100 Years Project

• Crime is ever present in Cleveland, often a “high” levels. Fear of crime, particularly violent crime, is also ever present. Police impact on crime levels is negligible or unproven based on our reviewed data.
• Cleveland Division of Police are always described as having a high to moderately high number of personnel based on population when compared to other cities. This is even true in the toughest times of fiscal crisis.
• Morale is described as low in the Division in the majority of cases it is studied. Low morale appears to be the baseline of the Cleveland Division of Police. The players and “ins” and “outs” may change but the in-fighting, cliques, favoritism and racial inequalities inside the department are well documented, toxic and enduring throughout the century.
• Changes in leadership happen at an extremely high rate in Cleveland. There is no doubt an impact to police reform. The Jackson administration is the exception. 19 mayors in the period of 100 years and 40 police chiefs since the Division was created.
• The relationship between the majority white, male police force and communities of color has never been good. Until recently the police held all the power and there is a well documented history of racism, brutality and other discriminatory police practices in Cleveland against minorities.
• Change inside the division does not keep pace with changes in the city itself or even in law enforcement nationwide. It’s not even close. Cleveland Division of police is an extremely siloed bureaucracy. This is a significant source of internal and external tension.
• Reform is a roller coaster ride in Cleveland, we get studies and reports, we make some progress, courts sometimes intervene, then there is backslide or a new problem which starts the cycle over.
• Most recommendations for change are ignored or have the life expectancy of the administration in charge, with few exceptions.

A common defensive response when police are provided feedback by outsiders is the idea that only an officer can be an expert in policing or understand policing. 

After examining dozens of reports – primarily produced by civilians studying the Cleveland police over the past century – the CPC’s research shows that the question should actually be reversed. The question that should be asked instead is: Are police officers able to understand the needs of the community, the complex societal issues, and internal organizational issues as well as outside civilians can? 

It’s not an issue of civilians understanding police, they have clearly demonstrated a capacity to do so many times over. It’s an issue of many police “experts” having tunnel vision.

One of the greatest problems observed over the last 100 years in Cleveland is the fact that the Cleveland police operate in a silo. Shunning outside influence, the organization typically operates as an echo chamber that has been persistent for decades.

For the larger part of the century, the Cleveland police were responsible for setting their own training and educational standards. They diligently promoted traditions and practices that became the “Cleveland way” of doing things. The Division’s practices on the street were often in conflict with the values of the neighborhoods they serve. This continued through the 1970’s even after the State of Ohio set minimum standards for training peace officers in the state.

Cleveland used its own instructors to deliver the curriculum from the state – a practice which continues today. Today’s standards of training only require a high school diploma and a minimum of 737 hours of police topics. Cleveland supplements this with a field training program and additional yearly in service training after graduation from basic academy. To put it in perspective, a cosmetologist in Ohio has to attain 1500 hours of basic training to obtain their professional license.

Over time, experience becomes a substitute for higher education, structured analysis and thoughtful consideration of issues. Outside perspective that takes an evidence based approach, uses scientific analysis or attempts to bring new ideas into the division is often met with heavy resistance from the “status quo” who wears experience as a badge of honor. This is not to say that an officer’s experience has no value. There are many hard working officers who have used their experience and training to do good in their role. There have also been officers who have used it to fight for the betterment of the organization as a whole. It is a higher level, data-driven analysis of organizational group thinking and group psychology in general by outsiders that is met with the most resistance. 

What do civilians and other occupations have to offer?

When you look at who participated in the creation of many of the recommendations,  we see attorneys, judges, M.D.’s, clergy, civil servants, academics, C.E.O’s, blue-collared workers and elected officials. All gave time, education and wisdom to the betterment of the Cleveland Division of Police. 

Many were not compensated. All understood the needs and values of the community, the inherent risks involved in policing, the concepts of what policing is and should be, and the difference between organizational growth outside of the police department when compared to inside the police department. Often they were given access to the Division’s personnel and records in order to supplement any technical knowledge they may have lacked.

The recommendations that were produced by these groups were grounded in careful analysis of data and were evidence based. The reports they produced demonstrated a detailed understanding of what the Cleveland Division of Police was at particular moments in time and, what it needed to do in the immediate future to be a better version of itself. At the end of the process they often knew and understood the inner workings of the Division better than its collective membership knew itself.

• There is more diversity in the Division, but it still does not mirror Cleveland populations.
• Large scale “organized criminal corruption” appears to have been addressed. We are now focused on personal officer misconduct.
• Use of force is down currently. However, there is no agreement on why or for how long.
• The complaint process is currently more efficient then it has ever been.
• There is more consideration of the Constitution in policy now then then any period of time in the Division’s history. In some instances policy goes beyond the Constitution.
• There is significant pencil policy change in 100 years. This is especially true due to the Consent Decree. This is the easiest change to achieve, the quality and efficacy is not typically measured historically.
• Body cameras add a large amount of public transparency.

• Cultural change is difficult to achieve; It will take more than providing training, adding diversity or changing policy.
• Use Civilians. One of the primary issues with lack of service is officers doing civilian work or “special details” for 100 years.
• The shadow organizations in Cleveland Division of Police are a problem. They must be addressed. Period.
• We continue to ignore generations of knowledge; we should search for what we have not tried and take the hard road; i.e., raising the educational bar for police officers
• Trust will not be achieved through a public relations campaign or a few statistics that show brief improvement.
• Look to private sector leadership and management practices, phase out top down, military style organizational principles.
• Openness and transparency matter. Collective brain power of academia, the private sector and others will help this organization grow but only if it can see into it unobstructed.
• Human relations, not just discipline, but organizational management and organizational psychology must be a key characteristic of police leadership. Police experience should be the lesser required trait.
• We are not taking a data driven, scientific empirical approach to policing, organizational issues or crime. We are guessing and relying on tradition or experience.
• Long term planning with key performance indicators and continuity in leadership commitment must occur. The Consent Decree should be considered a starting point, not a finish line.