Management & Leadership

An important component of the 2015 Consent Decree deals with changes to management and leadership that are required to ensure that reforms are effectively carried out. Policing is hierarchical and greatly influences a division’s culture; good leadership is key to good policing. Because of this leadership and organizational structure have been frequently included in recommendations to improve Cleveland’s police force.

The 1922 report on Criminal Justice in Cleveland, mentioned several areas of leadership that needed to be reformed: there were concerns about the loyalty of police commanders; the organization’s hierarchy was convoluted and it was not clear who was in charge of whom; and there was a lack of organizational learning.

To combat this, it recommended streamlining the organization, hiring an outsider who understood how organizations work, and use the police academy to conduct analysis on how best to improve the Division internally. In 1938 Eliot Ness was chosen as safety director and tried to implement these reforms. Unfortunately, these reforms did not last long after he left.

By 1945, a Survey by the Bureau of Government Research found that similar institutional problems that the 1921 report had described. In the 1960s and 70s, the Little Hoover Commission and a Confidential Memo to the City described similar disorganization, this time noting how segregation in the Division was being exacerbated by these problems. Similar calls for reorganization and reform came up again in the 1980s and 1990s.

To this day Cleveland police officers often express concerns about their place in a hierarchy, and are often unsure of whose orders to follow. This will need to be addressed if there is to be meaningful police reform in Cleveland.