Provo Police Audit and City Response

 Folsom (Sacramento) Management Consultants 
Review of the
Police Department
for the
City of
Provo, UT
January 27, 2011
 2250 East Bidwell Street, Suite 100  Folsom, CA 95630

(916) 458-5100  Fax: (916) 983-2090
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 1

Overview of the Community and Police Department ................................................. 1
Management Level Review of the Provo Police Department ..................................... 1
Departmental Strengths ...................................................................................... 2
Departmental Challenges and Issues .................................................................. 2
Key Recommendations....................................................................................... 4
Section 1—Introduction and Background .................................................................................. 7

1.1 Report Organization ........................................................................................... 7
1.2 Background to the Study .................................................................................... 8
1.3 Project Approach and Research Methods .......................................................... 8
1.4 Provo Police Department Organization .............................................................. 9
1.4.1 Growth in the Provo Community ........................................................... 9
1.4.2 Organization of the Provo Police Department ....................................... 9
1.4.3 Growth in Police Department Personnel Staffing ................................ 10
1.4.4 Provo Crime Rates................................................................................ 10
Section 2—Citizens’ Complaint Process ................................................................................... 12

2.1 Overview of the Provo Police Department Citizens’ Complaint Process ........ 12
2.2 How Provo’s Citizens’ Complaint Process Stacks Up Against Other
Agencies ........................................................................................................... 14
2.2.1 Receipt of Complaints .......................................................................... 15
2.2.2 Method of Receiving Complaints......................................................... 16
2.2.3 Complaint Notification Response ........................................................ 16
2.2.4 Complaint Tracking .............................................................................. 17
2.2.5 Early Warning System.......................................................................... 17
2.2.6 Time to Complete an Internal Affairs Investigation ............................ 17
Table of Contents page i

2.2.7 Who Investigates a Complaint? ............................................................ 17
2.2.8 Community Input into the Internal Affairs Process ............................. 18
2.2.9 Internal Affairs Training Procedures .................................................... 20
2.3 Analysis of Provo’s Citizens Complaint/Internal Affairs Investigations ......... 20
2.3.1 Category II Complaints ........................................................................ 22
2.3.2 Analysis of Category I Complaints ...................................................... 23
2.4 Findings Regarding Citizens’ Complaint Process ............................................ 24
Section 3—Professional Standards of Conduct and Ethics..................................................... 26

3.1 Professional Standards and Conduct ................................................................ 26
3.2 Monthly Training ............................................................................................. 28
3.3 Shift Training ................................................................................................... 28
3.4 Training Pursued Independently ...................................................................... 30
3.5 Traditions.......................................................................................................... 31
Section 4—Officer Training ....................................................................................................... 33

4.1 POST Required Training .................................................................................. 33
4.2 Training Records .............................................................................................. 33
4.3 Shift Training ................................................................................................... 34
4.4 Field Training Officer (FTO) Program ............................................................ 34
Section 5—Leadership and Management ................................................................................. 36

5.1 Departmental Management .............................................................................. 36
5.2 Management by Statistics ................................................................................. 36
5.3 Preparation for Promotion ................................................................................ 38
Section 6—Hiring and Retention ............................................................................................... 39

6.1 Entry-Level Police Officer Hiring Process ...................................................... 39
6.2 Background Investigation................................................................................. 40
6.3 Oral Board Interviews ...................................................................................... 40
6.4 Competitive Labor Market ............................................................................... 41
Table of Contents page ii

Section 7—Community Relations .............................................................................................. 42
7.1 Community Trust and Visibility of the Command Staff .................................. 42
7.2 Public Confidence in the Citizens’ Complaint Process .................................... 43
7.3 COPS Program ................................................................................................. 43
Section 8—Recommendations.................................................................................................... 45
8.1 Citizens’ Complaint Process ............................................................................ 45
8.2 Professional Standards of Conduct and Ethics ................................................. 47
8.3 Officer Training ................................................................................................ 49
8.4 Leadership and Management............................................................................ 50
8.5 Hiring and Retention ........................................................................................ 51
8.6 Community Relations ....................................................................................... 53
Table of Contents page iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OVERVIEW OF THE COMMUNITY AND POLICE DEPARTMENT
The City of Provo, UT commissioned Citygate Associates, LLC to perform a focused review of
the Provo Police Department. Several recent events involving officers of the Department
prompted the City to undertake a review of the Police Department’s approach regarding the
implementation of its policies pertaining to Professional Standards of Conduct and ethics.
The Provo Police Department serves a thriving community of over 124,000. Between 2000 and
2010 the population of Provo increased by more than eighteen percent. It is the third largest City
in Utah. It is home to Brigham Young University, one of the country’s largest private
universities. Provo is also one of the leading technology centers in Utah.
Despite its population growth of more than eighteen percent over a ten-year period, the Provo
Police Department’s staffing level has decreased. The Department’s current staffing level
provides for 95 officers. In response to the challenges imposed by financial circumstances, the
Department’s operating budget was reduced by approximately $400,000 between FY 2008-09
and FY 2009-10. The demand for Police Department services continues to increase. In calendar
year 2009 the Department logged 103,107 dispatched calls (this figure excludes Fire and medical
service calls).
MANAGEMENT LEVEL REVIEW OF THE PROVO POLICE DEPARTMENT
Citygate Associates conducted a thorough review of the Police Department’s leadership and
management approach to implementing its policies regarding the standards of conduct and
ethics. Specifically, Citygate Associates examined six key areas including:
 Citizens’ Complaint Process
 Professional Standards of Conduct
 Officer Training
 Leadership and Management
 Hiring and Retention
 Community Relations.
Executive Summary page 1

Departmental Strengths
The Provo Police Department has a number of strengths that are important for the reader to note
and consider when evaluating the findings and recommendations in this report. The strengths
include:
 The Police Department has a strong “esprit de corps.” Officers with whom we
spoke are loyal to the Department and are motivated by a strong desire to serve
the community.
 Most members believe there are strong ethical standards and values in the
Department. Most believe that the recent incidents are not reflective of the
character and quality of the people in the Department. They recognize that the
recent incidents may have compromised the community’s confidence in the
Department and they are committed to working hard to regain that trust.
 The Department does not have a systematic or organic problem pertaining to

Professional Standards of Conduct and behavior that result in officers violating
the law or engaging in inappropriate activities. This view is shared by the
community members as well as members of the Provo Police Department.
 There are many talented leaders and managers in the Department. This talent will
need to be developed in order for the Department to meet its future service
mission.
 The Community Oriented Policing Program (COPS) is well respected in the

community and many community members would like to see the program
expanded.
Departmental Challenges and Issues

This report details a number of findings and recommendations which, when implemented, will
improve the operation, training and development of employees, the citizens’ complaint process,
and community relations. Each finding and recommendation is discussed in further detail later
in this report. Some of the more crucial shortcomings identified in the review of the Department
include:
Citizens’ Complaint Process

 The Department’s policy regarding internal affairs investigations is not
consistently followed. Category II complaints (the less serious allegations against
officers) are not consistently investigated and documented as required by policy.
 Supervisors and managers do not receive training upon promotion related to their
new roles under the Internal Affairs Investigation Policy.

 The Department lacks a systemic approach to training employees about
Professional Standards of Conduct and ethics. The training that is currently
provided varies considerably by shift and assignment.
 Communication within the Department about Professional Standards of Conduct

is uneven and lacks consistency.
Training and Development

 While the Department meets, and in many instances, exceeds Utah POST training
requirements, officer training pertaining to Professional Standards of Conduct and
ethics is low. Based on a review of a random sample of training records, over a
three-year period of time, the typical Provo officer received slightly more than 30
minutes of ethics training; supervisors and managers received slightly less than
three hours of such training.
 The development of the Department’s annual training calendar is not based on a

systematic analysis of the Department’s training needs.
Hiring and Retention

 The oral board interview process for new officers lacks questions pertaining to
ethics and ethical challenges officers face on the job.
 The background investigation process, an essential step in the hiring program,

does not include the administration of a polygraph examination.
Leadership and Management

 There is a “silo” approach to management. Each division of the Department
operates as a semi-autonomous unit.
 There is limited “unity of command” which results in uneven application of

departmental policies and procedures.
 Morale in the Patrol Division is described as low. The causes for low morale are
reported as limited staffing, a perceived emphasis on “management by statistics”
which ignores the quality of work performed, increased demands for services and
the wage freeze.
Community Relations
 The leadership of the Department needs to be more active and visible in the Provo
community.

Key Recommendations
Citygate Associates gave considerable thought and attention to making commonsense
recommendations that the Department can implement to address the shortcomings noted above.
In later sections of this report, further detail is provided to the reader explaining the findings or
each recommendation. Presented below are the most important and critical recommendations:
Citizens’ Complaint Process

The citizens’ complaint process currently used in the Provo Police Department uses a simple
system to categorize complaints. More serious complaints (Category I) are forwarded to the
Chief who assigns them to an investigator. Less serious complaints (Category II) are handled at
the Division Commander level. The review of procedures disclosed that handling of Category II
complaints is not done per the Department’s policy. In order to remedy the shortcomings
associated with the complaint process, Citygate Associates recommends that the Department
change its approach to how it conducts and maintains records pertaining to Category II
complaints.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the Provo Police Department create an

Office of Professional Standards and Training. This bureau
should report directly to the Chief of Police and be charged with
the responsibility for managing the investigation of citizen
complaints made against officers. It is also recommended that this
bureau take over the responsibility for developing, implementing
and recordkeeping for the Department’s training program which
is currently done by the Patrol Division Captain.
Professional Standards of Conduct and Ethics

The Police Department’s approach to providing sworn and civilian staff with appropriate training
about Professional Standards of Conduct and ethics varies considerably by shift and supervisor.
Citygate Associates determined that a supervisor has developed a training curriculum on the
subject, but the program was only used on that supervisor’s shift. Further, the amount of training
that officers, supervisors and managers take in this area is limited.
Recommendation: At the earliest convenience the Interim Chief should meet with
staff to review the monthly training calendar to ensure that the
schedule of training features PSC at least once during the year
and that each officer, supervisor and manager take a minimum of
two hours of training per year. Professional standards, conduct
and ethics training will assist in institutionalizing the positive
values that are the foundation of the Police Department.

Training and Development
The Department is in compliance with Utah POST with regard to the number of annual hours
training officers receive. However, the Department’s overall approach to training is not based on
a systematic assessment of training needs, either organizationally or for each individual
employee.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the responsibility for the Department’s

training program be reassigned from the Patrol Captain to the
Office of Professional Standards and Training. Following that
reassignment, it is recommended that there be a department-wide
training needs assessment conducted. This assessment will
document the short- and long-term training needs and will enable
a better alignment between the development of the annual
training calendar, monthly training and shift training with the
expressed training needs of the staff.
Hiring and Retention

The hiring process for entry-level police officer is a shared responsibly between Human
Resources and the Police Department. The goal of the hiring process is to recruit, assess and train
individuals who go on to have successful careers in the Police Department. In order to ensure
this goal is met, there are several changes in the current process that ought to be implemented.
Most significant relates to the background investigation. Polygraph examination is a standard
component of a thorough background investigation and is used by almost every police
department in the county. The use of a polygraph exam helps ensure that only the most qualified
candidates are hired and is an effective tool to screen applicants for matters pertaining to their
personal conduct and ethics that can go undetected without it.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the Department add a polygraph

examination administered by a qualified, trained and experienced
examiner as part of the Department’s background investigation
process.
Leadership and Management

In order to correct the “silo” approach to management which results in a low level of unity of
command, a starting point is to redefine the mission, vision and values of the Department.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the Police Department implement a

facilitated strategic planning process which should include a
comprehensive review of the Police Department’s Mission
Statement, Vision and Values. We also recommend that a

strategic planning process include the establishment of short- and
long-term goals and objectives along with benchmarks for
measuring progress toward meeting the established goals.
Community input into the strategic planning process should be
welcomed.
Community Relations
Despite recent events, the Police Department benefits by a high level of community support.
That support is essential if the Department is going to achieve its service mission. By the same
token, the leadership of the Department must make an effort to be more visible in the
community. Several individuals from the community interviewed for this report stated that they
had never seen a member of the command staff participate in the various service clubs, programs
and working groups that serve Provo.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the command staff of the Department

become active in the life of the Provo community by participating
in various service organizations, neighborhood groups and other
similar organizations.

