police Department this experience should be focused on individuals

with experience in the areas of adult education. Developing strong student learning outcomes

presents an excellent opportunity for collaboration with willing partners from area colleges and

universities.




During our interview process some individuals expressed confidence that topics regarding ethics

and appropriate behavior were incorporated in the instruction process for virtually all of the

classes. During our review of the outlines, student learning outcomes and tests we found no

evidence to support that assertion as a universal element of all teaching materials.

3.2 M ONTHLY T RAINING

Finding #6.2: The annual training calendar provides a wide range of training and

education in operational areas, but does not provide sufficient

training in Professional Standards and Conduct.

We reviewed the training calendars for the years 2008, 2009, 2010 and the pending calendar for

2011. The training calendars, prepared by the operations Captain are designed to direct monthlydepartmental training as well as reflect other training for individual specialized units such as

Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) and Explosive Ordinance Disposal (EOD). One of the

purposes of the monthly training is to ensure that all officers meet or exceed the minimum Utah

Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) required annual training. The training annual

calendar is approved by the Chief of Police.

Without question, training is always a challenge for all law enforcement agencies. The balance of

who should be trained, on what topics, for how long and by whom is an important decision

process not only for operational needs but also represents either significant liability exposure or

defense against liability.

That said, we noted that between 2008 and the plan calendar for 2011 all of the topics were

heavily weighted towards operational issues. With the exception of the topic of police liability,

topics related to PSC were conspicuous by their absence. All of the topics were, however, related

to public safety and were certainly eligible for satisfying minimal requirements for continuing

education for law enforcement officers.

3.3 S HIFT T RAINING

Finding #6.3: Based on a review of departmental training records, officers

receive substantially more than the minimum required forty hours

of training; however, there are few training opportunities that

specifically address matters relating to professional standards,

conduct and ethics.




We randomly selected the training file summary of twenty-five Officers, four Sergeants, four

Lieutenants, and one Captain for the period covering CY 2008 – 2010. We reviewed each of the

summaries for any classes that appeared to be related to the issues of ethics or professional

conduct. The following table contains a summary of our findings:

Professional Standards/Ethics Training as a Percentage of All Training

CY 2008 – 2010

Managers (Sergeant,

Lieutenant and Captain) Officers

Average # hours Ethics

Training2.9 hours/manager .604 hours/officer

Average # total training hours 293.4 hours/manager 313.72 hours/officer

Average percentethics/standards training

.9%/manager .02%/officer

Based on the above table, during the past three years the average police manager has a total

293.4 hours of training (2.9 hours of which relates to professional standards, conduct and ethics)

that constitutes less than one percent (.9%) of the total training hours. For officers, the data

shows that over the same three-year period of time, the average officer received 313.72 hours of

training, but less than one hour of which related to professional standards, conduct and ethics;

that constitutes less than one half of one percent (.02%).

Finding #9.1: Shift training is prepared by the assigned Lieutenant and varies

considerably across shifts and departmental divisions.

During our interviews we learned that the dayshift patrol Lieutenant had been conducting what

was described as very well organized, focused and well documented training. The title of this

training was Critical Core Daily Training. We reviewed the Daily Shift Schedule as well as the

outline for the Provo Police Department-Daily Training Bulletin.

We found that the critical core daily training bulletins were organized around the Department's

policies. The bulletins were well organized with a short description of the purpose, thepresentation, a scenario, the applicable policy and a short discussion of the ethical

considerations.

After a brief review of the critical core tasks entitled Day #1 through Day #31, and without

comment as to the accuracy of the content, information seemed well organized and appropriate

for shift training. In general the shift training seems to last between 20 and 50 minutes. Everyone




we interviewed and with whom we spoke casually had very positive comments regarding this

training. While it is focused on dayshift patrol, individuals from other divisions may, and do,

attend on a voluntary basis. We found no evidence that the same kind of training was being

replicated on other shifts or divisions in the Department.

We should note that during our review of the training information we did find an untitled two-page document which listed personnel by Days, Swings, and Graves. At the top of each page

were six columns individually entitled Standards of Conduct, Ethics, Customer Service, Dealing

with Difficult People, Preventing Accidents, and Evaluation. For each employee on the untitled

two-page document there was an X under the corresponding six columns. A review of the

randomly selected training courses showed that some of the employees showed recorded training

which would seem to be consistent with the titles in the columns.

The Operations Captain who is currently responsible for coordinating and maintaining training

records said that this training was related to a series of CDs which he made available to us.

While we did not review the individual CDs we did note that they bore the titles of the sixcolumns.

None of the randomly selected training records we reviewed contain more than one or two

references that we could associate with the six topics. It is possible that the unidentified

document was prepared in conjunction with city-wide training.

3.4 T RAINING P URSUED I NDEPENDENTLY

Finding #9.2: The Department allows officers to select external training from a

wide range of training courses. Officers apply to attend the various

courses through their chain of command; however, there is no

evidence that such training courses are approved based on a

thorough training needs assessment of the individual officer or the

Department.

Information regarding external training courses is distributed from the Operations Captain to all

divisions. Employees make requests to attend such courses through their chain of command.

Absent individual effort we saw no evidence of a departmental or staff-level discussionregarding the overall needs of the employees and Department as they would apply to issues of

professional conduct and ethics.




3.5 T RADITIONS

Finding #10: The Provo Police Department has a good Mission Statement. A

strong set of well articulated values, arrived at through acollaborative process would help to inform and support that

Mission Statement. Such a set of living documents will serve to

support what we found to be a strong desire on the part of the men

and woman of the Provo Police Department to carry out their

duties in a manner consistent with the best traditions of their

profession.

Because Police Officers spend a great deal of their time in encounters with people who are under

stress, having been the victim of a crime, directly affected by a crime, the suspect and crime,

receiving a citation or some variation thereof, officers deal with a wide range of human

emotions. There are no set of Department policies, rulebooks, or directives that can ever cover all

of the circumstances resulting from these encounters. When the circumstances do not seem to

neatly fit into existing rules, officers must understand the Chief's intent in order to make

appropriate decisions. That intent represents what the Department wants to accomplish and the

way in which the Department expects its officers to conduct themselves in accomplishing that

intent. The Chief's intent may be communicated and traditions established or reinforced in a

variety of different ways.

