No Initial Findings and Recommendations

No Initial Findings and Recommendations

Finding 3.1: CPD developed a three-year strategic plan outlining the department’s purpose, mission, values, goals, and objectives, focusing on reducing violent crime through increased public partnerships, retention and recruiting, and employee wellness.

In December 2023, CPD released a strategic plan that identified the department’s purpose, mission, and values, as well as the goals and objectives for the department during the next three years. The strategic plan includes CPD’s purpose, mission, and values as well as the three overarching departmental goals and related objectives. The development of the strategic plan was informed by the Chief’s priorities as well as command staff input and recommendations. In addition to department executives, CPD sought and incorporated input from the entire department through a series of focus groups involving employees of all ranks, tenures, and sworn statuses. CPD also included input from the Community Action Team—a group of community representatives and stakeholders who collaborate with the Chief to discuss department operations and identify areas for improvement—to incorporate community priorities into the strategic plan.

In addition to being publicly posted, the key concepts of the strategic plan are documented in Policy 208 (Mission Statement, Goals, and Objectives), cementing an organizational expectation that the strategic goals of the department are being met. Policy 208 includes more detail than the strategic plan in that it also contains desired outcomes and specific steps associated with each objective. Although policy 208 is publicly available through PowerDMS, the strategic plan is more prominently featured within CPD’s “Our Mission, Values, and Vision” page on their website, where community members are most likely to look for the plan (compared to looking within policies). It’s therefore unclear why there is a difference in the level of detail both provide and why the more detailed version is less prominently featured.

Overall, the strategic plan strikes a balance between crime reduction, community engagement, employee wellness and development, and general department operations. The strategic plan reflects a thoughtful approach to achieving department priorities and provides transparency for community members into those priorities. Furthermore, policy 208 requires an annual review of the progress on the plan, providing an additional opportunity to inform the community of CPD’s efforts in achieving strategic goals.

Recommendation 3.1a. CPD should ensure that the publicly posted strategic plan contains a similar level of detail to that in policy 208, and both should better identify the actionable steps CPD will take and metrics of success. 

Presently, the contents of policy 208 are not fully reflected in CPD’s publicly posted strategic plan, potentially leaving the public to wonder what CPD considers progress toward the stated goals. CPD should review the contents of policy 208 to clarify the specific steps the department intends to take to achieve each of the stated goals. Beneath each objective listed in policy 208 appears a list of items related to achieving that objective; however, some of these items seem to be outcomes (e.g., “reduction in Part I crime, and gun-related incidents” and “a dedicated effort to hire local homegrown talent”) while others provide much more specificity as to the department’s intended steps (e.g., “increase ‘Walk & Talks’ weekly in each geo-sector led by the geography’s Commander” and “identify Youth Liaison group for street-level interaction and relationship building”). Where not already identified, CPD should list the specific tasks it expects to complete and metrics of success (e.g., number of “Walk & Talks” to be conducted or metrics of enhanced relationships with youth)) for each so that it can more readily track progress.

Recommendation 3.1b. CPD should provide a public update when conducting the annual evaluation of its progress toward achieving the strategic plan’s goals.

Section 208.7(a) of policy 208 states, “the Department goals and objectives shall be reviewed on an annual basis by the Chief of Police, or their authorized designee(s).” Because the strategic plan was released in December 2023, the first annual review has not yet occurred. However, once the first annual evaluation is released, the results should be posted to the department’s website to keep community members and CPD employees updated about the department’s progress. In addition, given the department’s commitment to community engagement, CPD should share progress with the community through other means, including through its social media team, liaisons, and CPD’s various community engagements (e.g., CAT meetings or community walks). In addition to external stakeholders, CPD should update all CPD employees and city representatives on progress toward achieving the strategic plan, given their ongoing contributions to sustained progress.

Finding 4.1. CPD officers receive 40 hours of biennial in-service training and are provided opportunities for additional training; however, the agency’s approach to training should be strategic, standardized, and refreshed. 

All CPD officers receive 40 hours of in-service training every two years as mandated by the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS). These training courses are approved and certified by DCJS and cover topics such as legal issues, cultural diversity, and career development for sworn law enforcement officers (among others). As part of this 40 hours, CPD also conducts quarterly training, many of them online, that includes other DCJS mandatory trainings such as bloodborne pathogens, eyewitness identification, and defensive tactics. In addition to the 40 hours, CPD officers also receive Virginia Law Enforcement Professional Standards Committee (VLEPSC) accreditation familiarization training as outlined in Policy 203 (Training).