SECTION 1—INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1.1 REPORT ORGANIZATION
This report provides the results of Citygate Associates’ focused review of the Provo Police
Department. It is a description, analysis and assessment of the Police Department’s approach to
implementing systems and procedures essential to operating a department in accordance with
generally accepted Professional Standards of Conduct and ethics. The report also identifies in
broad terms the shortcomings of several of those crucial systems and procedures. The end
product includes recommendations and policy choices for Provo’s policy makers.
This report is structured into the following sections:
Section 1 Introduction and Background: Background facts about Provo’s

Police Department, its services and future challenges.
Section 2 Citizens’ Complaint Process: Analysis and findings related to the

citizens’ complaint process and internal affairs investigation.
Section 3 Professional Standards of Conduct and Ethics: Analysis and findings

related to the Department’s approach to implementing Professional
Standards of Conduct and ethics.
Section 4 Officer Training: Analysis and findings related to the Department’s

employee training and development program.
Section 5 Leadership and Management: Analysis and findings related to the

leadership and management challenges facing the Police Department.
Section 6 Hiring and Retention: Analysis and findings related to the

Department’s procedures for hiring entry-level police officers.
Section 7 Community Relations: Analysis and findings related to the

Department’s approach to community relations.
Section 8 Recommendations: Presentation of Citygate Associates’

recommendations.
As each of the sections mentioned above provides information, this report will cite specific
findings. To provide a comprehensive summary, a complete listing of all these same findings is
presented in Section 8, along with recommendations that specifically relate to the findings. The
findings have been numbered to correspond with related recommendations in Section 8, so that
all related findings and recommendations pair together. This numbering system is carried
forward for findings that appear in Sections 2 through 7 of the report.
Section 1—Introduction and Background page 7

1.2 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY
The City of Provo commissioned this study to assess the Police Department’s implementation of
Professional Standards of Conduct and ethics. Recently there were several incidents involving
Provo Police Officers that called into question the Police Department’s approach to various
aspects of internal systems and procedures relating to Professional Standards of Conduct and
ethics. The City’s principle interest is to determine if there are systematic or organic issues in
the Department that result in unacceptable officer behavior – either on or off duty – and if so,
how they can be corrected so that the Provo community has confidence in the Police Department.
1.3 PROJECT APPROACH AND RESEARCH METHODS
In conducting the review of the Police Department Provo asked Citygate to analyze and review
several key operating systems and procedures. The analysis of these elements was to include a
review of officer training records and the citizens’ complaint process including the Internal
Affairs Investigation Policy.
Citygate began these studies with a large document request to gain background information on
the Provo Police Department, its organizational structure, leadership and management
environment and public information pertaining to recent incidents involving several Provo Police
Officers. This permitted us in site visits to focus our interviews and additional information
requests in a productive way. Our objective was to understand as much as possible about the
City before Citygate team members arrive on site. While on site we reviewed additional
documents including, but not limited to, training records, lesson plans and tests. Citygate
Associates staff also did a ride-along with a member of the Patrol Division.
We reviewed the Police Department’s Policy and Procedures Manual, the Department’s annual
report including data pertaining to service and staffing levels and budget. Prior to Citygate’s on-
site visit, a series of interviews with key stakeholders was planned. The stakeholders selected for
interviews included a wide array of individuals including officers, supervisors, managers and the
Department’s command staff. Members of the community were also included and scheduled for
interviews with Citygate staff. The stakeholders scheduled for interview were selected by the
City.
In order to facilitate the stakeholder interview process and to help ensure the reliability of the
data, a standard set of interview questions was developed. The questions were designed to elicit
important information regarding the work environment as it pertains to ethics and standards of
conduct in the Department. Citygate staff also met and shared information with a Citizens’
Committee appointed by the Mayor. That meeting and subsequent communication proved vital
in understanding the community’s concerns regarding the Police Department. We invited those
who were not able to participate in the interview process to contact Citygate staff by telephone or
via e-mail.

Citygate staff spent four days onsite conducting detailed stakeholder interviews, reviewing
training records and meeting with the Mayor, Police Chief and Chief Administrative Officer.
1.4 PROVO POLICE DEPARTMENT ORGANIZATION
1.4.1 Growth in the Provo Community

Provo is the third largest city in the state of Utah, located about 43 miles south of Salt Lake City
along the Wasatch Front. Provo is the county seat of Utah County and lies between the cities of
Orem to the north and Springville to the south. With a population of 125,123 Provo is also the
principal city in the Provo-Orem metropolitan area, which has an estimated population of
555,551 residents. It is the second largest metro area in the state behind Salt Lake City.
The City is home to Brigham Young University, one of the largest private higher education
institutions in the United States, which is operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints. Provo is also home to the largest Missionary Training Center for the LDS church. The
City is a key operational center for Novell and has been a focus area for technology development
in Utah. The City is also home to the Peaks Ice Arena, which served as a venue for the Salt Lake
City Winter Olympics in 2002. Sundance Resort is located 13 miles northeast at Provo Canyon.
Between 2005 and 2010 it is estimated that the City’s population increased by eight percent to a
record population estimated at 125,123.
1.4.2 Organization of the Provo Police Department

The Police Department is headed by a police chief who is appointed by the Mayor. The
Department is organized into four divisions described below:
Administration – headed by the Police Chief, this division is responsible for the overall
administration, management and leadership of the Department. There is a total of 2
employees assigned to this division.
Patrol Division – headed by a Captain, this is the largest division in the Department. The
Patrol Division operates in three shifts: day, swing and graveyard. Each shift is managed
by a Lieutenant and two Sergeants. This Division is also responsible for several
specialized functions including the Community Oriented Policing Program, Animal
Control, Traffic and Parking Enforcement, Traffic Accident Investigation and the Bike
Patrol. There is a total of 92 staff assigned to this division.
Criminal Investigations – headed by a Captain, this division is responsible for

investigating all criminal activity in the City. This Division has four units including the
investigations unit, Utah County Major Criminal Task Force, Victims Services, and a
School Resource Officer program. There is a total of 24 staff assigned to this division.

Support Services – headed by a Captain, this division provides a variety of essential
support and administrative services including budget and expense monitoring and
control. This division also is responsible for managing the 9-1-1 dispatch center, the
Property Bureau, Mountain Rescue Program, SWAT, Crisis Negotiating Team, the
School Crossing Guard Program and the Police Records Section. There is a total of 43
FTE’s and 9 part-time staff assigned to this division.
The 2011 budget provides a total staffing compliment of 134 sworn and civilian positions with a
budget of approximately $12.9 million.
1.4.3 Growth in Police Department Personnel Staffing

Staffing levels in the Provo Police Department have been a topic of discussion for a considerable
period of time. In 2009, the total number of sworn officers in the Department was 95. From
2005 to 2009 the number of sworn officers declined by two, yet the population growth during the
same period increased by almost eight percent. Many people interviewed for this report cited the
need to increase the staffing levels of the Department, particularly in the Patrol Division where a
typical shift is staffed with six to eight officers. The table below summarizes the number of
sworn officers between 2005 and 2009.
Provo Police Department Sworn Officer Staffing 2005 - 2009
Year Number of Sworn Officers
2005 97
2006 98
2007 100
2008 96
2009 95
1.4.4 Provo Crime Rates

Data published by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for 2010 ranks Provo as one of the
safest large cities in the country. Rates of violent and property crimes in Provo as compared to
the state as a whole show that Provo ranks among the safest cities in Utah. The table below
compares Provo’s violent crime rate with other Utah cities along with the total staffing levels in
each police department.

Violent Crime Rates for Comparable Utah Cities by Population and Size of Police
Department
2009 Rate of
2009 Violent Crimes per
Number of 2009 Total 2009 Rate of Total Size of
2009 Reported Police Violent Crimes Police Department
Estimated Violent Department per population (#crimes/dept
City Population Crimes Staffing (#crimes/pop) size)
Provo 119,472 167 147 .0014 1.136

Lehi 51,307 26 43 .0005 1.654
South Jordan 54,042 39 58 .0007 1.487
Orem 93,785 50 126 .0005 2.52
St. George 75,391 92 141 .0012 1.53
Layton 65,947 115 98 .0017 1.173
West Jordan 107,113 165 142 .0015 1.162
Sandy 97,031 167 145 .0017 1.151
Taylorsville City 58,472 190 60 .0032 3.167
Ogden 83,016 391 157 .0047 2.459
West Valley 124,472 564 232 .0045 2.43
Salt Lake City 180,724 1276 584 .0071 2.184
Average 92,584 270 161 .00241 1.43522
The reader is urged to review the above data with caution. Violent crimes are only one type of
crime, although considered by many to be a good indicator of crime trends. Further, efforts to
compare and rank crime rates among cities is often misleading as there are many factors
contributing to crime rates that extend well beyond a simple statistical analysis. Despite the
limitations of this type of analysis, the data can be a starting point for discussions pertaining to
staffing levels, crime rates and the cost of providing police services.
The table above suggests that violent crimes in Provo are below the average for comparable
large-sized cities in Utah. Further, it appears that the ratio of violent crimes per population is
less than the average. Finally, the data suggests that Provo’s ratio of crimes per size of
department is less than average of the above comparator cities as well.

SECTION 2—CITIZENS’ COMPLAINT PROCESS
2.1 OVERVIEW OF THE PROVO POLICE DEPARTMENT CITIZENS’ COMPLAINT PROCESS
A critical program in any police department is the citizens’ complaint process. In order to have
the support and confidence of the community, the Department needs to have a thorough and
transparent policy and action plan to promptly investigate complaints from the community
regarding claims of officer misconduct.
The Police Department has a written policy regarding internal affairs investigations. The policy,
#055, has been in place since 1981. The policy statement is clear and unambiguous. It states in
relevant part the following:
It is the policy of the department that all allegations of employee misconduct initiated by
a citizen or members of the department be thoroughly investigated and promptly
adjudicated.
The policy goes on to state:
All complaints, regardless of source, will be made a matter of record and will be
thoroughly investigated.
The procedure provides that anyone in the Department can receive a complaint of employee
misconduct. When a complaint is received, the employee receiving the complaint is required to
take notes detailing the specifics from the complaining party. Without delay, the employee is
required to contact his or her immediate supervisor who is responsible for completing the
Department’s “Allegation of Employment Misconduct” report (AEM).
The policy provides for two categories of complaints. Category I, the most serious complaints,
includes such allegations as excessive force, false arrest, civil rights violations, violations or
criminal conduct from any source; Category II includes less serious allegations such as civility,
demeanor and others of a similar nature. All AEM reports for Category I and Category II
complaints are referred directly to the Chief of Police. The Chief of Police then assigns all
Category I complaints to an investigator.
Category II complaints are documented in memo form and forwarded to the Watch Commander,
who then forwards the memo to the Division Commander for review. The Division Commander
then determines if the complaint can be handled at the immediate supervisor’s level (for minor
Category II complaints). Documentation of all Category II complaints is required and it is the
responsibility of the Division Commander to track all such reports. An officer who receives an
inordinate number of Category II complaints that are sustained where profanity and/or temper
are issues, will have their file referred to the Chief of Police for review.
Section 2—Citizens’ Complaint Process page 12

Although it is not required, whenever possible, a supervisor should obtain the complaining
party’s signature and as much detail as possible along with any other documentation necessary.
It is also the supervisor’s responsibility to assure the complaining party that there will be a
thorough investigation and that the complaining party will be advised of the outcome of the
investigation.
If the supervisor makes a commitment to the complaining party as to the anticipated length of
time it will take to investigate the matter, or other expectations, the supervisor is required to
record that information in a report and it should be attached to the misconduct report.
The policy also provides for accepting anonymous complaints, from any source, and they are to
be given the same attention as any other complaint.
The policy provides that all investigations be conducted promptly and that Category I complaints
be completed in ten days and Category II complaints be completed in seven days. If it appears
that an investigation will take longer than the time allotted, the investigating officer is required to
prepare a progress report which includes an anticipated completion date. The progress report is
then forwarded to the Chief of Police or Division Commander.
The policy sets forth the investigatory procedures to be used in conducting internal affairs
investigations. The key elements of the investigatory process include the following:
 All recognized investigatory methods for determining the facts surrounding a

complaint shall be used including interviews with the complainant and all
witnesses; written reports may be obtained when necessary.
 The application of truth verification shall not be made without the expressed
approval of the Chief of Police.
 Members of the Department who refuse to answer questions properly placed

before them shall be immediately referred to the Chief of Police.
 The investigating officer shall maintain confidentiality and shall report only to the
Chief of Police.
 The investigating officer will keep detailed accurate records of all the
investigative steps and findings; all records, notes, pictures, etc. will be attached
to the final report forwarded to the Chief of Police; the investigator shall not keep
copies of any material or data accumulated in the course of the investigation.
 For Category I complaints, the investigator shall submit a written report using the
AEM form and will synopsize the investigation and conclusions in the appropriate
space on the form.