The Chief currently meets with all new employees and discusses his expectations and reviews

the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics. This is an excellent practice that should be continued.

The Department has a Mission Statement. During our walking tour of police headquarters and in

the days during which we were conducting interviews we found only one location where the

Department’s Mission Statement was displayed. The Mission Statement along with the

Department's Values, Vision and Goals all represent tangible evidence of the Chief ’s intent.

During our interview process we asked several individuals if they knew the Department’s

Mission Statement; most stated that they did. Although, when asked to recite it or to identify

significant parts of that Mission Statement, few were able to do so. This would not be a criticism

of the individuals as much as the process by which the Department has internalized the Mission

Statement as a practical operational guide.

While the Department does have a policy regarding the awarding of medals and we did see a

poster highlighting three officers for current recognition, there was no evidence of an annual

process to recognize outstanding work, special accomplishments, cooperation or volunteerism by

officers, professional staff and/or community members.




The Department is in the process of issuing a departmental coin. These coins, also known as

Commanders Coins or Challenge Coins, have a tradition in United States dating back to World

War I. The coins are often given, usually informally, in recognition of special accomplishments

or dedication. In most settings they are seen as a boost to morale and a sign of esprit de corps.

They also serve to enhance the Chief ’s intent by incorporating key aspects of the Department’sValues, Mission, Vision, and Goals such as Courtesy, Respect, Integrity and Kindness.

By necessity public safety remains a quasi-military profession. As such, traditions form a

significant part of each department's culture. The extent to which a department preserves,

nurtures and develops its traditions can help inform how that department performs under highly

stressful and unusual circumstances. These traditions cannot be lifted from other agencies and

imprinted on another. They must come from within.





Section 4—Officer Training page 34

Finding #13: The Police Department does not track the training records of

reserve officers.

The second issue deals with the category of reserve officer. The category of reserve officer refers

to a certified police officer who is working full-time for one agency and working overtime at a

second agency. According to the Operations Captain the protocol for tracking all training for the

reserve officer rests with the home agency. The Provo Police Department employs reserve

officers. Without comment as to the various potential issues of liability for employing full-time

police officers from another agency or allowing Provo officers to work in other agencies or as

private security, it is our view that closer contact between the Provo Police Department

employing the services of a full-time police officer from another agency should more closely

track the total amount and type of training the reserve officer is recording at his or her home

agency.

4.3 S HIFT T RAINING

Finding #14: Shift training is credited toward the 40-hour annual training

requirement, but it is not training approved annually by the Chief

of Police.

We believe there may be some, possibly technical, issues with recording shift training as

authorized Post-In-Service credit time. Because the Chief of Police does not currently certify thisshift training it may technically be outside the parameters set forth in the POST policy 3010 – 5

et seq. Many of the records we examined, especially those from dayshift officers, had

accumulated several hours of “Post-In-Service credit time” in time intervals less than one hour

during shift training. As previously mentioned this could be a simple technical fix resolved by a

written authorization by the Chief of Police for this training or by getting clarification from Utah

POST, in writing, as to the efficacy of using shift training.

4.4 F IELD T RAINING O FFICER (FTO) P ROGRAM

Finding #15: There is disagreement among members of the Department

regarding the effectiveness of the field training program;

specifically, many employees believe that underperforming

officers are not terminated when recommended by the FTO.



Section 4—Officer Training page 35

There was a strong sense among many of the individuals directly involved in the field training

officer (FTO) program that their advice specifically with regard to the termination of

underperforming recruit officers was not given the appropriate weight by some level of

supervision above the rank of lieutenant. Our record review did not cover looking at specific

situations. Just as the role of the Human Resources Director is critical in helping the Departmentselect the correct candidate, the role of the FTO is critical in helping the Department to retain

officers with demonstrated potential or eliminate underperforming officers during their

probationary period.

The FTO is the individual within the Department who should have among the strongest

understanding of the Values, Mission, Vision, and Goals of the Department and the Chief's

intent. The selection process for this position should be equally if not more rigorous than the

selection for any mission-critical positions within the Department. Once selected, FTOs should

be used as key trainers within the Department and should themselves receive training in

leadership and management. If training recommendations by the FTOs are not undertaken there

should be feedback with the FTO as to the reasons for the decisions.



Section 5—Leadership and Management page 36

SECTION 5—LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT

5.1 D EPARTMENTAL M ANAGEMENT

Finding #16: While there are excellent leaders at all ranks throughout the

Department, their leadership efforts are often not sufficiently

coordinated to achieve positive results.

During our brief time with the men and women of the Provo Police Department Citygate

Associates found many examples of excellent leadership occurring within several ranks of the

Department. Likewise, it would be inappropriate not to emphasize that the vast majority of

people with whom we spoke were proud to work for the Provo Police Department, felt that they

had a good department, wanted to do the “right thing” and were eager for positive change.

Unfortunately, few believe that there is currently a process in place to allow for or encourage

positive change. We found significant evidence of individual efforts attempting to model

appropriate attention to training, positive change and Professional Standards of Conduct.

Unfortunately these efforts, while noteworthy and often commendable, were uncoordinated,

lacked any unity of command and were effectively operating in silos. This is not intended as a

criticism for the individual efforts but as a reflection on the overall state of coordination within

the Department.

We learned from several individuals that it was their impression that policy changes anddirectives came down the chain of command via e-mail to supervisors who, according to various

levels of officer and supervisors, felt it was then their responsibility to read these policy changes

or directives to the officers. The information frequently lacked context or the reason for the

changes. Some individuals expressed frustration with the way policy directives are

communicated due to this lack of context.

5.2 M ANAGEMENT BY S TATISTICS

Finding #17: There is a great deal of concern and frustration surrounding the

methods currently used to evaluate the job performance of officers.