Although CPD must comply with state requirements, it also delivers additional, self-developed training to officers. However, the agency’s process for determining additional training topics is not informed by a training needs assessment or Training Plan, and training courses are not regularly evaluated to determine whether they have been effective. CPD has some processes in place to inform training development. For example, CPD’s internal Fourth Amendment Analyst regularly reviews body-worn camera (BWC) footage to assess tactical decision-making and officers’ delivery of procedurally just services (see also finding 5.1). When a concern is consistently identified that may have training implications for officers, that concern is sent to the Training Sergeant to address. However, this process is not a part of a standardized approach for identifying and addressing training gaps for the organization as a whole. In addition, CPD receives informal input about training needs and how training courses are received, though this information is not collected systematically. For example, CPD staff would welcome more learning opportunities on topics like community engagement and cultural awareness, with multiple CPD officers stating that they had not received any additional training beyond that mandated by the Commonwealth of Virginia. Furthermore, many discussed the need for additional training on leadership and supervisory skills, communication skills (particularly for new officers), and a better understanding of support staff responsibilities.

Recommendation 4.1a. Conduct a formal training needs assessment to identify training needs and address training gaps. 

The department should implement a formal needs assessment that examines both internal and external factors that should be incorporated into training requirements to ensure that the department is delivering consistent and adequate training to its staff. The assessment should consider operational data, changes in legal or professional standards, input from officers and support staff, performance reviews, and input from the Charlottesville community. CPD should use the training needs assessment to identify which needed skills are not adequately covered in state-mandated annual training, and then use the assessment to prioritize which lessons CPD should provide within available and supplemental training budgets. This review will also help CPD ensure that training is meeting the objectives of its training program as described in policy 203, section 203.5.

Finding 4.2. The CPD does not currently conduct training evaluations designed to assess effectiveness.

Policy 203 states that CPD will use “appropriate evaluation techniques . . . to measure competency of required knowledge, skills, and abilities.” However, CPD personnel reported that training evaluation is conducted primarily through anecdotal feedback rather than any formal evaluation process. As a result, CPD cannot be confident that the feedback it receives is reflective of the broader department’s perception of training and the effectiveness of the training program. Therefore, CPD should enhance department evaluation protocols, which will not only help refine the content and delivery of trainings but also create a self-improvement loop that keeps the curriculum responsive to evolving challenges and departmental goals.

Recommendation 4.2a: Establish regular training evaluation procedures to assess effectiveness and ensure continuous improvement. 

Training evaluation procedures should include both quantitative and qualitative assessments such as post-training surveys and observation of application of skills in the field. Feedback from trainees and supervisors should be collected to identify strengths and areas for enhancement. In addition, CPD should incorporate audits focusing on training outcomes (such as reductions in errors or improved decision-making under pressure), which will help ensure that the training objectives are sufficiently met. This can be accomplished in part using current CPD operations, such as its Fourth Amendment analyses, which could be focused on assessing the success of specific training objectives.

Finding 4.3. CPD’s Field Training Program for newly hired sworn employees is not sufficiently documented in policy.

CPD does not have its own training academy and is instead a member of the Central Shenandoah Criminal Justice Training Academy, which provides basic academy training to new police recruits from agencies across the region. After recruits attend the regional basic academy, new CPD officers receive six weeks of supplemental training from CPD to ensure that officers are: (1) acquainted with the Charlottesville community, and (2) versed with CPD policies, tactics, and overall operations to confirm they are prepared for the field. CPD’s required supplemental training reflects adult-learning principles and addresses topics including search and seizure, de-escalation, victims’ rights, interacting with members of the LGBTQ community, and the history of Charlottesville’s Vinegar Hill (a historically Black community that was demolished by the city in the 1960s). The department also works with the University of Virginia to bring in subject matter experts and people with various lived experiences on a variety of topics to teach course modules.

Following completion of the supplemental training, new officers participate in the Field Training Program, which involves three phases: (1) the shadowing phase, in which new officers observe seasoned field training officers (FTO) but do not take any individual action; (2) a phase in which new officers use the radio and drive patrol vehicles but do not serve as the primary officer on the call; and (3) the final phase, in which new officers lead the responses to calls, though FTOs will intervene if there are concerns about the new officer’s call-handling abilities. During this time, new officers gain experience working in each area of the city, and on each patrol shift FTOs evaluate how new officers perform their activities on a variety of factors categorized as critical performance tasks (e.g., decision-making and officer safety), required tasks (e.g., arrest procedures and emergency driving), frequent performance tasks (e.g., radio use), knowledge (e.g., knowledge of departmental policies), relationships and attitudes (e.g., relationship with fellow employees and the public), and appearance. Each score is then aggregated into a Daily Observation Report that is accessible through PowerFTO, the application that hosts the assessment system.