Upon receiving the file from the investigator, the Chief of Police will make a determination as to
whether the allegation will result in discipline. The investigating officer has no responsibility for
making a recommendation for discipline.
The policy also provides for the use of a standard classification of dispositions. The Chief is
responsible for making the final determination and disposition using one of the following
categories:
 Sustained – the accused employee committed all or part of the alleged acts of
misconduct
 Not Sustained – the investigation produced insufficient information to prove

clearly or to disprove the allegation
 Exonerated – the alleged act occurred, but was justified, legal and proper
 Unfounded – the alleged act did not occur.
When a determination of “sustained” is made or when misconduct is discovered during the

investigation that was not alleged in the complaint, disciplinary action will be taken in
accordance with the rules governing such action.
If it is determined that probable cause exists for believing that an employee is guilty of criminal
conduct, the evidence will be presented to an appropriate prosecutor for action.
Whenever a complaint is sustained and the Chief of Police believes that civil litigation could
result for the actions of the employee, the Chief will promptly notify the City Attorney.
All internal affairs files shall be maintained in the Chief of Police’s office filed by chronological
order. The allegations of misconduct made against specifically named employees will not be
placed in the employee’s personnel file unless there is a finding of “sustained.”
For Category I complaints, the complaining party shall be notified by letter from the Chief of
Police. Such notification includes the outcome and actions taken. For Category II complaints, it
is the responsibility of the Division Commander to contact and notify the complaining party of
the outcome of the investigation, but does not disclose information pertaining to any disciplinary
action that may have been imposed.
2.2 HOW PROVO’S CITIZENS’ COMPLAINT PROCESS STACKS UP AGAINST OTHER

AGENCIES
The U.S. Justice Department published a study in 2008 titled “Linking Law Enforcement
Internal Affairs Practices and Community Trust Building Documenting Past Successes and
Failures, and Settling Goals for the Future.” The purpose of the study was to identify trends and
common procedures among large, midsize and smaller agencies for conducting internal affairs

investigations. The data used in this study was collected via survey from more than seventeen
hundred police agencies throughout the United States.
In this section of the report, we compare the main features of Provo’s Internal Affairs Policy
with industry practices as documented in the above-referenced study.
2.2.1 Receipt of Complaints

Respondents in the survey were asked “What are the criteria for accepting a complaint?” The
responses are contained in the table below:
Criteria for Accepting Citizen Complaints against an Officer
No Criteria For Complaints Not

Accepting Accepted if Certain
Complaints Criteria Are Not Met Provo Policy
No criteria for accepting complaints;

Responses 78% 22% anyone in the Department can
accept a citizen’s complaint
Surveyed agencies reporting that they have established criteria for accepting complaints stated
the criteria included the following:
 Complaint must be in writing
 Complaint must have a sworn affidavit
 Complaint must be signed
 Complaint must be taken by a supervisor
 Complainant must be sober
 Time limitation must not have expired
 Complaint cannot be anonymous.
Provo’s policy does not include any specific criteria for accepting a complaint. The policy
provides that anyone in the Department can receive a complaint, complaints do not have to be in
writing, complaints do not have to be signed (although it is recommended that the complaining
party signs a complaint), and complaints can be made anonymously.

2.2.2 Method of Receiving Complaints
This pertains to the methods police agencies employ to receive complaints. Agencies were asked
to identify who in their Department can receive complaints. The table below summarizes the
responses:
Method of Receiving Citizen Complaints
Area Yes No Provo Policy
There is a specific person Any Police Department

assigned to receive 12% 87.9% employee can receive a
complaints citizen’s complaint
All complaints are received Any employee can receive a
9.8% 90.2%
by an IA unit intake officer citizen’s complaint
Employee receiving a
All levels of personnel are complaint is required to take
required to receive a notes of the complaint and
complaint and pass it on to 73.6% 26.4% pass it on to a supervisor;
a supervisor/chief/IA intake Category I complaints are
officer referred to the Chief; Category
II to the Division Commander
Only the Chief can receive Any employee can receive a
3.6% 96.4%
a complaint citizen’s complaint
Complaints are received by Any employee can receive a
77.9% 22.1%
the first-line supervisor citizen’s complaint
Provo’s policy regarding the receipt of complaints is broader than comparator police agencies.
Provo places no restrictions on who may receive a complaint, while the survey results indicate
that in almost seventy-eight percent of responding agencies, the first line supervisor takes
complaints.
2.2.3 Complaint Notification Response

Respondents were asked if the complainant is notified of the disposition of the internal affairs
investigation upon its conclusion. Almost ninety-five percent (94.8%) notify the complaining
party of the results of the investigation. Provo’s policy requires that the complaining party be
notified as to the disposition of the internal affairs investigation. For Category I complaints, the
policy provides that notification be made by the Chief of Police and for Category II complaints,
notification be done by the Division Commander.

2.2.4 Complaint Tracking
Respondents were asked if their agency documents and tracks complaints. Almost ninety-three
percent (92.8%) document and track complaints while over seven percent (7.2%) do not.
According to Provo’s policy all complaints are required to be documented and tracked.
2.2.5 Early Warning System

Respondents were asked if their internal affairs complaint process contains an early warning
system. Thirty-seven percent (37.3%) responded they have an early warning system while sixty-
two percent (62.7%) did not. The departments with an early warning system were asked how
effective that system is in identifying problem officers. Fifty-one percent (51.3%) responded
that their early warning system was “effective” or “very effective” in identifying problem
officers, while almost four percent (4%) stated it was “not effective.” Almost forty-five percent
(45%) of the respondents replied “neutral.” According to the Provo policy, officers receiving
“an inordinate amount of Category II complaints (three or more in a 24-month period), or any
Category II allegations that are sustained where profanity and/or temper are issues, will have
their file referred to the Chief of Police for review with the officer’s Division Commander.”
2.2.6 Time to Complete an Internal Affairs Investigation

Respondents were asked, “What is the initial timeline for the completion of an internal affairs
investigation?” The table below summarizes the responses:
Timeline for Completing Internal Affairs Investigations
Days to Complete Initial IA

Investigation Percent of Respondents
30 days 69.6%
45 days 13.10%
60 days 9.20%
90 days 4.0%
According to Provo’s internal affairs policy, the initial timeline for completing Category I
complaints is ten days and for Category II complaints is seven days.
2.2.7 Who Investigates a Complaint?

Respondents were asked, “Who investigates a complaint in the Department?” and were offered
six response choices. The table below summarizes their responses:

Who Investigates Citizen Complaints
Who Investigates Percent of Responses
Senior Officer 8.40%

First-line Supervisor 19.30%
IA Unit Member 24.50%
Chief of Police 10.40%
Outside Agency 2.90%
Other 34.50%
Responses listed in the “other” option included Assistant Chief, Captain, Lieutenant, Sergeant or
Administrative Personnel.
Provo’s Internal Affairs Policy provides that Category I complaints are assigned by the Chief of
Police to an investigator; Category II complaints are assigned a first-line supervisor or watch
commander for investigation.
2.2.8 Community Input into the Internal Affairs Process

Respondents were asked a series of questions pertaining to community input into the internal
affairs process. The questions and responses are noted below:
 Does the community have input into the investigatory process within your
agency?
Yes – 8.3%
No – 91.8%
The respondents selecting “yes” indicated that community input is provided in several forms
including general policy input, direct oversight (Civilian Review Board) or other means such as
through a police commission, city council, civil service commission an ombudsman board or
police committee.
Provo’s policy does not include community involvement in internal affairs investigations.
 Is community input valued in the internal affairs process?
Respondents selecting “yes” to the above question were asked their views regarding the value or
benefit of community input. The table below summarizes their responses:

Benefit or Value of Community Input into the Internal Affairs Process
Neither
Strongly Agree or Strongly
Area Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree
Valuable help when

conducting IA 3.7% 13.3% 44.4% 26.5% 12.5%
investigations
Is important for the
8.2% 24.9% 38.7% 22.6% 5.8%
sake of transparency
Can jeopardize an
14.2% 40.7% 34.5% 8.6% 2.2%
investigation
Decreases the
autonomy and
authority of the 14.4% 34.9% 36.2% 12.9% 1.9%
organization making
the IA decisions
As noted above, Provo’s policy does not include provisions for community input into its internal
affairs policy or investigation process.
 How is the Internal Affairs Policy communicated to the public?
Respondents were asked how the Internal Affairs Policy is communicated to the public. The
table below summarizes their responses:
Methods of Communication with the Public about the Internal Affairs Policy
Method of Communication Percent Responses
Brochure 40%
Website 46.3%
Other 46.9%
The “other” category includes advertisement, annual report, available at police stations, bulletin
boards, citizen’s academy, city clerk’s office, handouts, in-person, orally or records unit.
The Provo Police Department has not posted the policy or information pertaining to how to file a
complaint on its web site nor does it provide a brochure describing the policy for the public.

2.2.9 Internal Affairs Training Procedures
Respondents were asked a series of questions relating to the training of officers assigned to
conduct internal affairs investigations. Several of the questions and responses are noted below.
 Does your agency have an internal affairs unit or specific person to handle
internal affairs investigations? Sixty-six percent (66%) responded that they have
someone designated to handle internal affairs investigations and thirty three-
percent (33%) indicated that no one specifically is assigned within the
Department to handle an internal affairs investigation.
Provo’s internal affairs policy provides for Category I investigations; the Chief directly assigns
the investigation to an investigator who is assigned to the Department’s investigation unit.
Category II complaints are investigated by a first-line supervisor under the control of a watch
commander.
 Respondents were asked if they provide training to the internal affairs staff in
conducting investigations. More than ninety percent (90.3%) responded that they
provide training and slightly over nine percent (9.7%) responded that they do not
provide training for internal affairs staff.
As previously noted, the Provo Police Department does not have an internal affairs unit;
Category I investigations are assigned by the Chief to the investigations unit. Members of the
investigation unit have the opportunity to receive training from a variety of sources and several
supervisors interviewed for this report stated they had received some training.
 Respondents were asked if newly promoted supervisors receive mandatory

training regarding internal affairs upon promotion. Almost forty percent (39.9%)
responded that new supervisors received internal affairs training and slightly more
than sixty percent (60.1%) reported they do not receive training.
The Provo Police Department does not provide internal affairs training to newly promoted
supervisors.
2.3 ANALYSIS OF PROVO’S CITIZENS COMPLAINT/INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATIONS
Citygate Associates was provided with a summary document titled “Alleged Employee
Misconduct/Internal Affairs 2005-2010.” The document contains a listing of all Category I
complaints against officers in the Department for the period 2005 – 2010. Included for each
entry is the AEM number, the date the allegation was reported, the date in investigation was
completed, a summary of the allegation(s) and a summary of the finding. In several cases the
allegations included more than one employee; in several instances the internal affairs
investigation included multiple employees consolidated into a single investigation. For purposes

of this analysis, we counted each employee as a single case; therefore if there were two
employees who were the subject of an allegation, it is counted as two allegations.
Our review of the summary document disclosed the following information:
Category I Complaints against Provo Police Officers

By Calendar Year (CY 2005 – 2010)
Number of Category
Year Results
I Complaints
2005 1 1 – unfounded
2 – unfounded
2006 8 2 – unsubstantiated
4 – sustained
8 – unfounded
2 – sustained
2009 5 5 – unfounded
2 – unfounded
2 – unsubstantiated
2010 10 5 – sustained
1 – investigation not
complete

The table below categorizes the above complaints by type of complaint by calendar year:
Category I Complaints by Type of Complaint by Calendar Year
Civil
Excessive Criminal Rights Conduct/Rude Domestic
Year Force Conduct Violation Behavior Violence Other
2005 1
2006 2 3 2 1
2007 1 1 1
2008 6 5
2009 4 1
2010 3 1 5 1
Totals 13 7 2 14 2
The table below summarizes sustained complaints by type of complaint by calendar year:
Category I Sustained Complaints by Complaint Type by Calendar Year
Civil
Excessive Criminal Rights Conduct/Rude Domestic
Year Force Conduct Violation Behavior Violence Other
2005
2006 3 1
2007
2008 2
2009
2010 2 3
Totals 2 8 1
2.3.1 Category II Complaints

The internal affairs policy requires that all complaints, regardless of the category of complaint,
are to be recorded and their disposition noted in the departmental records. Further, according to
the policy, Category II complaints are referred to the employee’s supervisor for investigation and
appropriate action.

During our interviews of the sworn supervisors, we asked each of them a series of questions
regarding their knowledge of the policy as it pertains to the handling of Category II complaints.
With regard to the questions about the policy requirement that each complaint be recorded, the
responses ranged from writing down every complaint regardless of how minor it is to several
supervisors who responded that they do not record any of the complaints.
This lack of consistency makes analysis of the data impossible.
2.3.2 Analysis of Category I Complaints

The review of the above data shows that almost twenty-nine percent (29%) of the complaints
received resulted in a finding of “sustained,” meaning the officer involved has been found to
have violated a departmental rule, regulation, policy or procedure (11/38).
For the eleven (11) sustained complaints, eight (8) or almost seventy-three percent (72.7%) were
for issues of conduct or rude behavior.
There is no national or state-wide data source that can be used to compare Provo’s data. Police
Departments in Utah are not required to report internal affairs data to POST; rather, POST
conducts independent investigations of serious claims of misconduct and has the authority to
revoke an officer’s police officer certification thereby effectively ending his/her service as a
police officer.
The Salt Lake City Police Department publishes quarterly reports regarding internal affairs
investigations. A review of data of civilian complaints filed against police officers for the period
July 1, 2003 through March 31, 2007 shows that there were 151 civilian complaints filed and that
thirty-two percent (32%) were sustained. Because of differences in reporting procedures and
disposition categories, it is not possible to compare the types of sustained complaints in Salt
Lake City with Provo.
A 2009 study published by the ACLU included internal affairs data for more than 500 police
departments covering the period 1996 – 2005 in the state of New Jersey. The data in that report
shows that during the period 1996 – 2005 there were 96,488 citizen complaints lodged against
officers and that 27,695 or nearly twenty-nine percent (28.7%) were sustained.
Based on the data presented, it does not appear that Provo has a higher percentage of sustained
complaints against its officers than other departments.

