Police departments worldwide are facing the challenge of building community trust in an environment of controversial shootings and political polarization. In particular, some community members believe that police officers are racially or otherwise biased in exercising their law enforcement powers. Biased policing complaints, however, are very difficult to investigate and resolve because doing so requires an understanding of what the officer was thinking or his or her motivation for the enforcement or investigative action.
The Los Angeles, California, Police Department (LAPD) has struggled for many years with both the perception of bias and the difficulty of determining whether an officer was impermissibly biased in a contact with a member of the public. In 2014, the LAPD initiated a new program to address these challenges by mediating biased policing complaints. This innovative alternative dispute resolution program uses third-party, professionally trained mediators to bring the complainants and the officers together to build mutual understanding, increase awareness of community members’ and officers’ perspectives, and potentially resolve the conflicts at hand. This program has been successfully launched by the LAPD and has the potential for significant future expansion.
Mediation to resolve complaints against police officers has been of interest to law enforcement since the 1970s. At least 16 U.S. jurisdictions have experimented with such procedures since the 1990s, and mediation programs have been conducted in the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia.1 Although several different models have been employed, mediation programs tend to share features that include (1) utilization for complaints of discourtesy or racial bias (and exclusion of encounters involving arrests, excessive force, and alleged police corruption) and (2) voluntary participation by both officers and complainants. Mediation serves as an alternative to formal investigations potentially resulting in discipline. If an officer and complainant agree to mediation, no internal affairs investigation occurs, no disciplinary action is taken, and no recording of the content of the complaint may be entered on the officer’s service record, just a note that a complaint had been mediated.
The objectives of mediation are to increase satisfaction among complainants, improve officer conduct, and contribute to community policing goals through better community-police relations. Far-reaching goals of mediation are to (1) provide opportunities for community members to learn about police procedure and perspectives; (2) sensitize officers to community perspectives and concerns; and (3) provide feedback to officers regarding how their conduct appears to the community.
For the study discussed herein, researchers at the University of Southern California conducted a formative evaluation of the LAPD’s Biased Policing Complaint Mediation Program (Program), a community-based intervention intended to expeditiously resolve disputes and build mutual understanding among officers and community members. The study has produced feedback and lessons learned that can assist other jurisdictions in the effective implementation of community-based complaint mediation.
How the Program Works
The LAPD Program was launched as a three-year pilot project in January 2014. Eligibility for mediation was restricted to complaints of bias related to areas such as race, gender, sexual orientation, or discourtesy. As in other police departments that have explored this concept, the mediation program represents an alternative to the traditional complaint procedure. The traditional approach is adversarial. It requires a full investigation of any complaint, and officers may be assisted by employee representatives or lawyers during their interviews. The traditional procedure has been characterized as litigious, time-consuming, and expensive.
In the LAPD Program, the complainant and accused officer or officers meet face-to-face. With the help of neutral mediators (usually two), both parties discuss the alleged misconduct. Successful mediation is defined as a process in which the parties have heard, clarified, and understood each other’s issues and point of view. Although mediation procedures in some police departments aim at achieving a formal agreement, resolution, or conclusion, this is not required in the LAPD Program.
Voluntary participation by both complainants and officers is a key principle of the LAPD Program. Agreements are signed by complainants and officers to mediate in good faith and to keep proceedings confidential. Mediated complaints are noted on the officers’ records, but this information does not appear on the versions used for promotional decisions.
Either party may withdraw from the agreement to mediate at any time before the scheduled mediation session. If this happens, the traditional complaint procedure ensues. If the complainant withdraws after the mediation has commenced, the complaint is closed, and recorded as “mediated” on the officer’s record. If the officer withdraws or fails to participate in good faith, the traditional complaint investigation occurs.
The LAPD Program is unusual in its community-based character, recruiting and training volunteer mediators from the same communities as the complainants. Training for the volunteer mediators is provided by the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office as part of its Dispute Resolution Program (DRP). This long-standing program has the objective of helping Los Angeles residents settle matters such as small claims and landlord-tenant disputes without going to court. Several mediators had already been active in the DRP before being tapped for service in the LAPD Program.
The LAPD Program is staffed by one sergeant who devotes full time to the program as coordinator, with the support of another officer who identifies eligible cases and tracks the procedure. The capabilities of the coordinator include, as described by a supervisor, “salesmanship.” The coordinator spends considerable time not only on concrete administrative tasks associated with mediation, but also on demonstrating the advantages of the process to complainants and officers, effectively recruiting them to the program.
