DPD Watchdog Calls Out Proposed Police Discipline Changes

The Denver Police Department wants to update discipline procedures to replace punishment with education for low-level offenses by officers, but the city's police watchdog isn’t happy about it.

Currently, police officer discipline first goes through the DPD’s administrative investigations unit, which looks into citizen complaints and other instances that could require discipline. Then, the Office of the Independent Monitor reviews the investigations unit’s recommendations. After that, the DPD Conduct Review Bureau looks at all investigative materials and determines discipline using a matrix that runs from A to F, with A being the lowest level of offense.

Under DPD's proposed changes, which will be in front of councilmembers again today, July 29, officers who commit offenses that fall in the A through C categories would have to undergo training related to their specific misconduct rather than face consequences like an oral or written reprimand or loss of paid time off.

According to Denver Independent Monitor Lisabeth Pérez Castle, DPD is already allowed to provide training and education in addition to disciplinary consequences, but chooses not to. Pérez Castle told Denver City Council on July 23 that her office does not support DPD's proposed initiative, Education-Based Discipline, and has concerns about the department's process while trying to change the discipline policy.

“There is no best-practice research suggesting EBD improves officer accountability or outcomes for community members,” Pérez Castle said during a council committee meeting. “EBD removes accountability from discipline. Without accountability, there can be no community trust. ...This is a not-so-veiled attempt to eliminate accountability for officers.”

According to Pérez Castle, if an officer receives EBD there is no recorded finding that they did anything wrong, which would make second-time offenders seem like first-time offenders in the official record.

“How can you hold someone accountable when they do not have to acknowledge their misconduct or the harm caused?” Pérez Castle questioned.

In a statement, DPD says the department will hold officers accountable under the changes if they come into effect.

“The Education-Based Development process does not remove accountability, but rather helps officers understand their mistakes while teaching them the proper method to handle the issue if they are to encounter it in the future,” the statement reads. “EDB is strictly for the lowest level of complaints, and DPD believes this will do more for an officer than an oral or written reprimand, as its goal is to change behavior.”

In a public PowerPoint presentation, the department says benefits of EBD could include decreasing the time it takes to get a case through the discipline process, ensuring disciplined parties understand expectations, reducing “embitterment” in discipline, increasing retention, and reducing the caseload for the Conduct Review Bureau.

Pérez Castle objected to nearly all those touted benefits, however, arguing that reducing time for disciplinary cases to reach a conclusion could eliminate oversight. Currently, cases typically take around six to nine months to wrap up, she noted.

“I do not disagree that the length of time seems too long,” she told councilmembers. “However, a thorough and complete investigation takes time, oversight takes time. This is not a bad thing. At no time has a community member ever approached me and said, ‘You know what, my complaint takes too much time. I think we should just do away with discipline.’”

Additionally, Pérez Castle said her office has never been approached by DPD regarding any effort to speed up the discipline process. Pérez Castle added that reducing embitterment and increasing retention and recruitment by making the system less punitive and more comparable to private sector professions doesn’t recognize the unique nature of policing, either.

“Not a lot of folks in the private sector carry guns that can end someone's life in an instant,” she said. “Do we want to recruit officers who do not wish to be held accountable? ...Are those the kind of officers we want? Those who are angry because they get disciplined?”

Over sixty police departments across the country use EBD, according to DPD, but Pérez Castle argued that EBD has repeatedly been found to be ineffective in departments that test out the program. Many major police departments, including the Los Angeles Sheriff Department and Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police Department, suspended their EBD programs after finding that eliminating discipline led to a decrease in community trust in police.

DPD says Denver would use EBD in a way that improves officers and builds public trust, but the department acknowledges that the practice does not have a body of rigorous, long-term studies behind it.

“Regarding the concern that there is insignificant evidence this system works, Denver is often a leader in implementing advanced programs,” the department says. “Corrective approaches focused on education, coaching and engagement can strengthen individual responsibility, long-term learning, and behavior change, which are key components of accountability.”

Pérez Castle stressed that EBD does not represent accountability to the community.

“Community members have made it very clear to myself and our office, they do not trust this new model,” she told the council committee.

But community members don't know what that exact model is, either.

Although DPD shared a PowerPoint with community members at several public meetings last year, her office and the public at large still hasn't seen a final draft of the policy. According to Pérez Castle, DPD was going to implement the policy at the beginning of the year, but backed off that timeline when her office got involved.

“The community requested that a draft of the EBD policy be shared with community members and the city and the city council for their review, input and guidance,” Pérez Castle said. “The community requested that any implementation of EBD be delayed until the draft policy has been shared publicly and an opportunity for meaningful community feedback has been provided.”

The last two major changes to DPD policy occurred in 2008 and 2017. In 2008, the majority of the DPD discipline process was created after three years of public and stakeholder input; in 2017, the department made updates to the use of force policy with public involvement. In this case, Pérez Castle argued the DPD needs to engage even more broadly in order to be sure the policy is supported by Denver residents.

According to DPD, the handful of EBD outreach efforts have been positive so far, and the department will evaluate the impact of implementing EBD to ensure the program is effective and that the department can pivot if needed.

But that's not enough for the independent monitor, who wants to halt EBD before it starts — or, at least, weigh in on a final draft of the changes and engage the public more.

The city council committee was unhappy that DPD did not have a representative present to answer questions, asking that both the independent monitor and DPD come back to the Health and Safety Committee with more time for evaluation.

Denver police representatives will present their reasoning for the suggested changes at a Mayor-Council meeting today, July 29.