2.4 FINDINGS REGARDING CITIZENS’ COMPLAINT PROCESS
Finding #1: The Department maintains a file of all internal affairs

investigations in the office of the Chief of Police; however, the
summary document we were provided does not follow the
disposition categories stated in the policy. The category
“unsubstantiated” is used in the summary document when there is
no such category in the policy.
The internal affairs policy uses standard disposition classifications. In several instances the
summary document provided used the disposition “unsubstantiated.” It is not clear if the
intended disposition in those instances was “Not Sustained” or “Unfounded.”
Finding #2: Fourteen (14) investigations were completed within the ten-day
time window provided in the policy; seventeen (17) investigations
took longer than the ten-day window; one (1) investigation is on-
going and in one investigation the length of time it took to
investigate cannot be determined. In instances where it took
longer than ten days to investigate the complaint, the summary
document includes a notation explaining the delay.
Forty-two percent (42%) of the investigations were completed within the ten-day time period
while fifty-two percent (52%) were not. In cases where it took longer than ten days to complete
the investigation the records document the reasons why. Generally those reasons were the
difficulty in locating witnesses and the complexity of the investigation.
Finding #3: The Department does not follow the policy pertaining to Category
II allegations in that there is disparate handling of cases from
supervisor to supervisor in terms of creating a written record of the
allegation and recording the memo in an appropriate location;
some supervisors write memos on all complaints regardless of the
seriousness of the issue, while other supervisors do not document
the allegation in accordance with the policy. Failure to maintain
proper records of Category II complaints also serves to deprive the
Department of an effective early warning system to alert managers
to potential issues of officer stress and other potentially more
serious allegations.

Interviews conducted with supervisors disclosed significant differences in how Category II
complaints are handled. Some supervisors stated that they followed the policy and documented
the complaint, followed up with the officer taking appropriate action, memorialized the
complaint and forwarded the memo to the Division Commander who is responsible for filing the
complaint and notifying the complaining party of the result of the investigation; other
supervisors stated that they did not memorialize the complaint in memo form, but stated that they
followed up with the officer who was the subject of the complaint and notified the complaining
party of the result.
Finding #4: Newly promoted supervisors do not receive training at the time of
promotion regarding their responsibilities under the current policy.
Newly promoted supervisors stated that they do not receive any training regarding Professional
Standards of Conduct. Many stated that while they understood the policy, their new role as a
supervisor requires them to instruct others in the policy and that refresher training would be
helpful.
Finding #5: It does not appear that the Department has a higher than average
percentage of “sustained” findings than their counterparts in Salt
Lake City; however, due to the significant differences police
agencies use in categorizing complaints by type, it is not possible
to compare Provo with other departments.

SECTION 3—PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS OF CONDUCT AND ETHICS
3.1 PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS AND CONDUCT
The objective in Citygate Associates’ review of this area was to examine the process by which
Professional Standards and Conduct are translated and incorporated into the Department’s
Values, Mission, Vision and Goals and how those Professional Standards are then communicated
to sworn and professional staff within the Department.
To accomplish this objective we reviewed randomly selected training records, training calendars
for the last three years, training outlines, including the 40-hour training course for newly hired
sworn officers and available shift training records. We interviewed randomly selected sworn and
professional staff at all ranks and visually inspected the Department for outward signs or
expressions of the organization’s Values, Mission, Vision and Goals.
The phrase “Professional Standards and Conduct” (PSC) includes education, instruction and
training in all areas related to ethics, ethical standards, and values.
Finding #6.1: Training and the transmission of the Department’s philosophy with
regard to PSC is sporadic and inconsistent.
Sworn officers initially receive training in PSC at an accredited Police Academy. Every officer
must attend an accredited academy to be eligible for employment as a sworn officer at the Provo
Police Department.
After being hired at the Department officers may receive training, with regard to PSC and their
relation to the Department’s Values, Mission, Vision, and Goals, in three ways. First, by
attending a required 40-hour training course for newly hired officers; second, at shift training (if
any); third, at scheduled monthly training; and fourth, at training independently sought by the
individual officer.
In interviews with sworn members of the Department, it was stated that the training provided at
shift training largely depends on the shift supervisor and watch commander. One watch
commander has developed an impressive training curriculum and uses it to provide training and
education to officers assigned to his shift, but that training is not provided to officers on other
shifts and assignments.
Professional non-sworn staff receive this information as part of their orientation with the Chief of
Police and then, depending on their division, during a review of Department policy, voluntarily
attending shift training, training or education sought independently, or not at all.
Section 3—Professional Standards of Conduct and Ethics page 26

Finding #7: Training in Professional Standards of Conduct and ethics for newly
hired police officers is personally conducted by the Chief of
Police.
Former Chief Geslison described his training block as a review of the Law Enforcement Code of
Ethics as detailed by the Utah Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST). The Chief also
conveyed his general philosophy about ethical behavior and sets the tone for his expectations of
new officers. This is a good investment of the Chief's time and he should be commended for
having taken the initiative to incorporate this block of time with the new officers. Strong
consideration should be given by the Department’s next Chief to continue this practice.
Finding #8: The training curriculum materials used for newly hired officers are
inconsistent and in some instances lack clear learning outcomes.
Newly hired sworn officers in the Provo Police Department are required to take a 40-hour
course. The purpose of this course is to orient them to the Department’s policies, procedures and
expectations for performance and to ensure that they have a proper foundation to begin their law
enforcement career. Following this course new officers are assigned to a field training officer.
The most recent iteration of the 40-hour course schedule (the schedule itself is not dated but is
part of a three-ring binder that purports to contain all the lesson plans, syllabi and tests from the
last 40-hour In-House Training for New Police Officers) shows a two-hour block at 2:00 PM
entitled, Ethics, conducted by Chief Geslison.
We carefully reviewed the materials related to each subject. While some of the subjects included
a syllabus, class outline, learning outcomes and tests, they did not have a consistent template for
each subject area. There was significant inconsistency in the type and quality of the materials.
Some of the individual courses contained various types of Student Learning Outcomes (SLO).
None of the student learning outcomes were consistent with the current educational best
practices for articulating student learning outcomes.
Student learning outcomes are an articulation of what learners will achieve and describe the
means by which learners will demonstrate that achievement. As the discipline to be taught
changes, so too do the student learning outcomes. The process of developing student learning
outcomes takes time and thoughtful consideration. It is best done in a collaborative effort with
specific area experts and individuals with education and experience in teaching. In the
environment of the Provo Police Department this experience should be focused on individuals
with experience in the areas of adult education. Developing strong student learning outcomes
presents an excellent opportunity for collaboration with willing partners from area colleges and
universities.

During our interview process some individuals expressed confidence that topics regarding ethics
and appropriate behavior were incorporated in the instruction process for virtually all of the
classes. During our review of the outlines, student learning outcomes and tests we found no
evidence to support that assertion as a universal element of all teaching materials.
3.2 MONTHLY TRAINING
Finding #6.2: The annual training calendar provides a wide range of training and
education in operational areas, but does not provide sufficient
training in Professional Standards and Conduct.
We reviewed the training calendars for the years 2008, 2009, 2010 and the pending calendar for
2011. The training calendars, prepared by the operations Captain are designed to direct monthly
departmental training as well as reflect other training for individual specialized units such as
Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) and Explosive Ordinance Disposal (EOD). One of the
purposes of the monthly training is to ensure that all officers meet or exceed the minimum Utah
Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) required annual training. The training annual
calendar is approved by the Chief of Police.
Without question, training is always a challenge for all law enforcement agencies. The balance of
who should be trained, on what topics, for how long and by whom is an important decision
process not only for operational needs but also represents either significant liability exposure or
defense against liability.
That said, we noted that between 2008 and the plan calendar for 2011 all of the topics were
heavily weighted towards operational issues. With the exception of the topic of police liability,
topics related to PSC were conspicuous by their absence. All of the topics were, however, related
to public safety and were certainly eligible for satisfying minimal requirements for continuing
education for law enforcement officers.
3.3 SHIFT TRAINING
Finding #6.3: Based on a review of departmental training records, officers

receive substantially more than the minimum required forty hours
of training; however, there are few training opportunities that
specifically address matters relating to professional standards,
conduct and ethics.

We randomly selected the training file summary of twenty-five Officers, four Sergeants, four
Lieutenants, and one Captain for the period covering CY 2008 – 2010. We reviewed each of the
summaries for any classes that appeared to be related to the issues of ethics or professional
conduct. The following table contains a summary of our findings:
Professional Standards/Ethics Training as a Percentage of All Training

CY 2008 – 2010
Managers (Sergeant,
Lieutenant and Captain) Officers
Average # hours Ethics

2.9 hours/manager .604 hours/officer
Training
Average # total training hours 293.4 hours/manager 313.72 hours/officer
Average percent
.9%/manager .02%/officer
ethics/standards training
Based on the above table, during the past three years the average police manager has a total
293.4 hours of training (2.9 hours of which relates to professional standards, conduct and ethics)
that constitutes less than one percent (.9%) of the total training hours. For officers, the data
shows that over the same three-year period of time, the average officer received 313.72 hours of
training, but less than one hour of which related to professional standards, conduct and ethics;
that constitutes less than one half of one percent (.02%).
Finding #9.1: Shift training is prepared by the assigned Lieutenant and varies
considerably across shifts and departmental divisions.
During our interviews we learned that the dayshift patrol Lieutenant had been conducting what
was described as very well organized, focused and well documented training. The title of this
training was Critical Core Daily Training. We reviewed the Daily Shift Schedule as well as the
outline for the Provo Police Department-Daily Training Bulletin.
We found that the critical core daily training bulletins were organized around the Department's
policies. The bulletins were well organized with a short description of the purpose, the
presentation, a scenario, the applicable policy and a short discussion of the ethical
considerations.
After a brief review of the critical core tasks entitled Day #1 through Day #31, and without
comment as to the accuracy of the content, information seemed well organized and appropriate
for shift training. In general the shift training seems to last between 20 and 50 minutes. Everyone

we interviewed and with whom we spoke casually had very positive comments regarding this
training. While it is focused on dayshift patrol, individuals from other divisions may, and do,
attend on a voluntary basis. We found no evidence that the same kind of training was being
replicated on other shifts or divisions in the Department.
We should note that during our review of the training information we did find an untitled two-
page document which listed personnel by Days, Swings, and Graves. At the top of each page
were six columns individually entitled Standards of Conduct, Ethics, Customer Service, Dealing
with Difficult People, Preventing Accidents, and Evaluation. For each employee on the untitled
two-page document there was an X under the corresponding six columns. A review of the
randomly selected training courses showed that some of the employees showed recorded training
which would seem to be consistent with the titles in the columns.
The Operations Captain who is currently responsible for coordinating and maintaining training
records said that this training was related to a series of CDs which he made available to us.
While we did not review the individual CDs we did note that they bore the titles of the six
columns.
None of the randomly selected training records we reviewed contain more than one or two
references that we could associate with the six topics. It is possible that the unidentified
document was prepared in conjunction with city-wide training.
3.4 TRAINING PURSUED INDEPENDENTLY
Finding #9.2: The Department allows officers to select external training from a
wide range of training courses. Officers apply to attend the various
courses through their chain of command; however, there is no
evidence that such training courses are approved based on a
thorough training needs assessment of the individual officer or the
Department.
Information regarding external training courses is distributed from the Operations Captain to all
divisions. Employees make requests to attend such courses through their chain of command.
Absent individual effort we saw no evidence of a departmental or staff-level discussion
regarding the overall needs of the employees and Department as they would apply to issues of
professional conduct and ethics.