Early Implementation Experience
In 2014, 2015, and the first two months of 2016, 221 complaints were found eligible for mediation, representing a little under half of the complaints of bias or discourtesy (an eligibility criterion added after the pilot began) received by the LAPD Internal Affairs Group. Mediation sessions were scheduled in 59 of these cases, representing 26.7 percent of those eligible. Of the eligible cases in which mediation did not take place, 25.7 percent were not mediated because the officer or officers involved declined, and 68.8 percent were not mediated because the complainants declined or could not be located. Of the 59 cases in which mediation sessions were scheduled, 50 were completed and recorded as “mediated” on the officers’ records. The mediation process was not completed in the remaining nine cases because the complainants did not appear. These, too, were recorded on the officers’ record as “mediated.”
Officers and complainants who had participated in the program were asked to complete exit questionnaires. In addition, the University of Southern California researchers conducted detailed interviews with five officers and six complainants who had participated in the LAPD Program, as well as eight mediators and seven individuals who had been instrumental in planning or managing the program.
Table 1 summarizes findings from the exit questionnaires. More officer responses were received than complainant responses (41 versus 32), due in part to occasional involvement of multiple officers in a single complaint. Responses of officers and complainants appear fundamentally similar, with almost none of the differences being statistically significant.
|
Table 1: Results of LAPD Mediation Exit Questionnaire: Experience of Officers and Complainants |
||
|
Question |
Percentage Agreeing |
|
|
Officer |
Complainant |
|
|
Satisfied with process (very or somewhat) |
90.2 |
71.9 |
|
Mediation was fair (completely or somewhat) |
97.5 |
87.1 |
|
Mediator well acquainted with issues (very well or well) |
100.0 |
86.7 |
|
Time required less than expected (a lot or somewhat) |
55.0 |
86.7 |
|
Understanding of community/police work increased (a little, somewhat, or a great deal) |
70.0 |
74.2 |
|
Would recommend mediation to others (very or somewhat likely) |
80.0 |
80.0 |
|
Total number responding |
41 |
32 |
Satisfaction with the mediation process appeared high. Officers indicated that they were “very” or “somewhat” satisfied more frequently than complainants, but the difference was not statistically significant. Vast majorities of both officers and complainants considered the mediation to have been fair and the mediators to have been well acquainted with the issues. High percentages of both officers and complainants said they would recommend mediation to a friend or co-worker.
A mediator’s observations of mediation sessions suggest value potentially available in the LAPD Program and similar programs. Illustrative examples included the following:
At the beginning, the complainant exhibited “a seething type of anger” that made it difficult to convince [her] the mediators were neutral. During mediation, the officer offered different procedural choices that he would be willing to consider for future situations… the complainant’s anger was greatly reduced by the opportunity to explain her experience to the officer, and the complainant wished the officer well as she left.
The complainant believed officers [had] targeted him for a traffic stop because he was a young, black male driving in the Watts area of Los Angeles. His complaint indicated he feared for his safety during the stop because of past negative interactions with the police. During mediation, the complainant explained why he was reluctant in following directions during the traffic stop, and the officers explained that they escalated their tactics because the complainant was not cooperating. At the end of the mediation, the complainant said he had a greater understanding of police work and apologized to the officers.
Comments by officers in the interviews suggest that they valued the process as an alternative to the way in which complaints were conventionally handled. Regarding mediation, one officer commented,
It has changed how I interact with the public and the actions that I am taking. You don’t always have to be that stiff hard cop when dealing with people, but instead lay out the step-by-step process to individuals when it doesn’t compromise the investigation, and you actually receive better feedback. The community hears what’s going on and it sets them at ease.
Another officer, a white male, described a successful mediation experience as follows:
I stopped a male African American for crossing the street against a red pedestrian hand signal. The complainant believed that I just stopped him because of his race. During mediation, the complainant apologized for his comments and the race complaint. I was able to outline the Department’s efforts to save lives through traffic enforcement. I received a better understanding of his perception and past contact with law enforcement that allows me to be sympathetic with future contacts.
Subsequent to the study interviews, mediators have described apologies offered by officers as well. One mediation session, conducted by video conference, addressed the concern that the officers were rude because the complainant was transgender or lesbian. After the mediation concluded, the officers opted to go back on camera and apologize for how they made the complainant feel.
In another instance reported by a mediator, the complainant felt she was targeted because of her race. During the mediation, both sides gained respect and a better understanding of the other’s perspective. The officer apologized and was surprised to hear how his prior interactions with the complainant affected her. The officer agreed to be more aware of how he approaches people in the streets.
The frequency with which officers opt for mediation specifically as a chance to build a relationship with the community is uncertain, but the opportunity for officers to speak their mind and explain their actions appears to be valued. As one officer commented,
My department cuts you off, doesn’t let you finish what you have to say, whereas mediators let you finish and ask questions that are appropriate.