The most rancorous topic during Citygate Associates’ review seemed to center around the

evaluation of patrol officers on the basis of statistics. We should clarify here that when we say

officers were rated by virtue of their statistics we are speaking primarily of traffic citations.



Section 5—Leadership and Management page 37

Although arrests and other statistics were considered, officers felt that they were required to meet

a quota of different kinds of traffic violations including, but not limited to, parking, equipment,

and moving violations.

It was generally agreed that with the election of the new Mayor and the concurrence of the Chief

of Police that the previous policy of emphasizing statistics in the evaluation of patrol officers hadbeen eliminated. When discussing this topic, the emotions expressed ranged from extreme

frustration, to fear of appearing critical of a continuing “unofficial policy” of evaluating patrol

officers primarily on the basis of statistics. There was a sense of resignation that no matter what

the Chief said, and despite his efforts including rejecting some performance reports, that the

policy continued.

Anecdotally, officers expressed frustration that they believe that their fellow officers felt so

much pressure to write citations that they were no longer willing to do a variety of standard

patrol functions including, but not limited to, assisting on crime scenes, providing cover on some

traffic stops and participating in directed patrol. As a brief aside, some of the problems andsituations expressed by the officers may be due to a concurrent feeling that they are understaffed

in patrol. At this time without additional research it is difficult for us to offer an opinion as to the

appropriateness of the current staffing or the effect of deployment decisions of that staffing.

When discussing problems in patrol not only with those with whom we had formal interviews

but with many others informally, the focus was not on the number of officers but on the

emphasis on statistics for personnel evaluation.

Whether this is true there was a strong belief that officers had been passed over for promotion

and transfer based on the arbitrary requirement of a certain amount of activity in selected patrol

categories, most notably traffic enforcement. Officers seem to also feel that the need to write thecitations was creating friction between them and the community. Officers expressed frustration

that they felt the need to write a citation where they felt a warning would have sufficed because

they knew they needed that statistic.

While certainly not the only issue of concern for the men and women of the Provo Police

Department, this issue clearly represented the lack of unity of command, clear communication

and understanding of the Chief's intent currently operating within the Police Department.

Other issues negatively affecting morale included, but were not limited to, a lack of recognition,

a sense that they were not supported (by command and in some cases by the community), poor

equipment, inconsistent application of rules and discipline, a perception of a "good old boy

system for promotion" and a lack of pay or benefit increase in the last three years.





Section 6—Hiring and Retention page 39

SECTION 6—HIRING AND RETENTION

6.1 E NTRY -LEVEL P OLICE O FFICER H IRING P ROCESS

During the course of this review, Citygate Associates staff met with the Human Resources

Director to review the hiring practices used by the City to recruit, test and hire applicants for

entry-level police officer.

Finding #19: The selection process for entry-level police officer is well-

developed and designed to assess the skills and competencies

required for successful job performance; however, the oral

interview board process lacks questions pertaining to ethical

conduct and standards.

The process for hiring is described in a document titled Police Officer and Firefighter Testing

Information and is available to the public on the City’s web page.

In summary, the hiring procedure for becoming a Provo Police Officer includes a number of

steps including:

Completion of a standard employment application

Successfully passing a written examination

Successfully passing a physical abilities exam

Successfully passing an oral board interview comprised of officers in the Police

Department.

Applicants who are successful in the above process have their names placed on an eligibility list

which remains in effect for a two-year period. As the Police Department needs require, names

from the eligibility list are referred to begin the background investigation. The background

investigation includes the completion of a personal history statement, a thorough investigation

conducted by the Police Department and a standard psychological examination.

The hiring process is governed by the City’s personnel rules and regulations.

In general, except for the recommendations noted below, the hiring process is sufficiently

rigorous in screening applicants. It is important for the reader to understand that the review of

the hiring process did not include auditing or commenting on the validity of the process. The

Federal Uniform Guidelines on Employee Section Procedures (1978) along with the Standards of




Educational and Psychological Testing (1990) are generally considered by testing experts as the

professional standards for testing and assessment.

The review of the hiring process is included in this report for the purpose of determining the

degree to which personal ethics and Professional Standards of Conduct are identified, assessed

and used as part of the overall hiring process.

6.2 B ACKGROUND I NVESTIGATION

Finding #20: The background investigation process used by the Department

does not include a polygraph examination. A polygraph

examination is a standard component of a policy officer entry-level

hiring program of almost every police department in the United

States.

Under the current hiring procedure, the principle way in which the City assesses the factor of

ethical conduct and Professional Standards of Conduct is through the background investigation

conducted by departmental investigators. The investigators conduct a detailed and thorough

review of the applicant’s employment histor y, personal references and other sources of

information required to determine the applicant’s personal history, personal characteristics and

overall suitability for employment as a police officer. While in most instances the background

investigation process is adequate enough to assess an applicant’s past ethical conduct, the

process as currently used can result in the hiring of an applicant whose background may be less

than desired.

6.3 O RAL B OARD I NTERVIEWS

Finding #21: The oral board interview process used to assess applicants is

generally comprised of sworn officers in the Department. During

the course of this review, we talked with several sworn staff

members who served on oral board interviews and they reported

that they received minimal training in the interview process.

Several sworn staff members interviewed stated they had served on oral board interview panels.

When asked to describe the training they stated they were provided instructions pertaining to the

use of the rating form and would review and discuss the proposed interview questions. They




stated that this training would be provided on the day of the interviews and would take about 30

minutes, which is typically the length of an applicant interview.

Human Resources Department staff confirmed the above information regarding the training

provided to members of the oral board interviews.

Finding #22: Oral boards are comprised of sworn members of the Department.

Police Department members stated that at one point in time there

was a community representative on the oral board but that practice

had been discontinued.