While the training and evaluation processes appear to be thorough, they are not documented in CPD policy or standard operating procedures. As with other elements of CPD operations, the lack of written documentation leaves open the possibility of different leadership personnel inconsistently overseeing the FTO process.

Recommendation 4.3a: CPD should maintain the current approaches to conducting FTO training for new officers but should document the process in a policy or standard operating procedure (SOP).

Ensuring that organizational processes are sufficiently documented in department policies and procedures is critical for verifying that programs are achieving their goals and objectives. By documenting the program, including the current system for comprehensively evaluating new officer performance, CPD will have the data and information necessary to reliably evaluate the success of its FTO program over time.

Finding 4.4. CPD is preparing to implement Performance History Audits, an early intervention system (EIS) identifying both commendable and potentially problematic behavior. However, formal processes surrounding the EIS program are still in development.

An EIS has the potential to identify officers who are outliers in law enforcement administrative data, including common data points such as use of force events and the number of complaints filed against an officer. By identifying individuals who deviate from the organizational norm on these metrics, an EIS offers tailored interventions to officers to address underlying reasons for the concerning behavior. The interventions may include counseling the officer, supplemental training, peer mentoring, or other interventions responsive to the officer’s needs. Presently, CPD is drafting its policy for a new process called Performance History Audits that will serve as the department’s EIS. The process will involve using thresholds to identify officers on a quarterly basis and create an alert for them to be reviewed. Officers who reach a threshold within a quarter and become the subject of an alert will then have their immediate supervisor conduct a review of their performance and identify an appropriate intervention, if necessary.

CPD’s efforts toward implementing an EIS are appreciated, as such systems are considered a best practice in law enforcement today. However, despite the best practice label, the term “EIS” can represent any number of approaches, processes, or interventions and there is no current “standard EIS.” Therefore, CPD should be diligent in how their unique EIS is developed in order to ensure that all formal processes involved with the system are designed to maximize benefit to the department.

Recommendation 4.4a. CPD should create an EIS implementation strategy to ensure all formal processes have been thoroughly considered, developed, and documented for CPD’s benefit.

In developing the upcoming EIS, CPD should create an implementation plan for each specific task that will be required in preparing a policy, developing training for relevant personnel, and implementing the program department-wide. By identifying major decision points and available options at each implementation stage, CPD can ensure that the program development is done in a way that has the most utility for the department. For instance, in determining what threshold criteria will create an alert for an officer, CPD will need to consider not only the events the department considers potentially problematic but also the frequency with which those events happen and are likely to happen for specific officers based on their duties and responsibilities. Furthermore, CPD should also consider the full range of interventions it can reasonably provide and what additional organizational resources may be needed. Regardless of what the final EIS looks like, CPD should carefully consider all options to ensure the final EIS is responsive to the unique needs of CPD’s values and mission.

Recommendation 4.4b. CPD should actively engage officers at each phase of EIS development to ensure buy-in and maximize effectiveness. 

In developing the EIS, CPD should engage with its officers to ensure that their voice is incorporated into each stage of the program’s development. For officers to accept EIS interventions, they will need to believe that the system is effective and that EIS alerts are legitimate indicators of concerning behavior that are followed up on appropriately and with an understanding of the specific context for each individual officer. To achieve officer acceptance, CPD will want to gather input from officers of all ranks to understand their suggestions and concerns so as to address them before the program launch. For instance, in creating a policy, CPD should consider soliciting the input of officers, supervisors, and other involved personnel (e.g., collective bargaining units) to ensure that the program has been informed by the very people who will be using it. This input will also be important when developing training so as to allow all CPD staff to become familiar with the system and understand how the system is being used by the department. Finally, when seeking to evaluate the EIS, CPD should receive member feedback as to what constitutes “success” for the program and incorporate that into both policy and training development.

Finding 4.5. CPD has initiated several leadership development processes, including the Chief’s Advisory Board (CAB) and the CPD Futures Program, but not all facets of the programs have formalized structures. While the process for the Chief’s Advisory Board is detailed in policy, the Futures Program is not. 

Given that CPD has a relatively large proportion of newer officers, the department’s commitment to leadership development and related initiatives is a key focus area for Chief Michael P. Kochis, who realizes the importance of preparing the next generation of officers with the tools and resources needed to become effective supervisors and leaders. Current efforts to achieve this include two primary programs, the CPD Futures Program and the CAB.