3.5 TRADITIONS
Finding #10: The Provo Police Department has a good Mission Statement. A
strong set of well articulated values, arrived at through a
collaborative process would help to inform and support that
Mission Statement. Such a set of living documents will serve to
support what we found to be a strong desire on the part of the men
and woman of the Provo Police Department to carry out their
duties in a manner consistent with the best traditions of their
profession.
Because Police Officers spend a great deal of their time in encounters with people who are under
stress, having been the victim of a crime, directly affected by a crime, the suspect and crime,
receiving a citation or some variation thereof, officers deal with a wide range of human
emotions. There are no set of Department policies, rulebooks, or directives that can ever cover all
of the circumstances resulting from these encounters. When the circumstances do not seem to
neatly fit into existing rules, officers must understand the Chief's intent in order to make
appropriate decisions. That intent represents what the Department wants to accomplish and the
way in which the Department expects its officers to conduct themselves in accomplishing that
intent. The Chief's intent may be communicated and traditions established or reinforced in a
variety of different ways.
The Chief currently meets with all new employees and discusses his expectations and reviews
the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics. This is an excellent practice that should be continued.
The Department has a Mission Statement. During our walking tour of police headquarters and in
the days during which we were conducting interviews we found only one location where the
Department’s Mission Statement was displayed. The Mission Statement along with the
Department's Values, Vision and Goals all represent tangible evidence of the Chief’s intent.
During our interview process we asked several individuals if they knew the Department’s
Mission Statement; most stated that they did. Although, when asked to recite it or to identify
significant parts of that Mission Statement, few were able to do so. This would not be a criticism
of the individuals as much as the process by which the Department has internalized the Mission
Statement as a practical operational guide.
While the Department does have a policy regarding the awarding of medals and we did see a
poster highlighting three officers for current recognition, there was no evidence of an annual
process to recognize outstanding work, special accomplishments, cooperation or volunteerism by
officers, professional staff and/or community members.

The Department is in the process of issuing a departmental coin. These coins, also known as
Commanders Coins or Challenge Coins, have a tradition in United States dating back to World
War I. The coins are often given, usually informally, in recognition of special accomplishments
or dedication. In most settings they are seen as a boost to morale and a sign of esprit de corps.
They also serve to enhance the Chief’s intent by incorporating key aspects of the Department’s
Values, Mission, Vision, and Goals such as Courtesy, Respect, Integrity and Kindness.
By necessity public safety remains a quasi-military profession. As such, traditions form a

significant part of each department's culture. The extent to which a department preserves,
nurtures and develops its traditions can help inform how that department performs under highly
stressful and unusual circumstances. These traditions cannot be lifted from other agencies and
imprinted on another. They must come from within.

SECTION 4—OFFICER TRAINING
4.1 POST REQUIRED TRAINING
Finding #11: The review of a sample of departmental training records indicates

that the Department is in compliance with POST training
requirements relating to the number of hours of training an officer
receives on an annual basis.
The Utah Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Policy and Procedure Manual policy
number 3010 describes In-Service Training Requirements. The policy states, in part, that all
peace officers must complete an annual certified training of no less than 40 hours. The policy
goes on to state that all training provided by POST is authorized for Post-In-Service training
credit. The rule also allows the chief administrative officer (chief of police) to approve
departmental training for Post-In-Service credit.
Prior to randomly selecting individual officers’ training records for review, Citygate Associates
looked at all of the sworn officers’ training records contained in an electronic file Excel
spreadsheet. All of these sworn officers appear to either have already met their annual training
requirement or are well underway to doing so. We did, however, identify three issues which may
require greater scrutiny of the training records.
4.2 TRAINING RECORDS
Finding #12: The Chief, division commanders and supervisors do not have
direct access to training records.
There were only two departmental employees with access to training records. Neither the Chief
nor the Chief Executive Assistant had access to these records. While it is advisable to limit the
edit capability to a select number of individuals, there are no records to which the Chief should
not have direct, immediate access from his or her desk. Similarly, the division commanders and
supervisors should have read-only access. The purpose of the access for the division
commanders and first-line supervisors would be to better evaluate the training needs of their
individual officers without having to go through a layer of bureaucracy to do so. In the same vein
the Operations Captain is currently responsible for data entry of training records. While he is
good-natured about having to do this task and explains that the reason for this was due to budget
cuts, data entry is not an appropriate task for executive-level command officer.
Section 4—Officer Training page 33

Finding #13: The Police Department does not track the training records of
reserve officers.
The second issue deals with the category of reserve officer. The category of reserve officer refers
to a certified police officer who is working full-time for one agency and working overtime at a
second agency. According to the Operations Captain the protocol for tracking all training for the
reserve officer rests with the home agency. The Provo Police Department employs reserve
officers. Without comment as to the various potential issues of liability for employing full-time
police officers from another agency or allowing Provo officers to work in other agencies or as
private security, it is our view that closer contact between the Provo Police Department
employing the services of a full-time police officer from another agency should more closely
track the total amount and type of training the reserve officer is recording at his or her home
agency.
4.3 SHIFT TRAINING
Finding #14: Shift training is credited toward the 40-hour annual training
requirement, but it is not training approved annually by the Chief
of Police.
We believe there may be some, possibly technical, issues with recording shift training as
authorized Post-In-Service credit time. Because the Chief of Police does not currently certify this
shift training it may technically be outside the parameters set forth in the POST policy 3010 – 5
et seq. Many of the records we examined, especially those from dayshift officers, had
accumulated several hours of “Post-In-Service credit time” in time intervals less than one hour
during shift training. As previously mentioned this could be a simple technical fix resolved by a
written authorization by the Chief of Police for this training or by getting clarification from Utah
POST, in writing, as to the efficacy of using shift training.
4.4 FIELD TRAINING OFFICER (FTO) PROGRAM
Finding #15: There is disagreement among members of the Department

regarding the effectiveness of the field training program;
specifically, many employees believe that underperforming
officers are not terminated when recommended by the FTO.

There was a strong sense among many of the individuals directly involved in the field training
officer (FTO) program that their advice specifically with regard to the termination of
underperforming recruit officers was not given the appropriate weight by some level of
supervision above the rank of lieutenant. Our record review did not cover looking at specific
situations. Just as the role of the Human Resources Director is critical in helping the Department
select the correct candidate, the role of the FTO is critical in helping the Department to retain
officers with demonstrated potential or eliminate underperforming officers during their
probationary period.
The FTO is the individual within the Department who should have among the strongest
understanding of the Values, Mission, Vision, and Goals of the Department and the Chief's
intent. The selection process for this position should be equally if not more rigorous than the
selection for any mission-critical positions within the Department. Once selected, FTOs should
be used as key trainers within the Department and should themselves receive training in
leadership and management. If training recommendations by the FTOs are not undertaken there
should be feedback with the FTO as to the reasons for the decisions.

SECTION 5—LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT
5.1 DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Finding #16: While there are excellent leaders at all ranks throughout the
Department, their leadership efforts are often not sufficiently
coordinated to achieve positive results.
During our brief time with the men and women of the Provo Police Department Citygate
Associates found many examples of excellent leadership occurring within several ranks of the
Department. Likewise, it would be inappropriate not to emphasize that the vast majority of
people with whom we spoke were proud to work for the Provo Police Department, felt that they
had a good department, wanted to do the “right thing” and were eager for positive change.
Unfortunately, few believe that there is currently a process in place to allow for or encourage
positive change. We found significant evidence of individual efforts attempting to model
appropriate attention to training, positive change and Professional Standards of Conduct.
Unfortunately these efforts, while noteworthy and often commendable, were uncoordinated,
lacked any unity of command and were effectively operating in silos. This is not intended as a
criticism for the individual efforts but as a reflection on the overall state of coordination within
the Department.
We learned from several individuals that it was their impression that policy changes and
directives came down the chain of command via e-mail to supervisors who, according to various
levels of officer and supervisors, felt it was then their responsibility to read these policy changes
or directives to the officers. The information frequently lacked context or the reason for the
changes. Some individuals expressed frustration with the way policy directives are
communicated due to this lack of context.
5.2 MANAGEMENT BY STATISTICS
Finding #17: There is a great deal of concern and frustration surrounding the
methods currently used to evaluate the job performance of officers.
The most rancorous topic during Citygate Associates’ review seemed to center around the
evaluation of patrol officers on the basis of statistics. We should clarify here that when we say
officers were rated by virtue of their statistics we are speaking primarily of traffic citations.
Section 5—Leadership and Management page 36

Although arrests and other statistics were considered, officers felt that they were required to meet
a quota of different kinds of traffic violations including, but not limited to, parking, equipment,
and moving violations.
It was generally agreed that with the election of the new Mayor and the concurrence of the Chief
of Police that the previous policy of emphasizing statistics in the evaluation of patrol officers had
been eliminated. When discussing this topic, the emotions expressed ranged from extreme
frustration, to fear of appearing critical of a continuing “unofficial policy” of evaluating patrol
officers primarily on the basis of statistics. There was a sense of resignation that no matter what
the Chief said, and despite his efforts including rejecting some performance reports, that the
policy continued.
Anecdotally, officers expressed frustration that they believe that their fellow officers felt so
much pressure to write citations that they were no longer willing to do a variety of standard
patrol functions including, but not limited to, assisting on crime scenes, providing cover on some
traffic stops and participating in directed patrol. As a brief aside, some of the problems and
situations expressed by the officers may be due to a concurrent feeling that they are understaffed
in patrol. At this time without additional research it is difficult for us to offer an opinion as to the
appropriateness of the current staffing or the effect of deployment decisions of that staffing.
When discussing problems in patrol not only with those with whom we had formal interviews
but with many others informally, the focus was not on the number of officers but on the
emphasis on statistics for personnel evaluation.
Whether this is true there was a strong belief that officers had been passed over for promotion
and transfer based on the arbitrary requirement of a certain amount of activity in selected patrol
categories, most notably traffic enforcement. Officers seem to also feel that the need to write the
citations was creating friction between them and the community. Officers expressed frustration
that they felt the need to write a citation where they felt a warning would have sufficed because
they knew they needed that statistic.
While certainly not the only issue of concern for the men and women of the Provo Police
Department, this issue clearly represented the lack of unity of command, clear communication
and understanding of the Chief's intent currently operating within the Police Department.
Other issues negatively affecting morale included, but were not limited to, a lack of recognition,
a sense that they were not supported (by command and in some cases by the community), poor
equipment, inconsistent application of rules and discipline, a perception of a "good old boy
system for promotion" and a lack of pay or benefit increase in the last three years.

5.3 PREPARATION FOR PROMOTION
Finding #18: The Department does not have a systematic approach to training
prior to promotion to supervisory and management ranks.
According to command staff at the Provo Police Department there is no requirement for any
particular training prior to being promoted from the rank of officer to the rank of Sergeant and
then to Lieutenant and then to Captain. It was explained that officers receive on-the-job training
as senior officers prior to being promoted to Sergeant. As senior officers they occasionally have
the opportunity to fill the role of acting Sergeant. The same is true of all ranks in the Department.
While there does not appear to be any state requirements for this level of preparedness, one
should remember that the State sets minimum standards. Failure to prepare employees for their
new responsibilities or, in the alternative, to expect that the employees prepare to assume such a
position runs contrary to current best practices. Some departments consider it part of their
succession planning program to see that every employee is trained to the level just above their
current rank. Officers and FTOs are trained or expected to independently obtain training and
education of a Sergeant, Sergeants to Lieutenants and Lieutenants to Captains. Each level is then
aware of the demands of his or her supervisor and is better able to help that supervisor and thus
themselves and the organization to be successful. This same philosophy applies to non-sworn
professional staff. In smaller organizations, or units within organizations such as records and
dispatch, this also serves to counter some of the negative effects of the sudden or unexpected loss
of key personnel.