Several individuals interviewed stated that at one time the Human Resources Department would

assemble oral boards that included a community representative, but that practice changed. When

the Human Resources Department staff was asked about civilian members on oral boards for

entry-level hiring, the staff confirmed the information and offered the fact that it is often difficult

to find qualified individuals to serve as oral board panel members because of the time

commitment required.

6.4 C OMPETITIVE LABOR M ARKET

Finding #23: In response to various financial challenges, the City implemented a

wage freeze throughout the work force.

Two years ago the City, due to financial circumstance, implemented a wage freeze. While it was

determined that this action was necessary to address the City’s budget and financial

circumstances, many individuals expressed concern regarding the impact the wage freeze is

having on the Department, particularly as it relates to future recruitment of officers and the

current workload demands.

It was expressed that the wage freeze is resulting in lower than desirable morale, particularly in

the patrol division where the demands for service continue to grow along with a perception that

the Department’s performance standards are too focused on meeting quantitative rather than

qualitative measures of job performance and staffing levels are not adequate to provide the

community with the service levels consistent with their expectations. Further, many of the staff

members interviewed, several of whom have sat on oral board interviews, expressed the concern

that the quality of applicant pools over the past several years has diminished and questioned the

City’s ability to recruit in a competitive labor market.





Section 7—Community Relations page 43

Finding #25: Despite the recent incidents involving Provo police officers, there

still is a high level of trust and confidence in the Police

Department; yet at the same time, there still is concern that the

Department’s leadership needs to take appropriate steps to ensure

that the Department continues to maintain high ethical standards of conduct.

Among those with whom we spoke, and based on a review of the emails received by the

Citizen’s Oversight Committee, it appears the community has a high level of support for and

confidence in the Provo Police Department. The public’s continued confidence in the

Department will depend upon how effective the Department is implementing necessary changes

in certain areas, including the citizens’ complaint process.

7.2 P UBLIC C ONFIDENCE IN THE C ITIZENS ’ C OMPLAINT P ROCESS

Finding #26: Several members of the public expressed reservations about the

current citizens’ complaint process. The main reservation was that

they felt uncomfortable coming into Police headquarters to file a

complaint; others expressed a concern that they were

uncomfortable filing a complaint directly with an officer because

they perceived that their complaint would not be taken seriously.

These opinions were expressed to us from the feedback that has

been received by the Citizen’s Oversight Committee.

Several members of the Citizens’ Oversight Committee reported that the feedback they were

receiving from the community regarding the citizens’ complaint process included comments

pertaining to the perceived difficulty in filing a complaint. Further, it was reported that some in

the community believe that complaints filed against officers are not taken seriously or not

investigated.

7.3 COPS P ROGRAM

Finding #27: There is a great deal of support for the Department’s Community

Oriented Policing Program and a desire on the part of the public to

see the program expanded.



Section 7—Community Relations page 44

As important as it is for the command staff to be visible in the community, the public will come

into contact with rank-and-file employees much more frequently. Virtually all experts agree that

the philosophy of community policing remains as important today in difficult economic times as

it was when it was reintroduced to the American public in the early 1970s. We say reintroduced

because community policing is truthfully a return to an old-fashioned sense of personalresponsibility and problem solving practiced by much earlier generations of Americans.

For community policing to cease to be strictly a division within the Police Department and

become truly a philosophy of the Police Department, it must become an integral part of all of the

operations of that department. In point of fact, community policing is truly misnamed. It is more

appropriately referred to as a philosophy of good government because when properly practiced it

is a strong collaboration between all departments of government, nongovernmental

organizations, schools, community groups, and neighborhoods.

When properly implemented and practiced by all areas of the Department this philosophy of

good government helps to build a bond of trust that is referred to as emotional equity. Emotionalequity is that intangible currency that is earned by a Department and/or city which, when things

go wrong as they always will, the Department has the trust of the community that it will do the

right thing.



Section 8—Recommendations page 45

SECTION 8—RECOMMENDATIONS

In this section of the report, Citygate Associates presents a series of recommendations

specifically designed to address the finding in each subject area. For ease of presentation, we

repeat each finding by section along with accompanying recommendation. Findings andrecommendations have been numbered in pairings.

8.1 C ITIZENS ’ C OMPLAINT P ROCESS

Finding #1: The Department maintains a file of all internal affairs investigations in the office

of the Chief of Police; however, the summary document we were provided does

not follow the disposition categories stated in the policy. The category

“unsubstantiated” is used in the summary document when there is no such

category in the policy.

Recommendation #1: It is recommended that the Department correctly documents all

internal affairs files and related records using the disposition

categories in the Internal Affairs Policy.

Finding #2: Fourteen (14) investigations were completed within the ten-day time window

provided in the policy; seventeen (17) investigations took longer than the ten-day

window; one (1) investigation is on-going and in one investigation the length of

time it took to investigate cannot be determined. In instances where it took longer

than ten days to investigate the complaint, the summary document includes a

notation explaining the delay.

Recommendation #2: It is recommended that the Internal Affairs Policy be amended

regarding the length of time for completing an investigation for

Category I complaints from ten days to thirty days.

As previously noted, less than half of the investigations regarding Category I complaints were

investigated in ten days. Further, data cited in this report shows that the typical length of time to

conduct an investigation is thirty days. Thirty days is a more realistic timeframe to investigate a

Category I complaint. We also recommend that if an investigation takes longer than thirty days

to complete, the internal investigation file be documented with the reason(s) for the extension of time.

Finding #3: The Department does not follow the policy pertaining to Category II allegations in

that there is disparate handling of cases from supervisor to supervisor in terms of

creating a written record of the allegation and recording the memo in an

appropriate location; some supervisors write memos on all complaints regardless




of the seriousness of the issue, while other supervisors do not document the

allegation in accordance with the policy. Failure to maintain proper records of

Category II complaints also serves to deprive the Department of an effective early

warning system to alert managers to potential issues of officer stress and other

potentially more serious allegations.

