Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Review of the
Police Department
for the
City of
Provo, UT
January 27, 2011
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
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 Provo
Police 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).
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.
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.
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.
Morale in the Patrol Division is described as low. The causes for low morale are
reported as limited staffing, a perceived emphasis on “management by statistics”
which ignores the quality of work performed, increased demands for services and
the wage freeze.
Community Relations
The leadership of the Department needs to be more active and visible in the Provo
community.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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 various
aspects 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.
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 Internal
Affairs 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.
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-day
Saints. 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.
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, Animal
Control, Traffic and Parking Enforcement, Traffic Accident Investigation and the Bike
Patrol. There is a total of 92 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.
2005 97
2006 98
2007 100
2008 96
2009 95
2009 Rate of
2009 Violent Crimes per
Number of 2009 Total 2009 Rate of Total Size of
2009 Reported Police Violent Crimes Police Department
Estimated Violent Department per population (#crimes/dept
City Population Crimes Staffing (#crimes/pop) size)
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 is
less 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.
A critical program in any police department is the citizens’ complaint process. In order to have
the support and confidence of the community, the Department needs to have a thorough and
transparent policy and action plan to promptly investigate complaints from the community
regarding claims of officer misconduct.
The Police Department has a written policy regarding internal affairs investigations. The policy,
#055, has been in place since 1981. The policy statement is clear and unambiguous. It states in
relevant part the following:
It is the policy of the department that all allegations of employee misconduct initiated by
a citizen or members of the department be thoroughly investigated and promptly
adjudicated.
The policy goes on to state:
All complaints, regardless of source, will be made a matter of record and will be
thoroughly investigated.
The procedure provides that anyone in the Department can receive a complaint of employee
misconduct. When a complaint is received, the employee receiving the complaint is required to
take notes detailing the specifics from the complaining party. Without delay, the employee is
required to contact his or her immediate supervisor who is responsible for completing the
Department’s “Allegation of Employment Misconduct” report (AEM).
The policy provides for two categories of complaints. Category I, the most serious complaints,
includes such allegations as excessive force, false arrest, civil rights violations, violations or
criminal conduct from any source; Category II includes less serious allegations such as civility,
demeanor and others of a similar nature. All AEM reports for Category I and Category II
complaints are referred directly to the Chief of Police. The Chief of Police then assigns all
Category I complaints to an investigator.
Category II complaints are documented in memo form and forwarded to the Watch Commander,
who then forwards the memo to the Division Commander for review. The Division Commander
then determines if the complaint can be handled at the immediate supervisor’s level (for minor
Category II complaints). Documentation of all Category II complaints is required and it is the
responsibility of the Division Commander to track all such reports. An officer who receives an
inordinate number of Category II complaints that are sustained where profanity and/or temper
are issues, will have their file referred to the Chief of Police for review.
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:
The application of truth verification shall not be made without the expressed
approval of 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.
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 following
categories:
Sustained – the accused employee committed all or part of the alleged acts of
misconduct
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 chronological
order. 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.
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
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.
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 in
writing, complaints do not have to be signed (although it is recommended that the complaining
party signs a complaint), and complaints can be made anonymously.
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.
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.
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.
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:
Neither
Strongly Agree or Strongly
Area Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree
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
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.
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 in
conducting 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.
The Provo Police Department does not provide internal affairs training to newly promoted
supervisors.
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
Number of Category
Year Results
I Complaints
2005 1 1 – unfounded
2 – unfounded
2006 8 2 – unsubstantiated
4 – sustained
2007 3 3 – unsubstantiated
8 – unfounded
2008 11 1 – unsubstantiated
2 – sustained
2009 5 5 – unfounded
2 – unfounded
2 – unsubstantiated
2010 10 5 – sustained
1 – investigation not
complete
Civil
Excessive Criminal Rights Conduct/Rude Domestic
Year Force Conduct Violation Behavior 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:
Civil
Excessive Criminal Rights Conduct/Rude Domestic
Year Force Conduct Violation Behavior Violence Other
2005
2006 3 1
2007
2008 2
2009
2010 2 3
Totals 2 8 1
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.
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.
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 period
while 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 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.
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 a
supervisor 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.
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.
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.
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 monthly
departmental 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.
Managers (Sergeant,
Lieutenant and Captain) Officers
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, the
presentation, 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 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 six
columns.
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.
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 discussion
regarding the overall needs of the employees and Department as they would apply to issues of
professional conduct and ethics.
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 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 Utah Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Policy and Procedure Manual policy
number 3010 describes In-Service Training Requirements. The policy states, in part, that all
peace officers must complete an annual certified training of no less than 40 hours. The policy
goes on to state that all training provided by POST is authorized for Post-In-Service training
credit. The rule also allows the chief administrative officer (chief of police) to approve
departmental training for Post-In-Service credit.
Prior to randomly selecting individual officers’ training records for review, Citygate Associates
looked at all of the sworn officers’ training records contained in an electronic file Excel
spreadsheet. All of these sworn officers appear to either have already met their annual training
requirement or are well underway to doing so. We did, however, identify three issues which may
require greater scrutiny of the training records.
Finding #12: The Chief, division commanders and supervisors do not have
direct access to training records.