SECTION 6—HIRING AND RETENTION
6.1 ENTRY-LEVEL POLICE OFFICER HIRING PROCESS
During the course of this review, Citygate Associates staff met with the Human Resources
Director to review the hiring practices used by the City to recruit, test and hire applicants for
entry-level police officer.
Finding #19: The selection process for entry-level police officer is well-
developed and designed to assess the skills and competencies
required for successful job performance; however, the oral
interview board process lacks questions pertaining to ethical
conduct and standards.
The process for hiring is described in a document titled Police Officer and Firefighter Testing
Information and is available to the public on the City’s web page.
In summary, the hiring procedure for becoming a Provo Police Officer includes a number of
steps including:
 Completion of a standard employment application
 Successfully passing a written examination
 Successfully passing a physical abilities exam
 Successfully passing an oral board interview comprised of officers in the Police

Department.
Applicants who are successful in the above process have their names placed on an eligibility list
which remains in effect for a two-year period. As the Police Department needs require, names
from the eligibility list are referred to begin the background investigation. The background
investigation includes the completion of a personal history statement, a thorough investigation
conducted by the Police Department and a standard psychological examination.
The hiring process is governed by the City’s personnel rules and regulations.
In general, except for the recommendations noted below, the hiring process is sufficiently
rigorous in screening applicants. It is important for the reader to understand that the review of
the hiring process did not include auditing or commenting on the validity of the process. The
Federal Uniform Guidelines on Employee Section Procedures (1978) along with the Standards of
Section 6—Hiring and Retention page 39

Educational and Psychological Testing (1990) are generally considered by testing experts as the
professional standards for testing and assessment.
The review of the hiring process is included in this report for the purpose of determining the
degree to which personal ethics and Professional Standards of Conduct are identified, assessed
and used as part of the overall hiring process.
6.2 BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION
Finding #20: The background investigation process used by the Department

does not include a polygraph examination. A polygraph
examination is a standard component of a policy officer entry-level
hiring program of almost every police department in the United
States.
Under the current hiring procedure, the principle way in which the City assesses the factor of
ethical conduct and Professional Standards of Conduct is through the background investigation
conducted by departmental investigators. The investigators conduct a detailed and thorough
review of the applicant’s employment history, personal references and other sources of
information required to determine the applicant’s personal history, personal characteristics and
overall suitability for employment as a police officer. While in most instances the background
investigation process is adequate enough to assess an applicant’s past ethical conduct, the
process as currently used can result in the hiring of an applicant whose background may be less
than desired.
6.3 ORAL BOARD INTERVIEWS
Finding #21: The oral board interview process used to assess applicants is
generally comprised of sworn officers in the Department. During
the course of this review, we talked with several sworn staff
members who served on oral board interviews and they reported
that they received minimal training in the interview process.
Several sworn staff members interviewed stated they had served on oral board interview panels.
When asked to describe the training they stated they were provided instructions pertaining to the
use of the rating form and would review and discuss the proposed interview questions. They

stated that this training would be provided on the day of the interviews and would take about 30
minutes, which is typically the length of an applicant interview.
Human Resources Department staff confirmed the above information regarding the training
provided to members of the oral board interviews.
Finding #22: Oral boards are comprised of sworn members of the Department.
Police Department members stated that at one point in time there
was a community representative on the oral board but that practice
had been discontinued.
Several individuals interviewed stated that at one time the Human Resources Department would
assemble oral boards that included a community representative, but that practice changed. When
the Human Resources Department staff was asked about civilian members on oral boards for
entry-level hiring, the staff confirmed the information and offered the fact that it is often difficult
to find qualified individuals to serve as oral board panel members because of the time
commitment required.
6.4 COMPETITIVE LABOR MARKET
Finding #23: In response to various financial challenges, the City implemented a

wage freeze throughout the work force.
Two years ago the City, due to financial circumstance, implemented a wage freeze. While it was
determined that this action was necessary to address the City’s budget and financial
circumstances, many individuals expressed concern regarding the impact the wage freeze is
having on the Department, particularly as it relates to future recruitment of officers and the
current workload demands.
It was expressed that the wage freeze is resulting in lower than desirable morale, particularly in
the patrol division where the demands for service continue to grow along with a perception that
the Department’s performance standards are too focused on meeting quantitative rather than
qualitative measures of job performance and staffing levels are not adequate to provide the
community with the service levels consistent with their expectations. Further, many of the staff
members interviewed, several of whom have sat on oral board interviews, expressed the concern
that the quality of applicant pools over the past several years has diminished and questioned the
City’s ability to recruit in a competitive labor market.

SECTION 7—COMMUNITY RELATIONS
7.1 COMMUNITY TRUST AND VISIBILITY OF THE COMMAND STAFF
Despite recent negative publicity regarding several incidents involving Provo Police Officers,
members of the public interviewed for this review expressed strong support for the Police
Department and its employees. They believe the Department is fundamentally honest and
operates with the highest ethical standards, yet they expressed concern that the recent incidents
hamper the Department in meeting the service expectations.
At the same time, members of the Department expressed the view that the recent incidents are
not reflective of a Department lacking in strong professional ethics and conduct. Internally, most
of the officers and supervisors interviewed were angry and disappointed that the public trust they
have worked so hard to develop has been adversely affected by these incidents, and the officers,
supervisors, managers and command staff are committed to rebuilding the public’s trust and
confidence in the Department.
Finding #24: The command staff does not participate in various community
organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce. This finding
was confirmed in our interviews with the command staff.
Representatives of several community organizations interviewed
expressed the desire that the leadership of the Department be
visible in the community by attending various community
functions sponsored by their organizations. Representatives of
these community organizations expressed the opinion that the
relationship between the Department and community could be
further enhanced with active participation by the command staff.
One representative of a business group interviewed for this report expressed how appreciative
her group was when the police officer who is part of the community orientated policing program
began to appear at various functions her group puts on. She expressed the view that this officer’s
participation in her organization substantially enhanced the relationship between her group and
the Police Department. We believe that it is critical that the leadership of the Police Department
be more visible and participate on an active basis with the various service groups in the
community.
Section 7—Community Relations page 42

Finding #25: Despite the recent incidents involving Provo police officers, there
still is a high level of trust and confidence in the Police
Department; yet at the same time, there still is concern that the
Department’s leadership needs to take appropriate steps to ensure
that the Department continues to maintain high ethical standards of
conduct.
Among those with whom we spoke, and based on a review of the emails received by the
Citizen’s Oversight Committee, it appears the community has a high level of support for and
confidence in the Provo Police Department. The public’s continued confidence in the
Department will depend upon how effective the Department is implementing necessary changes
in certain areas, including the citizens’ complaint process.
7.2 PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE CITIZENS’ COMPLAINT PROCESS
Finding #26: Several members of the public expressed reservations about the
current citizens’ complaint process. The main reservation was that
they felt uncomfortable coming into Police headquarters to file a
complaint; others expressed a concern that they were
uncomfortable filing a complaint directly with an officer because
they perceived that their complaint would not be taken seriously.
These opinions were expressed to us from the feedback that has
been received by the Citizen’s Oversight Committee.
Several members of the Citizens’ Oversight Committee reported that the feedback they were
receiving from the community regarding the citizens’ complaint process included comments
pertaining to the perceived difficulty in filing a complaint. Further, it was reported that some in
the community believe that complaints filed against officers are not taken seriously or not
investigated.
7.3 COPS PROGRAM
Finding #27: There is a great deal of support for the Department’s Community
Oriented Policing Program and a desire on the part of the public to
see the program expanded.

As important as it is for the command staff to be visible in the community, the public will come
into contact with rank-and-file employees much more frequently. Virtually all experts agree that
the philosophy of community policing remains as important today in difficult economic times as
it was when it was reintroduced to the American public in the early 1970s. We say reintroduced
because community policing is truthfully a return to an old-fashioned sense of personal
responsibility and problem solving practiced by much earlier generations of Americans.
For community policing to cease to be strictly a division within the Police Department and
become truly a philosophy of the Police Department, it must become an integral part of all of the
operations of that department. In point of fact, community policing is truly misnamed. It is more
appropriately referred to as a philosophy of good government because when properly practiced it
is a strong collaboration between all departments of government, nongovernmental
organizations, schools, community groups, and neighborhoods.
When properly implemented and practiced by all areas of the Department this philosophy of
good government helps to build a bond of trust that is referred to as emotional equity. Emotional
equity is that intangible currency that is earned by a Department and/or city which, when things
go wrong as they always will, the Department has the trust of the community that it will do the
right thing.

SECTION 8—RECOMMENDATIONS
In this section of the report, Citygate Associates presents a series of recommendations
specifically designed to address the finding in each subject area. For ease of presentation, we
repeat each finding by section along with accompanying recommendation. Findings and
recommendations have been numbered in pairings.
8.1 CITIZENS’ COMPLAINT PROCESS
Finding #1: The Department maintains a file of all internal affairs investigations in the office
of the Chief of Police; however, the summary document we were provided does
not follow the disposition categories stated in the policy. The category
“unsubstantiated” is used in the summary document when there is no such
category in the policy.
Recommendation #1: It is recommended that the Department correctly documents all

internal affairs files and related records using the disposition
categories in the Internal Affairs Policy.
Finding #2: Fourteen (14) investigations were completed within the ten-day time window
provided in the policy; seventeen (17) investigations took longer than the ten-day
window; one (1) investigation is on-going and in one investigation the length of
time it took to investigate cannot be determined. In instances where it took longer
than ten days to investigate the complaint, the summary document includes a
notation explaining the delay.
Recommendation #2: It is recommended that the Internal Affairs Policy be amended

regarding the length of time for completing an investigation for
Category I complaints from ten days to thirty days.
As previously noted, less than half of the investigations regarding Category I complaints were
investigated in ten days. Further, data cited in this report shows that the typical length of time to
conduct an investigation is thirty days. Thirty days is a more realistic timeframe to investigate a
Category I complaint. We also recommend that if an investigation takes longer than thirty days
to complete, the internal investigation file be documented with the reason(s) for the extension of
time.
Finding #3: The Department does not follow the policy pertaining to Category II allegations in
that there is disparate handling of cases from supervisor to supervisor in terms of
creating a written record of the allegation and recording the memo in an
appropriate location; some supervisors write memos on all complaints regardless
Section 8—Recommendations page 45

of the seriousness of the issue, while other supervisors do not document the
allegation in accordance with the policy. Failure to maintain proper records of
Category II complaints also serves to deprive the Department of an effective early
warning system to alert managers to potential issues of officer stress and other
potentially more serious allegations.
Recommendation #3.1: It is recommended that the Provo Police Department create an

Office of Professional Standards and Training. This bureau
should report directly to the Chief of Police and be charged with
the responsibility for managing the investigation of citizen
complaints made against officers. It is also recommended that this
bureau take over the responsibility for developing, implementing
and recordkeeping for the Department’s training program which
is currently done by the Patrol Division Captain.
Recommendation #3.2: It is recommended that the Police Department from this point
forward properly record and memorialize all Category II citizen
complaints.
The Department’s approach to handling Category II complaints is fragmented. Several

supervisors interviewed stated they document all citizen complaints, regardless of how minor
they are, while other supervisors stated that they do not document citizen complaints. We believe
this situation occurred due primarily to a lack of understanding of the current policy and the
assigned responsibility of the supervisor. The lack of documentation results in the inability of
the Department to implement the “early warning system” as set forth in the current internal
affairs policy. Therefore, it is important for the Department to correctly document and
memorialize Category II complaints.
The findings with respect to several shortcomings in the internal affairs policy and process arise
in part because of the diffused accountability, particularly relating to Category II complaints.
Therefore we recommend that an Office of Professional Standards and Training be created and
vested with the responsibility of receiving and investigating citizen complaints. We also
recommend that the present policy of allowing any employee of the Department to initially
receive a citizen’s complaint should be continued. When a citizen’s complaint is received, it
should be immediately referred to the Office of Professional Standards which in turn would
notify the Chief of Police. Further, creating an Office of Professional Standards will also help
address the issues associated with receiving, documenting, investigating and recording Category
II complaint. If this recommendation is adopted, it will require revisions to the current internal
affairs investigation policy.
Finding #4: Newly promoted supervisors do not receive training at the time of promotion
regarding their responsibilities under the current policy.

Recommendation #4: It is recommended that all newly promoted supervisors receive
adequate training in the Department’s internal affairs policy,
particularly noting the need for appropriate documentation of
complaints.
Upon promotion supervisors currently do not receive training about the Department’s internal
affairs policy. Since supervisors play a key role under the current policy, particularly relating to
Category II complaints, it is critical that they understand and follow the policy and maintain
proper documentation.
Finding #5: It does not appear that the Department has a higher than average percentage of
“sustained” findings than their counterparts in Salt Lake City; however, due to the
significant differences police agencies use in categorizing complaints by type, it is
not possible to compare Provo with other departments.
Recommendation #5: It is recommended that the Department publish in summary form

the results of all citizen complaints respecting the legitimate
privacy interests of the Department’s employees and the
complaining party. We believe reporting the results of the
citizens’ complaint process will result in improved public
confidence of the Department and will certainly increase the
transparency of the policy.
Transparency and accountability in the internal affairs policy is crucial for building confidence
and trust in the Police Department. We also recognize that officers in the Department have a
legitimate interest in maintaining their privacy, particularly in complaints where there is no
“sustained” finding. We also recognize that the complaining party may have a legitimate interest
in keeping their identity confidential as well. By publishing the results of the internal affairs
investigations on a quarterly schedule, the public will have a better understanding of how the
internal affairs policy is applied, gain confidence in the investigatory process and understand that
the Police Department takes complaints seriously.
8.2 PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS OF CONDUCT AND ETHICS
Finding #6.1: Training and the transmission of the Department’s philosophy with regard to PSC
is sporadic and inconsistent.
Finding #6.2: The annual training calendar provides a wide range of training and education in
operational areas, but does not provide sufficient training in Professional
Standards and Conduct.