Recommendation #3.1: It is recommended that the Provo Police Department create an

Office of Professional Standards and Training. This bureau

should report directly to the Chief of Police and be charged with

the responsibility for managing the investigation of citizen

complaints made against officers. It is also recommended that this

bureau take over the responsibility for developing, implementing

and recordkeeping for the Department’s training program which

is currently done by the Patrol Division Captain.

Recommendation #3.2: It is recommended that the Police Department from this point

forward properly record and memorialize all Category II citizen

complaints.

The Department’s approach to handling Category II complaints is fragmented. Several

supervisors interviewed stated they document all citizen complaints, regardless of how minor

they are, while other supervisors stated that they do not document citizen complaints. We believe

this situation occurred due primarily to a lack of understanding of the current policy and the

assigned responsibility of the supervisor. The lack of documentation results in the inability of

the Department to implement the “early warning system” as set forth in the current internalaffairs policy. Therefore, it is important for the Department to correctly document and

memorialize Category II complaints.

The findings with respect to several shortcomings in the internal affairs policy and process arise

in part because of the diffused accountability, particularly relating to Category II complaints.

Therefore we recommend that an Office of Professional Standards and Training be created and

vested with the responsibility of receiving and investigating citizen complaints. We also

recommend that the present policy of allowing any employee of the Department to initially

receive a citizen’s complaint should be continued. When a citizen’s complaint is received, it

should be immediately referred to the Office of Professional Standards which in turn would

notify the Chief of Police. Further, creating an Office of Professional Standards will also help

address the issues associated with receiving, documenting, investigating and recording Category

II complaint. If this recommendation is adopted, it will require revisions to the current internal

affairs investigation policy.

Finding #4: Newly promoted supervisors do not receive training at the time of promotion

regarding their responsibilities under the current policy.




Recommendation #4: It is recommended that all newly promoted supervisors receive

adequate training in the Department’s internal affairs policy,

particularly noting the need for appropriate documentation of

complaints.

Upon promotion supervisors currently do not receive training about the Department’s internal

affairs policy. Since supervisors play a key role under the current policy, particularly relating to

Category II complaints, it is critical that they understand and follow the policy and maintain

proper documentation.

Finding #5: It does not appear that the Department has a higher than average percentage of

“sustained” findings than their counterparts in Salt Lake City; however, due to the

significant differences police agencies use in categorizing complaints by type, it is

not possible to compare Provo with other departments.

Recommendation #5: It is recommended that the Department publish in summary formthe results of all citizen complaints respecting the legitimate

privacy interests of the Department’s employees and the

complaining party. We believe reporting the results of the

citizens’ complaint process will result in improved public

confidence of the Department and will certainly increase the

transparency of the policy.

Transparency and accountability in the internal affairs policy is crucial for building confidence

and trust in the Police Department. We also recognize that officers in the Department have a

legitimate interest in maintaining their privacy, particularly in complaints where there is no

“sustained” finding. We also recognize that the complaining party may have a legitimate inter est

in keeping their identity confidential as well. By publishing the results of the internal affairs

investigations on a quarterly schedule, the public will have a better understanding of how the

internal affairs policy is applied, gain confidence in the investigatory process and understand that

the Police Department takes complaints seriously.

8.2 P ROFESSIONAL S TANDARDS OF C ONDUCT AND E THICS

Finding #6.1: Training and the transmission of the Department’s philosophy with regard to PSCis sporadic and inconsistent.

Finding #6.2: The annual training calendar provides a wide range of training and education in

operational areas, but does not provide sufficient training in Professional

Standards and Conduct.




Finding #6.3: Based on a review of departmental training records, officers receive substantially

more than the minimum required forty hours of training; however, there are few

training opportunities that specifically address matters relating to professional

standards, conduct and ethics.

Recommendation #6.1: At the earliest convenience the Interim Chief should meet with

staff to review the monthly training calendar to ensure that the

schedule of training features PSC at least once during the year

and that each officer, supervisor and manager take a minimum of

two hours of training per year. Professional standards, conduct

and ethics training will assist in institutionalizing the positive

values that are the foundation of the Police Department.

Recommendation #6.2: Some instances of deviance from appropriate adherence to PSC

are thought to have their origins in feelings of victimization and

entitlement. Left unaddressed, these issues may contribute to

employee dissatisfaction and higher rates of alcoholism, divorce

and suicide than found in the general population. Comprehensive

training in Hypervigilance and PTSD, of all employees and their

spouses or significant others, should be part of an overall

employee wellness program.

Finding #7: Training in Professional Standards of Conduct and ethics for newly hired police

officers is personally conducted by the Chief of Police.

Recommendation #7: It is recommended that this practice continue and be expanded so

that the Chief of Police conducts training for newly promoted

officers as well and periodically provides refresher training at

briefings and roll calls and in other circumstances as appropriate.

Finding #8: The training curriculum materials used for newly hired officers are inconsistent

and in some instances lack clear learning outcomes.

Recommendation #8: Lesson plans, syllabi, student learning objectives and proof of

student understanding should be appropriate to the type and

duration of the training. A good example of short duration

training documentation is currently in use in the Day Shift’s

Critical Core Daily Training. This training could be enhanced by

incorporating the lessons into a longer duration monthly training

which would include the opportunity to test the

officer’s/employee’s understanding of the material.




Finding #9.1: Shift training is prepared by the assigned Lieutenant and varies considerably

across shifts and departmental divisions.

Finding #9.2: The Department allows officers to select external training from a wide range of

training courses. Officers apply to attend the various courses through their chain

of command; however, there is no evidence that such training courses are

approved based on a thorough training needs assessment of the individual officer

or the Department.

Recommendation #9: It is recommended that the responsibility for the Department’s

training program be reassigned from the Patrol Captain to the

Office of Professional Standards and Training (see

Recommendation #3.1). Following that reassignment, it is

recommended that there be a department-wide training needs

assessment conducted. This assessment will document the short-

and long-term training needs and will enable a better alignment

between the development of the annual training calendar,

monthly training and shift training with the expressed training

needs of the staff.