The complainant interviews evidenced a feeling of comfort in the process, confidence in the mediators’ capabilities, appreciation of the opportunity to speak freely, and a feeling that mediation was worthwhile. Encountering an officer out of uniform and in a neutral setting promoted a sense of security and equality. These comments are illustrative of that effect:
I didn’t feel threatened because… two ladies [were there along with the officer]. I’m not sure if it [had taken place in a] cop building or a federal building.
[The officer] totally participated. He was being respectful and wasn’t acting like a cop on the street. [He] was in street clothes [and] it was like a man-to-man talk.
Confidence in the mediators appeared especially high. Complainants made positive comments about the mediators’ qualifications, professionalism, and grasp of the issues involved in the case. Complainant comments regarding the mediators included descriptions of them as “good people” who were professional, fair, and qualified.
Consistent with findings from the exit questionnaires, the complainants who were interviewed expressed a feeling of satisfaction with the mediation process. They felt that the process enabled them to see police officers as human beings. Some feelings of sympathy with police emerged in the interviews. As one complainant commented,
It was a good setting, I was relaxed. A group of people coming together and seeing where each other is coming from. That’s what it’s all about. I go way back to the Black Panther era so I’ve seen it and saw it. It was a good deal and they need to do more of that. We are all human and we may have different tones, but we can get together and make things work one way or another.
Complainants generally expressed the feeling that they had learned some valuable lessons on the challenges facing police as a result of the mediation. According to one complainant,
It was a good learning experience for the cop and me. We both learned a lot from it. I think he’ll try to do his job a little better. We ended up shaking hands, it was good.
Officers also expressed appreciation of the process. As one described his experience,
The mediation program allowed a meaningful dialogue between a well-connected community member and law enforcement that will have a positive impact for community-based policing and public perception.
Challenges Encountered
Reception of the LAPD mediation program appeared fundamentally positive among officers and complainants who participated. However, during the initial phases of implementation covered here, only a small minority of eligible cases was mediated. Four significant challenges were identified as potentially contributing to this low rate: (1) reluctance of officers to participate; (2) lack of information about the program among officers; (3) elements of police culture and supervisory practice; and (4) failure by complainants to attend mediation sessions.
Reluctance to participate in a new program is understandable. Yet, mediation would appear to offer officers concrete advantages over formal investigation. Through mediation, officers may avoid the need to defend themselves from charges. No matter how a mediation session concludes, only the word “mediated” appears on the officer’s record. Officers also may benefit from the rapid disposition of a complaint. One officer who had selected mediation explained that he made his decision in order to get the matter over with and move on with his life. Yet, a comment by this officer suggested that these advantages were not well known. He recalled sharing his experience with his peers during roll call, eliciting the general response of “How does this benefit us?”
A simple lack of awareness among officers regarding the LAPD Program appeared widespread. Steps had been taken to disseminate information about the mediation program. These included an article in The Thin Blue Line, the Los Angeles Police Protective League’s monthly membership publication; mandatory online training; and presentations in supervisory training modules. Still, an officer with many years of service commented in an interview that “most officers don’t know” about the program. According to another,
Only people who [have] complaints [against them] got… information about [the program]. When I told my supervisors I was going to mediation, they were unsure of the program and didn’t know too much about it.
It was apparent that even some who are aware of the program do not fully understand it. The LAPD Program concept, for example, emphasizes informality and helping complainants see police officers as human beings faced with a difficult but necessary job. Consistent with this objective, mediations are held at facilities outside the police department. One officer, however, was reported to have appeared at mediation in his uniform, contradicting the intended spirit.
Organizational climate and culture apparently function as barriers to participation in the mediation program, as well. Here, “organizational climate” refers to the degree of comfort and confidence members feel about their agency. One interviewee with many years’ experience in LAPD commented that an atmosphere of mistrust and fear was perceived by many officers. Officers, he said, fear the consequences that a public complaint might have on their assignments and chances for promotion. Another interviewee expressed the opinion that half the complaints handled by Internal Affairs are officer-on-officer, often involving charges such as bullying or harassment that are difficult to resolve factually. Such a climate promotes reliance on formal procedures that allow officers to defend themselves with the aid of representation.
“Organizational culture” is more concrete than organizational climate, involving beliefs in how a unit should be operated and what are considered acceptable patterns of behavior. According to an interviewee, many officers in supervisory positions believe in discipline as a key component of appropriate management in law enforcement. It would appear unlikely that supervisors with punitive attitudes of this nature would encourage mediation.