Finding #6.3: Based on a review of departmental training records, officers receive substantially
more than the minimum required forty hours of training; however, there are few
training opportunities that specifically address matters relating to professional
standards, conduct and ethics.
Recommendation #6.1: At the earliest convenience the Interim Chief should meet with
staff to review the monthly training calendar to ensure that the
schedule of training features PSC at least once during the year
and that each officer, supervisor and manager take a minimum of
two hours of training per year. Professional standards, conduct
and ethics training will assist in institutionalizing the positive
values that are the foundation of the Police Department.
Recommendation #6.2: Some instances of deviance from appropriate adherence to PSC

are thought to have their origins in feelings of victimization and
entitlement. Left unaddressed, these issues may contribute to
employee dissatisfaction and higher rates of alcoholism, divorce
and suicide than found in the general population. Comprehensive
training in Hypervigilance and PTSD, of all employees and their
spouses or significant others, should be part of an overall
employee wellness program.
Finding #7: Training in Professional Standards of Conduct and ethics for newly hired police
officers is personally conducted by the Chief of Police.
Recommendation #7: It is recommended that this practice continue and be expanded so

that the Chief of Police conducts training for newly promoted
officers as well and periodically provides refresher training at
briefings and roll calls and in other circumstances as appropriate.
Finding #8: The training curriculum materials used for newly hired officers are inconsistent
and in some instances lack clear learning outcomes.
Recommendation #8: Lesson plans, syllabi, student learning objectives and proof of
student understanding should be appropriate to the type and
duration of the training. A good example of short duration
training documentation is currently in use in the Day Shift’s
Critical Core Daily Training. This training could be enhanced by
incorporating the lessons into a longer duration monthly training
which would include the opportunity to test the
officer’s/employee’s understanding of the material.

Finding #9.1: Shift training is prepared by the assigned Lieutenant and varies considerably
across shifts and departmental divisions.
Finding #9.2: The Department allows officers to select external training from a wide range of
training courses. Officers apply to attend the various courses through their chain
of command; however, there is no evidence that such training courses are
approved based on a thorough training needs assessment of the individual officer
or the Department.
Recommendation #9: It is recommended that the responsibility for the Department’s

training program be reassigned from the Patrol Captain to the
Office of Professional Standards and Training (see
Recommendation #3.1). Following that reassignment, it is
recommended that there be a department-wide training needs
assessment conducted. This assessment will document the short-
and long-term training needs and will enable a better alignment
between the development of the annual training calendar,
monthly training and shift training with the expressed training
needs of the staff.
Finding #10: The Provo Police Department has a good Mission Statement. A strong set of well
articulated values, arrived at through a collaborative process would help to inform
and support that Mission Statement. Such a set of living documents will serve to
support what we found to be a strong desire on the part of the men and woman of
the Provo Police Department to carry out their duties in a manner consistent with
the best traditions of their profession.
Recommendation #10: It is recommended that the Department develop and implement

an annual employee recognition program that acknowledges the
work performed by members of the Department, honors its
traditions and acknowledges the support of the community.
8.3 OFFICER TRAINING
Finding #11: The review of a sample of departmental training records indicates that the
Department is in compliance with POST training requirements relating to the
number of hours of training an officer receives on an annual basis.
Recommendation #11: The Department should continue to monitor officer training to

ensure continued compliance with POST requirements.

Finding #12: The Chief, division commanders and supervisors do not have direct access to
training records.
Recommendation #12: It is recommended that immediate and direct access is established

for the Chief of Police and his Executive Assistant to all training
records and all other records as he or she directs. Direct read-
only access to all training records for all division commanders
and first-line supervisors should also be immediately established.
Finding #13: The Police Department does not track the training records of reserve officers.
Recommendation #13: It is recommended that the training record and review policy of
reserve officers be assessed and reconsidered.
Finding #14: Shift training is credited toward the 40-hour annual training requirement, but it is
not training approved annually by the Chief of Police.
Recommendation #14: It is recommended that all shift training be approved by the

Police Chief in a manner that ensures that the training can be
credited to the employees for purposes of meeting the annual
POST training requirement.
Finding #15: There is disagreement among members of the Department regarding the
effectiveness of the field training program; specifically, many employees believe
that underperforming officers are not terminated when recommended by the FTO.
Recommendation #15: It is recommended that a process is begun to ensure First Line

Supervisor training in leadership and management for FTO.
Regular meetings should be established for FTOs to discuss
training needs of recruits and to obtain feedback for
departmental training.
8.4 LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT
Finding #16: While there are excellent leaders at all ranks throughout the Department, their
leadership efforts are often not sufficiently coordinated to achieve positive results.
Recommendation #16: It is recommended that the Police Department implement a

facilitated strategic planning process which should include a
comprehensive review of the Police Department’s Mission
Statement, Vision and Values. We also recommend that a
strategic planning process include the establishment of short- and

long-term goals and objectives along with benchmarks for
measuring progress toward meeting the established goals.
Community input into the strategic planning process should be
welcomed.
Finding #17: There is a great deal of concern and frustration surrounding the methods currently
used to evaluate the job performance of officers.
Recommendation #17: It is recommended that immediately, clearly and unequivocally,

the Department clarify its position on the use of certain statistics
such as traffic and parking citations in evaluating personnel. A
process should be established to monitor future evaluations and
examine alternative methods of employee evaluation that
considers a broad array of job performance factors.
Finding #18: The Department does not have a systematic approach to training prior to
promotion to supervisory and management ranks.
Recommendation #18: It is recommended that the Department implement a succession

planning program in which: (1) the desired attributes, knowledge,
skills and abilities for promotional ranks be identified through a
systematic job analysis methodology; (2) assessment of current
level of attributes, knowledge, skills and abilities among staff is
undertaken; (3) gaps between job requirements and employee’s
attributes, knowledge, skills and abilities be identified; and
(4) training and educational programs be developed to address
the gaps. The goal of a succession plan is to develop the requisite
―bench strength‖ within the Department so that when
promotional opportunities arise, there are sufficient numbers of
qualified applicants to compete for the promotion.
8.5 HIRING AND RETENTION
Finding #19: The selection process for entry-level police officer is well-developed and
designed to assess the skills and competencies required for successful job
performance; however, the oral interview board process lacks questions pertaining
to ethical conduct and standards.
Recommendation #19: It is recommended that the Human Resources Department amend

the oral board interview questions to include questions relating to
ethical conduct and behavior.

Finding #20: The background investigation process used by the Department does not include a
polygraph examination. A polygraph examination is a standard component of a
policy officer entry-level hiring program of almost every police department in the
United States.
Recommendation #20: It is recommended that the Department add a polygraph

examination administered by a qualified, trained and experienced
examiner as part of the Department’s background investigation
process.
Finding #21: The oral board interview process used to assess applicants is generally comprised
of sworn officers in the Department. During the course of this review, we talked
with several sworn staff members who served on oral board interviews and they
reported that they received minimal training in the interview process.
Recommendation #21: It is recommended that the Human Resources Department

provide in-depth interview training for sworn staff members who
sit as panel members on oral board interviews. It is also
recommended that the Human Resources Department and Police
Department establish a trained pool of at least nine sworn officers
available to serve as members of oral boards. This will enable the
City to interview more applicants for each recruitment.
Finding #22: Oral boards are comprised of sworn members of the Department. Police
Department members stated that at one point in time there was a community
representative on the oral board but that practice had been discontinued.
Recommendation #22: It is recommended that a member of the community serve on oral

board interviews for entry-level police officer hiring.
Finding #23: In response to various financial challenges, the City implemented a wage freeze
throughout the work force.

continue to conduct a detailed and comprehensive salary survey
of comparator agencies so that the City’s competitive position in
the labor market can be determined and when appropriate,
adjustments can be made to maintain a competitive position in
the labor market so that recruitment and retention are not
adversely affected.

8.6 COMMUNITY RELATIONS
Finding #24: The command staff does not participate in various community organizations such
as the Chamber of Commerce. This finding was confirmed in our interviews with
the command staff. Representatives of several community organizations
interviewed expressed the desire that the leadership of the Department be visible
in the community by attending various community functions sponsored by their
organizations. Representatives of these community organizations expressed the
opinion that the relationship between the Department and community could be
further enhanced with active participation by the command staff.
Recommendation #24: It is recommended that the command staff of the Department

become active in the life of the Provo community by participating
in various service organizations, neighborhood groups and other
similar organizations.
Finding #25: Despite the recent incidents involving Provo police officers, there still is a high
level of trust and confidence in the Police Department; yet at the same time, there
still is concern that the Department’s leadership needs to take appropriate steps to
ensure that the Department continues to maintain high ethical standards of
conduct.
Recommendation #25: It is recommended that the Police Department adopt the

recommendations pertaining to the citizens’ complaint process.
That will ensure transparency of the policy and provide the
public with confidence and trust that the Department is serious
about Professional Standards of Conduct and ethical behavior
among its employees.
Finding #26: Several members of the public expressed reservations about the current citizens’
complaint process. The main reservation was that they felt uncomfortable coming
into Police headquarters to file a complaint; others expressed a concern that they
were uncomfortable filing a complaint directly with an officer because they
perceived that their complaint would not be taken seriously. These opinions were
expressed to us from the feedback that has been received by the Citizen’s
Oversight Committee.
Recommendation #26: It is recommended that the Department publish an informational

brochure pertaining to the citizens’ complaint process and widely
distribute it throughout the community. It is also recommended
that the brochure be posted on the City’s web site. Further it is

suggested that the Department consider allowing designated non-
Police Department City employees such as the City Ombudsman
to receive citizen complaints and forward the complaints on to the
Office of Professional Standards.
Finding #27: There is a great deal of support for the Department’s Community Oriented
Policing Program and a desire on the part of the public to see the program
expanded.
Recommendation #27: As the Department moves forward in its strategic planning,

strong consideration should be given to a plan to implement the
community policing philosophy throughout the Department.

City Administration’s Response to Recommendations in the
Citygate Associates Review of the Provo Police Department
January 2011
Recommendation #1: It is recommended that the Department correctly documents all

internal affairs files and related records using the disposition categories in the Internal
Affairs Policy.
The Administration concurs with this recommendation. It will require some minor changes to
forms used in the internal affairs investigation process. Target: March 1, 2011
Recommendation #2: It is recommended that the Internal Affairs Policy be amended

regarding the length of time for completing an investigation for Category I complaints
from ten days to thirty days.
The Administration concurs with this recommendation. The time frame is set by internal
department policy, and the interim chief can make that change. Target: March 1, 2011
Recommendation #3.1: It is recommended that the Provo Police Department create an

Office of Professional Standards and Training. This bureau should report directly to the
Chief of Police and be charged with the responsibility of coordinating and conducting
citizen complaints made against officers. It is also recommended that this bureau take
over the responsibility for developing, implementing and recordkeeping for the
Department’s training program which is currently done by the Patrol Division Captain.
The Administration concurs with this recommendation. We believe that it would be of great benefit to
have a dedicated office within the department to centralize the coordination of the department training
and to better coordinate responding to allegations of unprofessional conduct. As the Administration
has reviewed this and other recommendations in the report, we believe that an office of three
employees would be necessary to fulfill these important roles. The Office would consist of a
lieutenant, an analyst-level civilian position and an office specialist. An annual budget of $260,000
would be required to cover personnel and operating costs. The Administration will be requesting a
supplemental appropriation from the Municipal Council of $50,000 for the period of time between May
1, 2011 and June 30, 2011. Ongoing funding would need to be provided in the FY 2012 budget and in
future years. Target: Hire the Lieutenant by May 1, 2011; staff the rest of the office by July 1, 2011.
-1-
Recommendation #3.2: It is recommended that the Police Department from this point
forward properly record and memorialize all Category II citizen complaints.
The Administration concurs with this recommendation and anticipates implementing the
recommended process changes with the implementation of the Office of Professional Standards
and Training (OPST). Target: May 1, 2011
Recommendation #4: It is recommended that all newly promoted supervisors receive

adequate training in the Department’s internal affairs policy, particularly noting the
need for appropriate documentation of complaints.
recommended process changes with the implementation of the OPST. Target: May 1, 2011
Recommendation #5: It is recommended that the Department publish in summary form

the results of all citizen complaints respecting the legitimate privacy interests of the
Department’s employees and the complaining party. We believe reporting the results of
the citizens’ complaint process will result in improved public confidence of the
Department and will certainly increase the transparency of the policy.
recommended process changes with the implementation of the OPST. The department plans to
publish summary information quarterly on the department’s webpage about complaints filed and
the resolution thereof. Target: June 1, 2011
Recommendation #6.1: At the earliest convenience the Interim Chief should meet with
staff to review the monthly training calendar to ensure that the schedule of training
features PSC at least once during the year and that each officer, supervisor and manager
take a minimum of two hours of training per year. Professional standards, conduct and
ethics training will assist in institutionalizing the positive values that are the foundation
of the Police Department.
The Administration concurs with this recommendation and anticipates implementing the required
process changes with the implementation of the OPST. Recommendation #9 includes a
comprehensive training needs assessment, which will include the need for professional standards,
conduct and ethics training. We concur with the minimum requirements listed in this
recommendation. Target: July 1, 2011
-2-
Recommendation #6.2: Some instances of deviance from appropriate adherence to
professional standards and training are thought to have their origins in feelings of
victimization and entitlement. Left unaddressed, these issues may contribute to employee
dissatisfaction, and higher rates of alcoholism, divorce and suicide than found in the
general population. Comprehensive training in Hypervigilance and PTSD, of all
employees and their spouses or significant others, should be part of an overall employee
wellness program.
The Administration concurs with this recommendation. The City has provided a wide range of
resources for officers and their families under the Employee Assistance Program, the City’s
wellness program and through the department chaplain, and will engage in an effort between now
and April 1, 2011 to help officers and families become more aware of these resources. During the
preparation of the FY 2012 budget, the Administration will explore the costs associated with
additional specialized training included in this recommendation. Target: July 1, 2011
Recommendation #7: It is recommended that this practice continue and be expanded so