Finding #10: The Provo Police Department has a good Mission Statement. A strong set of well

articulated values, arrived at through a collaborative process would help to inform

and support that Mission Statement. Such a set of living documents will serve to

support what we found to be a strong desire on the part of the men and woman of

the Provo Police Department to carry out their duties in a manner consistent withthe best traditions of their profession.

Recommendation #10: It is recommended that the Department develop and implement

an annual employee recognition program that acknowledges the

work performed by members of the Department, honors its

traditions and acknowledges the support of the community.

8.3 O FFICER T RAINING

Finding #11: The review of a sample of departmental training records indicates that the

Department is in compliance with POST training requirements relating to the

number of hours of training an officer receives on an annual basis.

Recommendation #11: The Department should continue to monitor officer training to

ensure continued compliance with POST requirements.




Finding #12: The Chief, division commanders and supervisors do not have direct access to

training records.

Recommendation #12: It is recommended that immediate and direct access is established

for the Chief of Police and his Executive Assistant to all training

records and all other records as he or she directs. Direct read-

only access to all training records for all division commanders

and first-line supervisors should also be immediately established.

Finding #13: The Police Department does not track the training records of reserve officers.

Recommendation #13: It is recommended that the training record and review policy of

reserve officers be assessed and reconsidered.

Finding #14: Shift training is credited toward the 40-hour annual training requirement, but it is

not training approved annually by the Chief of Police.

Recommendation #14: It is recommended that all shift training be approved by the

Police Chief in a manner that ensures that the training can be

credited to the employees for purposes of meeting the annual

POST training requirement.

Finding #15: There is disagreement among members of the Department regarding the

effectiveness of the field training program; specifically, many employees believe

that underperforming officers are not terminated when recommended by the FTO.

Recommendation #15: It is recommended that a process is begun to ensure First Line

Supervisor training in leadership and management for FTO.

Regular meetings should be established for FTOs to discuss

training needs of recruits and to obtain feedback for

departmental training.

8.4 LEADERSHIP AND M ANAGEMENT

Finding #16: While there are excellent leaders at all ranks throughout the Department, their

leadership efforts are often not sufficiently coordinated to achieve positive results.

Recommendation #16: It is recommended that the Police Department implement a

facilitated strategic planning process which should include a

comprehensive review of the Police Department’s Mission

Statement, Vision and Values. We also recommend that a

strategic planning process include the establishment of short- and




long-term goals and objectives along with benchmarks for

measuring progress toward meeting the established goals.

Community input into the strategic planning process should be

welcomed.

Finding #17: There is a great deal of concern and frustration surrounding the methods currently

used to evaluate the job performance of officers.

Recommendation #17: It is recommended that immediately, clearly and unequivocally,

the Department clarify its position on the use of certain statistics

such as traffic and parking citations in evaluating personnel. A

process should be established to monitor future evaluations and

examine alternative methods of employee evaluation that

considers a broad array of job performance factors.

Finding #18: The Department does not have a systematic approach to training prior to

promotion to supervisory and management ranks.

Recommendation #18: It is recommended that the Department implement a succession

planning program in which: (1) the desired attributes, knowledge,

skills and abilities for promotional ranks be identified through a

systematic job analysis methodology; (2) assessment of current

level of attributes, knowledge, skills and abilities among staff is

undertaken; (3) gaps between job requirements and employee’s

attributes, knowledge, skills and abilities be identified; and

(4) training and educational programs be developed to address

the gaps. The goal of a succession plan is to develop the requisite

―bench strength‖ within the Department so that when

promotional opportunities arise, there are sufficient numbers of

qualified applicants to compete for the promotion.

8.5 H IRING AND R ETENTION

Finding #19: The selection process for entry-level police officer is well-developed and

designed to assess the skills and competencies required for successful job

performance; however, the oral interview board process lacks questions pertaining

to ethical conduct and standards.

Recommendation #19: It is recommended that the Human Resources Department amend

the oral board interview questions to include questions relating to

ethical conduct and behavior.






8.6 C OMMUNITY R ELATIONS

Finding #24: The command staff does not participate in various community organizations such

as the Chamber of Commerce. This finding was confirmed in our interviews with

the command staff. Representatives of several community organizationsinterviewed expressed the desire that the leadership of the Department be visible

in the community by attending various community functions sponsored by their

organizations. Representatives of these community organizations expressed the

opinion that the relationship between the Department and community could be

further enhanced with active participation by the command staff.

Recommendation #24: It is recommended that the command staff of the Department

become active in the life of the Provo community by participating

in various service organizations, neighborhood groups and other

similar organizations.

Finding #25: Despite the recent incidents involving Provo police officers, there still is a high

level of trust and confidence in the Police Department; yet at the same time, there

still is concern that the Department’s leadership needs to take appropriate steps to

ensure that the Department continues to maintain high ethical standards of

conduct.

Recommendation #25: It is recommended that the Police Department adopt the

recommendations pertaining to the citizens’ complaint process.

That will ensure transparency of the policy and provide thepublic with confidence and trust that the Department is serious

about Professional Standards of Conduct and ethical behavior

among its employees.

Finding #26: Several members of the public expressed reservations about the current citizens’

complaint process. The main reservation was that they felt uncomfortable coming

into Police headquarters to file a complaint; others expressed a concern that they

were uncomfortable filing a complaint directly with an officer because they

perceived that their complaint would not be taken seriously. These opinions were

expressed to us from the feedback that has been received by the Citizen’sOversight Committee.

Recommendation #26: It is recommended that the Department publish an informational

brochure pertaining to the citizens’ complaint process and widely

distribute it throughout the community. It is also recommended

that the brochure be posted on the City’s web site. Further it is




suggested that the Department consider allowing designated non-

Police Department City employees such as the City Ombudsman

to receive citizen complaints and forward the complaints on to the

Office of Professional Standards.

Finding #27: There is a great deal of support for the Department’s Community Oriented

Policing Program and a desire on the part of the public to see the program

expanded.

Recommendation #27: As the Department moves forward in its strategic planning,

strong consideration should be given to a plan to implement the

community policing philosophy throughout the Department.



