Theoretically, Civilian Review Boards should provide reasonable transparency between the public and police departments. Our concern, however, is how members of these boards are selected and what potential bias or prejudices they potentially bring to the review board table.
When a board is formed under pressure from various political or activist groups, members may have been chosen based on an unspoken agenda or by race. Prospective members, friends, or family members may have had a solicited or unsolicited negative experience(s) with the police.
Thanks to media sensationalism of use of force incidents between the police and certain racial demographics, a hive mentality thends to develop and presents a conduit for bias and prejudice from board members.
We can assess established review boards to determine if their decisions may be based on bias-driven agendas.
We have developed a fair and impartial selection process where we use a standardized structured interview and administer an established psychometric instrument of measurement to prospective members to determine their suitability to sit on a review board.
The data we collect from each prospective member is then analyzed, and a confidential report is given to the contracting authority. Just as the police should have accountability and transparency, we feel that members of review boards should have just as much accountability and transparency.
For any civilian review board to be legitimate, it must be monitored, and its members carefully vetted. Otherwise, such boards become no more than modern-day witch hunts of officers.