that the Chief of Police conducts training for newly promoted officers as well and
periodically provides refresher training at briefings and roll calls and in other
circumstances as appropriate.
The Administration concurs with this recommendation and will continue the practice of having the
Chief conduct training on professional standards and conduct for new employees and other
employees periodically. As the needs assessment contemplated in Recommendation #9 is
implemented, training opportunities will be calendared throughout the year. Target: Ongoing
Recommendation #8: Lesson plans, syllabi, student learning objectives and proof of
student understanding should be appropriate to the type and duration of the training. A
good example of short duration training documentation is currently in use in the Day
Shift’s Critical Core Daily Training. This training could be enhanced by incorporating
the lessons into a longer duration monthly training which would include the opportunity
to test the officer’s/employee’s understanding of the material.
The Administration concurs with this recommendation, and anticipates implementing the
recommended curriculum changes with the implementation of the OPST. Target: August 1,
2011
-3-
Recommendation #9: It is recommended that the responsibility for the Department’s
training program be reassigned from the Patrol Captain to the Office of Professional
Standards and Training (see Recommendation #3.1). Following that reassignment, it is
recommended that there be a department-wide training needs assessment conducted.
This assessment will document the short- and long-term training needs and will enable a
better alignment between the development of the annual training calendar, monthly
training and shift training with the expressed training needs of the staff.
The Administration concurs with this recommendation, and anticipates implementing the
recommended curriculum changes with the implementation of the OPST. Target: August 1,
2011
Recommendation #10: It is recommended that the Department develop and implement

an annual employee recognition program that acknowledges the work performed by
members of the Department, honors its traditions and acknowledges the support of the
community.
The Administration concurs with this recommendation, and will create an interdisciplinary team
with representatives from inside and outside the department to recommend to the Interim Chief a
comprehensive employee recognition program. Target: June 1, 2011
Recommendation #11: The Department should continue to monitor officer training to

ensure continued compliance with POST requirements.
The Administration concurs with this recommendation and will further enhance monitoring efforts
with the creation of the OPST. Target: Ongoing
Recommendation #12: It is recommended that immediate and direct access is

established for the Chief of Police and his Executive Assistant to all training records and
all other records as he or she directs. Direct read-only access to all training records for
all division commanders and first-line supervisors should also be immediately
established.
The Administration concurs with this recommendation and will ask the Information Systems
Division and the Human Resources Division to assist the department to better utilize the City’s
existing database of training records through PeopleSoft that can be accessed by the Chief and
others as needed. Target: June 1, 2011
-4-
Recommendation #13: It is recommended that the training record and review policy of
reserve officers be assessed and reconsidered.
The Administration concurs with this recommendation. The department has long had an informal
policy of having reserve officers certify that they had met the POST standard for ongoing training
and professional development. But detailed records have not been solicited and certifications
have not been in writing. The lieutenant assigned to the reserve program will make changes to
collect more detailed data and ask reserve officers to verify the training they have received at least
annually. Target: June 1, 2011
Recommendation #14: It is recommended that all shift training be approved by the

Police Chief in a manner that ensures that the training can be credited to the employees
for purposes of meeting the annual POST training requirement.
The Administration concurs with this recommendation and will implement procedural changes
that require shift commanders to submit and receive approval by email from the Chief of all
proposed shift training calendars and curriculum on a monthly basis. Once the OPST is
functioning, that responsibility will be assigned to the OPST. Target: April 1, 2011
Recommendation #15: It is recommended that a process is begun to ensure First Line

Supervisor training in leadership and management for Field Training Officers (FTO).
Regular meetings should be established for FTOs to discuss training needs of recruits
and to obtain feedback for departmental training.
The Administration concurs with this recommendation, and in fact implemented some time ago
the regular FTO meetings. We anticipate implementing the recommended curriculum changes,
with the addition of training on civil service regulations, city policies and procedures, department
policies and effective performance management, with the implementation of the OPST. Target:
August 1, 2011
Recommendation #16: It is recommended that, as part of a new Police Department,

administration, implement a facilitated strategic planning process which includes a review
of the Department’s Values, Mission, and Vision and established both short and long-term
goals and objectives, timelines and benchmarks for achieving short and long-term goals.
Community input into the strategic planning process should be welcomed.
The Administration concurs with this recommendation and will consider including funds in the
department’s professional services budgets for FY 2012 to retain a consultant to help the
-5-
department develop a strategic plan. Target: July 1, 2011
Recommendation #17: It is recommended that immediately, clearly and unequivocally,

the Department clarify its position on the use of certain statistics such as traffic and
parking citations in evaluating personnel. A process should be established to monitor
future evaluations and examine alternative methods of employee evaluation that
considers a broad array of job performance factors.
The Administration concurs with this recommendation and will work with the department to
create and execute a collaborative process involving employees, residents and other stakeholders
to define good policing practices, identify ways to measure a broad range of desired outcomes and
to craft a new performance management system in the department. In the meantime, the Interim
Chief and the Mayor will meet with each shift briefing to discuss changes to be made immediately.
Target: September 1, 2011
Recommendation #18: It is recommended that the Department implement a succession

planning program in which: (1) the desired attributes, knowledge, skills and abilities for
promotional ranks be identified through a systematic job analysis methodology; (2)
assessment of current level of attributes, knowledge, skills and abilities among staff is
undertaken; (3) gaps between job requirements and employee’s attributes, knowledge,
skills and abilities be identified; and (4) training and educational programs be developed
to address the gaps. The goal of a succession plan is to develop the requisite ¯bench
strength. within the Department so that when promotional opportunities arise, there are
sufficient numbers of qualified applicants to compete for the promotion.
The Administration concurs with this recommendation. Succession planning has been identified
as a priority for the entire city organization, and the Human Resources Division will need to be
funded and tasked with developing a citywide approach and program for succession planning with
the Police Department as the first priority. Target Date: July 1, 2012

amend the oral board interview questions to include questions relating to ethical conduct
and behavior.
The Administration concurs with this recommendation. Target: April 1, 2011
-6-
Recommendation #20: It is recommended that the Department add a polygraph
examination administered by a qualified, trained and experienced examiner as part of
the Department’s background investigation process.
The Administration concurs with this recommendation. The cost for administering polygraph
tests for all employees with a conditional offer of employment is approximately $3,500 per year.
The Administration will include consideration of this request in preparation of the FY 2012
budget. The Administration will also monitor changes in technology as it relates to this element
of employment screening and be open to new and improved tools as they become available.
Target: July 1, 2011

provide in-depth interview training for sworn staff members who sit as panel members
on oral board interviews. It is also recommended that the Human Resources Department
and Police Department establish a trained pool of at least nine sworn officers available to
serve as members of oral boards. This will enable the City to interview more applicants
for each recruitment.
The Administration concurs with this recommendation and will develop training and a certification
process for employees who serve on oral interview panels for hiring in the police department.
Target: August 1, 2011
Recommendation #22: It is recommended that a member of the community serve on oral

board interviews for entry-level police officer hiring.
The Administration concurs with this recommendation. The department will develop a group of
residents who are alumni of the Citizens Academy program who are interested in serving as
interview panel members and will develop a policy defining the role of community members on
oral interview panels.

conduct a detailed and comprehensive salary survey of comparator agencies so that the
City’s competitive position in the labor market can be determined and when
appropriate, adjustments can be made to maintain a competitive position in the labor
market.
The Administration concurs with this recommendation. The Human Resources Division will
-7-
continue to conduct detailed annual market studies to define changes that need to be made to
ensure that the City retains its competitive position to hire the best possible new officers in
accordance with the City’s policy on competitive compensation packages. Target: Ongoing
Recommendation #24: It is recommended that the command staff of the Department

become active in the life of the Provo community by participating in various service
organizations, neighborhood groups and other similar organizations.
The Administration concurs with the recommendation. The interim chief will work with the
Mayor to define groups and organizations in which members of the department’s command staff
should participate: Target: March 1, 2011
Recommendation #25: It is recommended that the Police Department adopt the

recommendations pertaining to the Citizen’s Complaint Process. That will ensure
transparency of the policy and provide the public with confidence and trust that the
Department is serious about Professional Standards of Conduct and ethical behavior
among its employees.
The Administration concurs with this recommendation and will implement the changes concurrent
with the creation of the OPST. The department will also post a citizen feedback form on the
department’s webpage. Target: May 1, 2011
Recommendation #26: It is recommended that the Department publish an informational

brochure pertaining to the citizens’ complaint process and widely distribute it
throughout the community. It is also recommended that the brochure be posted on the
City’s web site. Further it is suggested that the Department consider allowing designated
non-Police Department City employees such as the City Ombudsman to receive citizen
complaints and forward the complaints on to the Office of Professional Standards.
The Administration concurs with this recommendation and will implement the changes concurrent
with the creation of the OPST. Target: September 1, 2011
Recommendation #27: As the Department moves forward in its strategic planning,

strong consideration should be given to a plan to implement the community policing
philosophy throughout the Department.
-8-
The Administration concurs with this recommendation, and will explore ways to better implement
the community policing philosophy department-wide as a part of the overall strategic planning
process. Target: July 1, 2011
-9-

Provo Police Audit and City Response

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Provo Police Audit and City Response

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

 Folsom (Sacramento) Management Consultants 

 2250 East Bidwell Street, Suite 100  Folsom, CA 95630

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 1

Section 1—Introduction and Background .................................................................................. 7

Section 2—Citizens’ Complaint Process ................................................................................... 12

Table of Contents page i

Section 3—Professional Standards of Conduct and Ethics..................................................... 26

Section 4—Officer Training ....................................................................................................... 33

Section 5—Leadership and Management ................................................................................. 36

Section 6—Hiring and Retention ............................................................................................... 39

Table of Contents page ii

Table of Contents page iii

OVERVIEW OF THE COMMUNITY AND POLICE DEPARTMENT

MANAGEMENT LEVEL REVIEW OF THE PROVO POLICE DEPARTMENT

Executive Summary page 1

 The Department does not have a systematic or organic problem pertaining to

 The Community Oriented Policing Program (COPS) is well respected in the

Departmental Challenges and Issues

Citizens’ Complaint Process

Executive Summary page 2

 Communication within the Department about Professional Standards of Conduct

Training and Development

 The development of the Department’s annual training calendar is not based on a

Hiring and Retention

 The background investigation process, an essential step in the hiring program,

Leadership and Management

 There is limited “unity of command” which results in uneven application of

Executive Summary page 3

Citizens’ Complaint Process

Recommendation: It is recommended that the Provo Police Department create an

Professional Standards of Conduct and Ethics

Executive Summary page 4

Recommendation: It is recommended that the responsibility for the Department’s

Hiring and Retention

Recommendation: It is recommended that the Department add a polygraph

Leadership and Management

Recommendation: It is recommended that the Police Department implement a

Executive Summary page 5

Recommendation: It is recommended that the command staff of the Department

Executive Summary page 6

1.1 REPORT ORGANIZATION

Section 1 Introduction and Background: Background facts about Provo’s

Section 2 Citizens’ Complaint Process: Analysis and findings related to the

Section 3 Professional Standards of Conduct and Ethics: Analysis and findings

Section 4 Officer Training: Analysis and findings related to the Department’s

Section 5 Leadership and Management: Analysis and findings related to the

Section 6 Hiring and Retention: Analysis and findings related to the

Section 7 Community Relations: Analysis and findings related to the

Section 8 Recommendations: Presentation of Citygate Associates’

Section 1—Introduction and Background page 7

1.3 PROJECT APPROACH AND RESEARCH METHODS

Section 1—Introduction and Background page 8

1.4 PROVO POLICE DEPARTMENT ORGANIZATION

1.4.1 Growth in the Provo Community

1.4.2 Organization of the Provo Police Department

Criminal Investigations – headed by a Captain, this division is responsible for

Section 1—Introduction and Background page 9

1.4.3 Growth in Police Department Personnel Staffing

Provo Police Department Sworn Officer Staffing 2005 - 2009

Year Number of Sworn Officers

1.4.4 Provo Crime Rates

Section 1—Introduction and Background page 10

Provo 119,472 167 147 .0014 1.136