-1-

City Administration’s Response to Recommendations in the

Citygate Associates Review of the Provo Police Department

January 2011

Recommendation #1: It is recommended that the Department correctly documents all

internal affairs files and related records using the disposition categories in the InternalAffairs Policy.

The Administration concurs with this recommendation. It will require some minor changes to

forms used in the internal affairs investigation process. Target: March 1, 2011

Recommendation #2: It is recommended that the Internal Affairs Policy be amended

regarding the length of time for completing an investigation for Category I complaints

from ten days to thirty days.

The Administration concurs with this recommendation. The time frame is set by internal

department policy, and the interim chief can make that change. Target: March 1, 2011

Recommendation #3.1: It is recommended that the Provo Police Department create an

Office of Professional Standards and Training. This bureau should report directly to the

Chief of Police and be charged with the responsibility of coordinating and conducting

citizen complaints made against officers. It is also recommended that this bureau take

over the responsibility for developing, implementing and recordkeeping for theDepartment’s training program which is currently done by the Patrol Division Captain.

The Administration concurs with this recommendation. We believe that it would be of great benefit to

have a dedicated office within the department to centralize the coordination of the department training

and to better coordinate responding to allegations of unprofessional conduct. As the Administration

has reviewed this and other recommendations in the report, we believe that an office of three

employees would be necessary to fulfill these important roles. The Office would consist of a

lieutenant, an analyst-level civilian position and an office specialist. An annual budget of $260,000

would be required to cover personnel and operating costs. The Administration will be requesting a

supplemental appropriation from the Municipal Council of $50,000 for the period of time between May1, 2011 and June 30, 2011. Ongoing funding would need to be provided in the FY 2012 budget and in

future years. Target: Hire the Lieutenant by May 1, 2011; staff the rest of the office by July 1, 2011.



-2-

Recommendation #3.2: It is recommended that the Police Department from this point

forward properly record and memorialize all Category II citizen complaints.

The Administration concurs with this recommendation and anticipates implementing the

recommended process changes with the implementation of the Office of Professional Standards

and Training (OPST). Target: May 1, 2011

Recommendation #4: It is recommended that all newly promoted supervisors receive

adequate training in the Department’s internal affairs policy, particularly noting the

need for appropriate documentation of complaints.


recommended process changes with the implementation of the OPST. Target: May 1, 2011

Recommendation #5: It is recommended that the Department publish in summary form

the results of all citizen complaints respecting the legitimate privacy interests of the

Department’s employees and the complaining party. We believe reporting the results of

the citizens’ complaint process will result in improved public confidence of the

Department and will certainly increase the transparency of the policy.


recommended process changes with the implementation of the OPST. The department plans to

publish summary information quarterly on the department’s webpage about complaints filed and

the resolution thereof. Target: June 1, 2011

Recommendation #6.1: At the earliest convenience the Interim Chief should meet with

staff to review the monthly training calendar to ensure that the schedule of training

features PSC at least once during the year and that each officer, supervisor and manager

take a minimum of two hours of training per year. Professional standards, conduct and

ethics training will assist in institutionalizing the positive values that are the foundation

of the Police Department.

The Administration concurs with this recommendation and anticipates implementing the required

process changes with the implementation of the OPST. Recommendation #9 includes a

comprehensive training needs assessment, which will include the need for professional standards,

conduct and ethics training. We concur with the minimum requirements listed in this

recommendation. Target: July 1, 2011





-4-

Recommendation #9: It is recommended that the responsibility for the Department’s

training program be reassigned from the Patrol Captain to the Office of Professional

Standards and Training (see Recommendation #3.1). Following that reassignment, it is

recommended that there be a department-wide training needs assessment conducted.

This assessment will document the short- and long-term training needs and will enable a

better alignment between the development of the annual training calendar, monthly

training and shift training with the expressed training needs of the staff.

The Administration concurs with this recommendation, and anticipates implementing the

recommended curriculum changes with the implementation of the OPST. Target: August 1,

2011

Recommendation #10: It is recommended that the Department develop and implement

an annual employee recognition program that acknowledges the work performed by

members of the Department, honors its traditions and acknowledges the support of thecommunity.

The Administration concurs with this recommendation, and will create an interdisciplinary team

with representatives from inside and outside the department to recommend to the Interim Chief a

comprehensive employee recognition program. Target: June 1, 2011

Recommendation #11: The Department should continue to monitor officer training to

ensure continued compliance with POST requirements.

The Administration concurs with this recommendation and will further enhance monitoring efforts

with the creation of the OPST. Target: Ongoing

Recommendation #12: It is recommended that immediate and direct access is

established for the Chief of Police and his Executive Assistant to all training records and

all other records as he or she directs. Direct read-only access to all training records for

all division commanders and first-line supervisors should also be immediately

established.

The Administration concurs with this recommendation and will ask the Information Systems

Division and the Human Resources Division to assist the department to better utilize the City’s

existing database of training records through PeopleSoft that can be accessed by the Chief and

others as needed. Target: June 1, 2011



-5-

Recommendation #13: It is recommended that the training record and review policy of

reserve officers be assessed and reconsidered.

The Administration concurs with this recommendation. The department has long had an informal

policy of having reserve officers certify that they had met the POST standard for ongoing training

and professional development. But detailed records have not been solicited and certificationshave not been in writing. The lieutenant assigned to the reserve program will make changes to

collect more detailed data and ask reserve officers to verify the training they have received at least

annually. Target: June 1, 2011

Recommendation #14: It is recommended that all shift training be approved by the

Police Chief in a manner that ensures that the training can be credited to the employees

for purposes of meeting the annual POST training requirement.

The Administration concurs with this recommendation and will implement procedural changes

that require shift commanders to submit and receive approval by email from the Chief of all

proposed shift training calendars and curriculum on a monthly basis. Once the OPST is

functioning, that responsibility will be assigned to the OPST. Target: April 1, 2011

Recommendation #15: It is recommended that a process is begun to ensure First Line

Supervisor training in leadership and management for Field Training Officers (FTO).

