The Champaign Police Department: A Modest set of Standards

By Ricky Baldwin & Barbara Bailey

The recent shooting death of 15 year old Kiwane Carrington by Champaign police has swung the local spotlight once again onto the department’s relations with the local community, especially African Americans, at a time when the department is preparing for its first review by the Illinois Law Enforcement Accreditation Program (ILEAP).  A major part of the ILEAP accreditation process, according to the association’s website, is “building trust in the communities that these departments serve.”

The principles of the “community policing” movement among law enforcement officials, of which ILEAP is a part, also emphasize the value of trust in the day-to-day performance of police work – gathering information from community members, etc. – as well as the contribution of trust to the safety of police on the job.

Trust looms large

An October 27 City Council meeting was consumed entirely by civilian input, as over 300 area residents turned out and around 40 spoke to this very issue of trust, or rather mistrust.  Speaking one at a time for around five minutes each, the mostly black attendees related a stream of personal accounts of alleged police misconduct in the community: unwarranted stops, unnecessary rudeness and excessive force.

Some also questioned new “Use of Force” policies recently enacted by Champaign police, which appeared to sanction a more liberal use of “deadly force” under wider circumstances and included a policy on electric “Taser” stun guns.  Even City Council members appeared surprised by some of these changes.

When Champaign Police Chief R. T. Finney came to Champaign in 2004, the community was in the throes of controversy over a police proposal to acquire Tasers.  At that time the incoming chief attended local events at which members of the community spoke to fear and mistrust of the police especially among African Americans.  In the end Finney withdrew the proposal, promising to repair police-community relations.  Several speakers at the October 27 Council meeting recalled this promise, saying, “he has failed.”

Finney’s handling of several high-profile incidents was questioned angrily.  Shortly before the Council meeting ads began appearing in the local News-Gazette demanding, “Fire Finney.”

But many community members testified to a longer-running fissure in police-community relations in Champaign.  Incidents dating back to the death in police custody of Gregory Brown in 2000 were raised as evidence of long term problems.  For years black residents have accused the police of systematic harassment of black youth and racial profiling.  And for the last five years, mandated reports released by the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) have appeared to confirm this.

By law, police departments in Illinois must now submit certain data to IDOT, which is then analyzed by researchers at Northwestern University, and each department receives a “disparity index” comparing police interventions involving whites and other ethnic groups.  The index is relative to census figures on each ethnicity.  If whites represent 70 percent of a local population, they should represent about 70 percent of police stops, in order for the police department to receive an index rating of 1.  The average disparity index throughout the state of Illinois is 1.10, representing a slightly higher rate of police stops for minorities.

But ethnic minorities in Champaign experience a higher rate of stops than the state average, and have done so every year that statistics have been reported.  This “disparity index” also worsened in Champaign in 2008, to 1.43 from 1.34 the previous year.  The IDOT statistics show higher disparity rates in Urbana and Champaign County, too.

Evaluating the police

Racial profiling happens to be a concern of the accreditation body (ILEAP) that is coming to Champaign this week.  The evaluation standards used by ILEAP are explicit:  “Agencies must avoid practices that undermine the public trust, such as 'racial profiling' if they are to strive for maximum effectiveness.  A comprehensive 'racial profiling' policy and related training provides officers with the knowledge needed to avoid unwarranted accusations.  The policy should include direction based on reasonable and articulate suspicion.”

The expectation of “community policing” is no less directive.  “The agency shall have a written statement addressing overall departmental philosophy, disseminated to all personnel, that defines the agency's purpose.  The mission statement shall clearly and distinctly reflect the Community Oriented Policing Philosophy and identify the agency as a Community Policing and Problem Solving Agency.” (http://www.ilchiefs.org/).  

The public is invited to call in on Thursday, Nov. 5 between 4:00 and 6:00 PM to make comments to the onsite assessment team regarding the ability of the department to comply with ILEAP standards.  (217) 403-7015.

Why Accreditation?

An accrediting agency for a police department is always voluntary, unlike school accreditation. Police departments must be certified by the state of Illinois, but not accredited. Only 51 departments in the State of Illinois have accreditation at this time, so what would be the purpose of going through this rigorous process?

The Oregon Accreditation Alliance presents this response:  The law enforcement accreditation system establishes a uniform set of “Best Practices” for police agencies that are consistent on an international scale, measurable, verified by an independent body as to compliance, and creates an accountability to the community, elected policy makers, and the line officers who are performing the day to day work. Within the law enforcement standards of Best Practices are compliance requirements dealing with life, health, safety, and high liability exposures.

Every standard is intended to make an agency more professional while at the same time improving its services to the community. (http://www.oracall.org/whyaccred.html )

Two Accrediting agencies for Illinois Police Departments

ILEAP is a very new program.  The Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police, founded in 1941, launched the initiative in August, 2008 for accreditation of police departments.  The more established accrediting agency, the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) dates to 1979 and through its Illinois unit, I-PAC, has accredited 51 police departments in the state of Illinois.  ILEAP has accredited one – Kankakee – which was previously accredited by CALEA.  Champaign will be its first unaccredited police department that it is assessing.

Both ILEAP and CALEA/I-PAC are devoted to promoting professionalism in police departments in Illinois (CALEA serves the Midwest).  Both of them claim to be concerned with the relationship of police departments to the communities they serve.  In fact, all organizations of police executives lay claim to this vital concern – for example, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Police Executives Research Forum, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, and the National Sheriffs' Association, all of whom jointly founded CALEA.

Yet the two are quite different.  CALEA/IPAC has twenty-one members who visit and accredit.  According to their Constitution and By-Laws, eleven are law enforcement personnel, all but two from outside the state, and ten are civilians, both public and private.  ILEAP is almost entirely law enforcement. 

ILEAP announces its differences with CALEA/I-PAC thus:  "The goal of the (ILEAP) is to make available a framework whereby the Illinois law enforcement community is provided a voluntary, relatively low-cost accreditation program that is comprehensive, obtainable, and based on standards that reflect professional service delivery. This framework incorporates community policing principles with the goal of building trust in the communities that these departments serve. In developing the program, the Board recognizes the limited financial and manpower resource of a great many departments, and developed standards that would not place overwhelming demands on those resources." (http://www.ilchiefs.org/) 

ILEAP seems to be positioning itself as the cheaper and easier standards accrediting group, and what does CALEA/I-PAC think of this? From their website it would appear that they have not quite made up their collective mind:

"The Illinois Chiefs of Police have initiated an Illinois Law Enforcement Accreditation Program (ILEAP).  I-PAC is evaluating what role our coalition will have.  It has been tentatively discussed that agencies seeking ILEAP Accreditation can be I-PAC members and that I-PAC generally supports the state program, especially for very small agencies who do not have the resources to pursue CALEA Accreditation or Recognition.  Further discussions will be held at future I-PAC Board and Member Meetings." (http://www.calea.org).

Would Champaign, with its police department of 150 some officers and a population near to 70,000 qualify as very small and without resources?  Perhaps ILEAP, with Chief R.T. Finney as its second vice-president, needs a Police Department to accredit more than Champaign needs to be accredited. After all, Urbana and Champaign and the U of I police have all functioned without any accreditation since their inceptions. However, it would be good to have the Champaign Police Department meet a modest standard, even a cheaper and easier one, for community-police trust and for racial profiling.