The degree to which this dimension of culture—either the emphasis on punishment or fear and mistrust among officers—is shared among officers and affects actual participation in mediation has not yet been determined. Attitudes that support participation appear to be present as well.
Resolution of complaints, however, provide opportunities for officers and community members to develop more compatible perspectives on law enforcement and life in the community.
Some findings suggest that the tide may be changing in favor of mediation. During the second half of 2014, when a breakdown was available, 36.0 percent of the eligible cases were not mediated because an officer declined to participate. In 2015, the percentage of eligible cases not mediated due to an officer’s decline dropped to 18.4.
The behavior of complainants contributed to the low rate of complaints that were mediated. Over the entire study period, complainants declined the opportunity to mediate more often than officers. Nine scheduled mediation sessions did not take place because the complainant did not appear. In the event of no-shows, sessions can be rescheduled, but rescheduling is an inconvenience for officers and mediators.
One interviewee suggested that some complainants are “not ready to mediate” due to a desire to confront rather than reconcile:
Yea, I think (mediation will) be good for people that live in the city. Letting the cops know that they work for us, we tell them what to do and not always them telling us what to do and harassing us. And it’ll be our turn to harass them.
Still, some evidence suggests that acceptance of mediation may be increasing, potentially due to greater familiarity with the procedure among both officers and community members. During 2014, mediation took place in 19.8 percent of eligible cases; in 2015, mediation took place in 39.1 percent.
Perhaps the most basic challenge facing the LAPD Program and similar programs is that mediation has not achieved its farthest-reaching outcomes in the short run. Responses to the exit questionnaire item on whether the officer or complainant had obtained a better understanding of the community or police work were predominantly positive. Still, a number of officers (30.0 percent) and complainants (25.8 percent) indicated that their understanding of the community or police work did not increase.
Best Practices and Future Directions
This formative evaluation of the LAPD Biased Policing Complaint Mediation Program provides evidence that the program works well and can be expanded to include more participants and perhaps a broader range of public complaints. The community-based features of the program, in which mediators are recruited from the same communities as complainants, contributes to the positive experiences of complainants illustrated above. Training given to the mediators by the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office has enabled them to gain the confidence of mediation participants and perform their role effectively. Assignment of a full-time sergeant as a manager and an advocate for the program has clearly contributed to a successful beginning. Professional training of mediators and making a committed department supervisor accountable for the program should be viewed as best practices.
Continuing challenges most obviously concern the low rate at which eligible complaints are mediated. Low rates of mediation have been reported even by the best-established mediation programs.2 Planners and managers of mediation programs need to devise methods to increase participation. Although this report has cited the culture of law enforcement agencies, more immediate and direct methods for increasing participation by officers can be developed. These should include more extensive dissemination of information to officers, emphasizing the potential benefits to the officers.
The importance of increasing follow-up among complainants deserves emphasis. Some interviewees in the study reported here have suggested that reducing the time between the lodging of a complaint and the mediation session would make participants more likely to complete the process. Another observer, though, suggested that allowing the complainant a “cooling off” period would help make the sessions most constructive. Attaining the best balance is important. When a complainant does not participate in mediation, an opportunity to build ties between law enforcement and the community is lost.
Finally, evaluation beyond the scope of the study reported here will be valuable in demonstrating cost savings from mediation. It cannot be expected that all mediations will result in significant improvement in understanding by officers and complainants of each other’s work and life circumstances. But at a minimum, significant savings appear likely in officer time, staff resources, and avoidance of potential litigation. Rigorous demonstration of these cost savings can help establish the importance of mediation in the thinking of public decision makers, essential for continued financial support of such programs.
Conclusion
In many jurisdictions, perceived bias by law enforcement has stood in the way of collaboration between police and communities. Complaints by citizens alleging bias or discourtesy can involve significant costs to police departments, as investigations require the time of both officers and investigating personnel. Resolution of complaints, however, provide opportunities for officers and community members to develop more compatible perspectives on law enforcement and life in the community. With this objective, several jurisdictions have adopted mediation procedures as an alternative to the conventional, adversary-oriented dispute resolution. In operation since 2014, LAPD’s Biased Policing Complaint Mediation Program represents progress in this approach by employing professionally trained civilian mediators from the community. Formative evaluation of this program finds significant evidence for the efficacy of this approach. Steps to obtain maximum value from this approach include making the opportunity better known among officers and promoting more support among supervisors.
Notes:
1Astrid Birgden and Julio Lopez-Varona, “Community-Police Complaint Mediation Project: A Review Paper,” December 2011.
2San Francisco Office of Citizen Complaints, 2014 Annual Report, 2015.