There were only two departmental employees with access to training records. Neither the Chief
nor the Chief Executive Assistant had access to these records. While it is advisable to limit the
edit capability to a select number of individuals, there are no records to which the Chief should
not have direct, immediate access from his or her desk. Similarly, the division commanders and
supervisors should have read-only access. The purpose of the access for the division
commanders and first-line supervisors would be to better evaluate the training needs of their
individual officers without having to go through a layer of bureaucracy to do so. In the same vein
the Operations Captain is currently responsible for data entry of training records. While he is
good-natured about having to do this task and explains that the reason for this was due to budget
cuts, data entry is not an appropriate task for executive-level command officer.
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.
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 this
shift 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.
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.
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 and
directives 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.
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.
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 had
been 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 and
situations 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 the
citations 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.
Finding #18: The Department does not have a systematic approach to training
prior to promotion to supervisory and management ranks.
According to command staff at the Provo Police Department there is no requirement for any
particular training prior to being promoted from the rank of officer to the rank of Sergeant and
then to Lieutenant and then to Captain. It was explained that officers receive on-the-job training
as senior officers prior to being promoted to Sergeant. As senior officers they occasionally have
the opportunity to fill the role of acting Sergeant. The same is true of all ranks in the Department.
While there does not appear to be any state requirements for this level of preparedness, one
should remember that the State sets minimum standards. Failure to prepare employees for their
new responsibilities or, in the alternative, to expect that the employees prepare to assume such a
position runs contrary to current best practices. Some departments consider it part of their
succession planning program to see that every employee is trained to the level just above their
current rank. Officers and FTOs are trained or expected to independently obtain training and
education of a Sergeant, Sergeants to Lieutenants and Lieutenants to Captains. Each level is then
aware of the demands of his or her supervisor and is better able to help that supervisor and thus
themselves and the organization to be successful. This same philosophy applies to non-sworn
professional staff. In smaller organizations, or units within organizations such as records and
dispatch, this also serves to counter some of the negative effects of the sudden or unexpected loss
of key personnel.
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
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
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.
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 history, 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.
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
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.
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.
Despite recent negative publicity regarding several incidents involving Provo Police Officers,
members of the public interviewed for this review expressed strong support for the Police
Department and its employees. They believe the Department is fundamentally honest and
operates with the highest ethical standards, yet they expressed concern that the recent incidents
hamper the Department in meeting the service expectations.
At the same time, members of the Department expressed the view that the recent incidents are
not reflective of a Department lacking in strong professional ethics and conduct. Internally, most
of the officers and supervisors interviewed were angry and disappointed that the public trust they
have worked so hard to develop has been adversely affected by these incidents, and the officers,
supervisors, managers and command staff are committed to rebuilding the public’s trust and
confidence in the Department.
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 organizations interviewed
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.
One representative of a business group interviewed for this report expressed how appreciative
her group was when the police officer who is part of the community orientated policing program
began to appear at various functions her group puts on. She expressed the view that this officer’s
participation in her organization substantially enhanced the relationship between her group and
the Police Department. We believe that it is critical that the leadership of the Police Department
be more visible and participate on an active basis with the various service groups in the
community.
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.
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.
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.
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. Emotional
equity 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.
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.
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.
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
Recommendation #3.2: It is recommended that the Police Department from this point
forward properly record and memorialize all Category II citizen
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.
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.
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 interest
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.
Finding #6.1: Training and the transmission of the Department’s philosophy with regard to PSC
is 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.
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.
Finding #7: Training in Professional Standards of Conduct and ethics for newly hired police
officers is personally conducted by the Chief of Police.
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 #9.2: 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.
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 with
the best traditions of their profession.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Finding #17: There is a great deal of concern and frustration surrounding the methods currently
used to evaluate the job performance of officers.
Finding #18: The Department does not have a systematic approach to training prior to
promotion to supervisory and management ranks.
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.
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.
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.
Finding #23: In response to various financial challenges, the City implemented a wage freeze
throughout the work force.
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 organizations
interviewed 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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 May
1, 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.
-1-
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
The Administration concurs with this recommendation and anticipates implementing the
recommended process changes with the implementation of the OPST. Target: May 1, 2011
The Administration concurs with this recommendation and anticipates implementing the
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
-2-
Recommendation #6.2: Some instances of deviance from appropriate adherence to
professional standards and training 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.
The Administration concurs with this recommendation. The City has provided a wide range of
resources for officers and their families under the Employee Assistance Program, the City’s
wellness program and through the department chaplain, and will engage in an effort between now
and April 1, 2011 to help officers and families become more aware of these resources. During the
preparation of the FY 2012 budget, the Administration will explore the costs associated with
additional specialized training included in this recommendation. Target: July 1, 2011
The Administration concurs with this recommendation and will continue the practice of having the
Chief conduct training on professional standards and conduct for new employees and other
employees periodically. As the needs assessment contemplated in Recommendation #9 is
implemented, training opportunities will be calendared throughout the year. Target: Ongoing
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.
The Administration concurs with this recommendation, and anticipates implementing the
recommended curriculum changes with the implementation of the OPST. Target: August 1,
2011
-3-
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
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
The Administration concurs with this recommendation and will further enhance monitoring efforts
with the creation of the OPST. Target: Ongoing
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
-4-
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 certifications
have 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
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
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
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
-5-
department develop a strategic plan. Target: July 1, 2011
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
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
-6-
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
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
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.
The Administration concurs with this recommendation. The Human Resources Division will
-7-
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
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
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
The Administration concurs with this recommendation and will implement the changes concurrent
with the creation of the OPST. Target: September 1, 2011
-8-
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
-9-