Regular meetings should be established for FTOs to discuss training needs of recruits

and to obtain feedback for departmental training.

The Administration concurs with this recommendation, and in fact implemented some time ago

the regular FTO meetings. We anticipate implementing the recommended curriculum changes,

with the addition of training on civil service regulations, city policies and procedures, department

policies and effective performance management, with the implementation of the OPST. Target:

August 1, 2011

Recommendation #16: It is recommended that, as part of a new Police Department,

administration, implement a facilitated strategic planning process which includes a review

of the Department’s Values, Mission, and Vision and established both short and long-termgoals and objectives, timelines and benchmarks for achieving short and long-term goals.

Community input into the strategic planning process should be welcomed.

The Administration concurs with this recommendation and will consider including funds in the

department’s professional services budgets for FY 2012 to retain a consultant to help the



-6-

department develop a strategic plan. Target: July 1, 2011

Recommendation #17: It is recommended that immediately, clearly and unequivocally,

the Department clarify its position on the use of certain statistics such as traffic and

parking citations in evaluating personnel. A process should be established to monitor

future evaluations and examine alternative methods of employee evaluation that

considers a broad array of job performance factors.

The Administration concurs with this recommendation and will work with the department to

create and execute a collaborative process involving employees, residents and other stakeholders

to define good policing practices, identify ways to measure a broad range of desired outcomes and

to craft a new performance management system in the department. In the meantime, the Interim

Chief and the Mayor will meet with each shift briefing to discuss changes to be made immediately.

Target: September 1, 2011

Recommendation #18: It is recommended that the Department implement a succession

planning program in which: (1) the desired attributes, knowledge, skills and abilities for

promotional ranks be identified through a systematic job analysis methodology; (2)

assessment of current level of attributes, knowledge, skills and abilities among staff is

undertaken; (3) gaps between job requirements and employee’s attributes, knowledge,

skills and abilities be identified; and (4) training and educational programs be developed

to address the gaps. The goal of a succession plan is to develop the requisite ¯bench

strength. within the Department so that when promotional opportunities arise, there are

sufficient numbers of qualified applicants to compete for the promotion.

The Administration concurs with this recommendation. Succession planning has been identified

as a priority for the entire city organization, and the Human Resources Division will need to be

funded and tasked with developing a citywide approach and program for succession planning with

the Police Department as the first priority. Target Date: July 1, 2012

Recommendation #19: It is recommended that the Human Resources Department

amend the oral board interview questions to include questions relating to ethical conduct

and behavior.

The Administration concurs with this recommendation. Target: April 1, 2011



-7-

Recommendation #20: It is recommended that the Department add a polygraph

examination administered by a qualified, trained and experienced examiner as part of

the Department’s background investigation process.

The Administration concurs with this recommendation. The cost for administering polygraph

tests for all employees with a conditional offer of employment is approximately $3,500 per year.The Administration will include consideration of this request in preparation of the FY 2012

budget. The Administration will also monitor changes in technology as it relates to this element

of employment screening and be open to new and improved tools as they become available.

Target: July 1, 2011


provide in-depth interview training for sworn staff members who sit as panel members

on oral board interviews. It is also recommended that the Human Resources Department

and Police Department establish a trained pool of at least nine sworn officers available toserve as members of oral boards. This will enable the City to interview more applicants

for each recruitment.

The Administration concurs with this recommendation and will develop training and a certification

process for employees who serve on oral interview panels for hiring in the police department.

Target: August 1, 2011

Recommendation #22: It is recommended that a member of the community serve on oral

board interviews for entry-level police officer hiring.

The Administration concurs with this recommendation. The department will develop a group of

residents who are alumni of the Citizens Academy program who are interested in serving as

interview panel members and will develop a policy defining the role of community members on

oral interview panels.


conduct a detailed and comprehensive salary survey of comparator agencies so that theCity’s competitive position in the labor market can be determined and when

appropriate, adjustments can be made to maintain a competitive position in the labor

market.

The Administration concurs with this recommendation. The Human Resources Division will



-8-

continue to conduct detailed annual market studies to define changes that need to be made to

ensure that the City retains its competitive position to hire the best possible new officers in

accordance with the City’s policy on competitive compensation packages. Target: Ongoing

Recommendation #24: It is recommended that the command staff of the Department

become active in the life of the Provo community by participating in various service

organizations, neighborhood groups and other similar organizations.

The Administration concurs with the recommendation. The interim chief will work with the

Mayor to define groups and organizations in which members of the department’s command staff

should participate: Target: March 1, 2011

Recommendation #25: It is recommended that the Police Department adopt the

recommendations pertaining to the Citizen’s Complaint Process. That will ensuretransparency of the policy and provide the public with confidence and trust that the

Department is serious about Professional Standards of Conduct and ethical behavior

among its employees.

The Administration concurs with this recommendation and will implement the changes concurrent

with the creation of the OPST. The department will also post a citizen feedback form on the

department’s webpage. Target: May 1, 2011

Recommendation #26: It is recommended that the Department publish an informational

brochure pertaining to the citizens’ complaint process and widely distribute it

throughout the community. It is also recommended that the brochure be posted on the

City’s web site. Further it is suggested that the Department consider allowing designated

non-Police Department City employees such as the City Ombudsman to receive citizen

complaints and forward the complaints on to the Office of Professional Standards.

The Administration concurs with this recommendation and will implement the changes concurrent

with the creation of the OPST. Target: September 1, 2011

Recommendation #27: As the Department moves forward in its strategic planning,

strong consideration should be given to a plan to implement the community policing

philosophy throughout the Department.



The Administration concurs with this recommendation, and will explore ways to better implement

the community policing philosophy department-wide as a part of the overall strategic planning

process. Target: July 1, 2011

Date post:	09-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ben-winslow
View:	220 times
Download:	0 times

Provo Police Audit and City Response

Documents