The CPD Futures Program, which began in January 2024, is an avenue for CPD employees with two years of service or fewer to engage with CPD leadership and discuss any questions, concerns, or ideas in a safe learning environment. The program, open to both sworn and professional staff, includes monthly in-person meetings with a virtual participation option. The meetings are designed to provide an opportunity for participants to speak freely and to offer feedback on supervisor and command practices. The purpose of the CPD Futures Program is twofold: (1) to give employees a voice in the operation of their department, and (2) to build leadership skills through discussion about the department’s needs.

The CAB offers all employees, regardless of tenure, a similar avenue for asking questions and discussing the concerns and ideas about CPD. Documented in policy 349 (Chief’s Advisory Board), 15 department employees representing all three shifts, the criminal investigations division, and civilian support staff comprise the CAB. The function of the board is to “receive, compile, discuss and then forward issues that affect Department members” (policy 349) to CPD command and the Chief; the Chief then responds. The CAB is also responsible for delivering information from command to the rest of their peers, resulting in a two-way communication stream between line-level employees and CPD executives.

Recommendation 4.5a. Maintain the CAB processes documented in policy 349 (Chief’s Advisory Board) and use it as a template to document the CPD Futures Program in policy.

Overall, policy 349 provides sufficient direction for the operation of the CAB and the process for gathering and relaying information between ranks. CPD therefore should maintain these processes and routinely audit them to ensure that the CAB continues to serve its goals of giving employees a voice and developing leadership skills.

Documenting a process is a critical step in ensuring consistency in its execution and incorporating the process into the department’s identity. The alignment between the CPD Futures Program and CPD’s organizational goals makes the need to document the program in a policy or SOP even more immediate. In addition, as the CPD Futures Program appears to be in a development phase, creating a policy or SOP now allows CPD to further clarify the program’s goals and use the policy development process as an opportunity to flesh out each of its components. As a reference, CPD should consult its own policy 349 as an example of the types of things to consider in developing the policy or SOP, including the purpose of the CPD Futures Program, eligibility, meeting processes, and conditions of anonymity and confidentiality.

Finding 5.1. CPD has a robust Fourth Amendment review process, but the process is not sufficiently documented in CPD policy or procedures.

CPD currently has a process for reviewing all CPD detentions, which includes traffic stops, investigatory stops, use of force events, or any other situation where a person is not free to leave. CPD developed this internal program to provide a nonsupervisory, independent analysis of every detention made by an officer; this practice (at least to the extent which CPD does it) is relatively unique among law enforcement agencies. The Fourth Amendment analyses are conducted by a professional CPD employee with a strong educational background and relevant law enforcement experience. In addition, CPD’s policy 348 (Constitutional Procedures) provides the entire department with clarity on its requirements to police constitutionally, as well as the type and range of information needed to demonstrate its actions are within the law.

On a daily basis, the Fourth Amendment Analyst reviews each call during which an officer interacts with the public to determine whether that call resulted in a Fourth Amendment detention. Upon identifying such calls, the Fourth Amendment analyst reviews BWC video and reports to assess the event from a constitutional and tactical lens. In reviewing reports and videos, the Fourth Amendment Analyst evaluates the decisions leading up to the event to assess compliance with concepts of de-escalation, officer safety, and respectful policing (among others). If the Fourth Amendment Analyst identifies an issue requiring correction, the analyst then sends a memo to the Chief with a recommendation for resolution. Resolutions may include informal debriefings with involved officers, additional training, or revisions to CPD policy, training, or overall operations. In addition, the Fourth Amendment Analyst develops monthly, publicly available presentations of CPD Encounters Leading to Detentions. Overall, this type of process has the potential to ensure that the most critical CPD decisions (i.e., deprivation of liberty) consistently are reviewed from a 360-degree perspective.

Despite CPD’s positive Fourth Amendment review practices, this work is not described sufficiently in fulsome protocols for any CPD qualified employee to serve as a Fourth Amendment Analyst. Although policy 348 references the role of the Fourth Amendment Analyst (see section 348.8.17.f), the information contained in that policy states only that the Fourth Amendment Analyst will conduct reviews but offers little information about how reviews should be conducted or what should be included. Written protocols allow departments to maintain continuity of quality across changing personnel by clearly explaining the processes and expectations regardless of who conducts the review.

Recommendation 5.1a. CPD should document the processes and expectations for conducting Fourth Amendment reviews in policy or procedure.

