Avoiding Common Pitfalls in the Internal Affairs Function
Internal IA Training and Responsibilities While the internal affairs process is typically set in policy with all employees signing off on it , the process often remains a mystery to officers , ironically , especially to those who rarely receive complaints . Internally , IA is too often viewed as a strictly punitive function to be avoided whenever possible . However , a well-functioning IA process leans heavily on training outcomes for more procedurally-based mistakes . Certainly , egregious complaints that are sustained need to be dealt with swiftly and proportionally . However , when officers understand that relatively minor errors that cause little harm will be dealt with fairly and with a focus on appropriate training , they can feel more at ease with the process and see it for what it is ; an essential and necessary function within the agency . This approach can also be reinforced with regular roll call or other departmental training .
Making the IA policy a part of officers ’ annual training can also reinforce this . Discussing the internal affairs process with officers when they are in a non-threatening environment will help them understand the process thoroughly . It may also reduce officer stress should they be called into an investigation . Such an approach can help avoid this internally-driven pitfall .
Lack of Transparency The final pitfall discussed herein deals with transparency when the department discovers that an egregious policy violation has occurred , especially one that violates the public trust .
Conventional wisdom was to refrain from sharing such a finding with the public until the entire investigation was complete and then perhaps only reveal the informaiton under formal request .
Most reasonable citizens realize that police departments must hire from fallible humans and that no hiring process is absolutely failsafe at screening out potential problem employees . However , citizens are typically interested in how the department handles such a breach of trust . Owning the situation and communicating that the behavior is clearly not in line with the department ’ s mission and values can go a long way in maintaining legitimacy in the eyes of the public .
Offering concrete steps forward to ensure the act does not occur again is also vital in restoring trust in the department . Avoidance in these cases often does not bode well for chief executives . While uncomfortable , being transparent in these difficult situations is of paramount importance in moving the agency forward . Be sure to avoid this common pitfall .
Conclusion It is incumbent upon chief executives to be the gatekeepers of ethical and professional policing . Police chiefs must ensure that they allocate adequate resources toward the internal affairs function and select well-trained and well-qualified investigators who have both the investigatory and interpersonal skills to promote and maintain internal and external trust .
Departments must also ensure citizens have a clear and straightforward means by which to voice complaints and quickly acknowledge when shortcomings or egregious acts occur . By avoiding these common pitfalls within the internal affairs function , the department may maintain the trust and legitimacy that they work so hard to achieve each day within the communities they serve .
While perhaps counterintuitive , agencies that are proactive in communicating serious failures can actually maintain , if not increase , trust within the community .
44 SPRING . 2021