In creating written protocols, CPD should state the purpose of the protocol’s existence and then provide clear guidance for each stage of the review process. For instance, the protocol should describe processes related to identifying detention data, minimum expectations for reviews, documenting concerns or issues, and ensuring adequate resolution. In addition, while the policy should discuss minimum expectations for reviews, CPD should also develop accompanying training to ensure that future analysts are able to clearly identify concerning behavior and suggest appropriate interventions when a problem is identified. Whereas the protocols should explain what is expected, corresponding training allows greater opportunity to learn how to meet those expectations in line with the intent of the program. Further, the protocols should be publicly available (either on CPD’s PowerDMS site or on the Encounters Leading to Detentions page). This availability will allow the public to be aware of CPD’s efforts while also allowing them an opportunity to provide constructive suggestions for improving the process.

Finding 5.2. CPD has not conducted regular performance evaluations in the recent past, though the department has now returned to an annual performance review process.

For several years, CPD had not been conducting regular and routine performance evaluations of all employees, including one officer who had not received a performance evaluation in nearly a decade (a fact discovered after the officer became the subject of a complaint). However, CPD has within the last 12 months resumed annual performance evaluations as part of its routine operations. The process for conducting the evaluations is detailed in CPD policy 1001 (Performance Evaluations), which describes the citywide performance objectives, rating system, performance metrics, and procedural steps for completing the required evaluation. Overall, the policy sufficiently documents the evaluation process, and the metrics used are reflective of the department’s values and goals identified in policy 208 (Mission Statement, Goals, and Objectives).

In addition, the evaluation form that CPD uses to guide and document the performance evaluation is consistent with CPD policy, in that it has four distinct sections that encompass each of the evaluation metrics and values and goals listed in policies 1001 and 208. The evaluation form contains instructions for completing the evaluation, definitions of key terms, and guidance for determining the appropriate rating level within each section. Finally, the form contains a section for both the employee and supervisor to identify and discuss performance goals. The form is well written, clear, and readily understandable, but CPD does not provide supervisors training on completing the form. Regardless of how clear and user-friendly the form may be, such training would be important to ensure that all supervisors are completing it and communicating the results to employees in a standardized fashion.

Recommendation 5.2a. CPD should maintain the evaluation goals and processes as outlined in policy 1001 (Performance Evaluations) and maintain the form currently used to conduct performance evaluations, but, when possible, supervisors should further tailor annual evaluations to the specific job responsibilities of CPD employees.

Overall, CPD appears to have resolved a critical operational failure by reinstituting annual performance evaluations. Particularly given the liability associated with law enforcement job tasks, the need to routinely evaluate the performance of CPD officers is of upmost importance. Policy 1001 and the corresponding evaluation form provide a standard template for supervisors completing annual performance evaluations. These forms should therefore be maintained by CPD and routinely audited to ensure that performance evaluations are occurring as intended.

However, the evaluation form is a Charlottesville citywide assessment form, not a CPD form, and therefore it is not tailored to CPD employees’ specific job responsibilities. Where possible, CPD should consider a supplemental evaluation form and process that may be used to evaluate department-specific performance. For instance, CPD may consider incorporating the range of character traits that are evaluated during an officer’s initial hiring process (e.g., empathy, honesty, assertiveness etc.) to provide repeated evaluation of those traits throughout an officer’s entire career. Whereas the minimum city criteria for evaluation are included on the form, CPD should assess whether other areas of evaluation may be added to the benefit of the department and its employees.

Recommendation 5.2b. Incorporate training on conducting performance evaluations into pre-service supervisor training and ongoing supervisor refresher training.

Although the citywide form used to conduct evaluations is relatively easy to use, CPD does not provide any training to incoming supervisors or refresher training to supervisors to set expectations about conducting and communicating evaluations. As part of a broader recommendation to institute a formal supervisory training program, CPD should incorporate instruction on performance evaluations to standardize the process as well as stimulate dialogue on different supervisors’ experiences and approaches that have been effective.

Finding 5.3. CPD is accredited by the Virginia Law Enforcement Professional Standards Commission (VLEPSC) and is pursuing accreditation under the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA). To maintain compliance with VLEPSC and CALEA standards, CPD must conduct a series of tasks. However, these are not documented in any type of policy or SOP, leaving the potential for a knowledge gap in the future. 

To maintain compliance with VLEPSC standards, CPD is required to establish a framework for regular self-assessment and self-improvement, representing a commitment to ensuring accountability, transparency, and professionalism in their operations. The VLEPSC Virginia Law Enforcement Program Manual outlines 191 standards divided into the categories of administration, operations, personnel, and training. Accredited agencies are required to submit an Annual Verification of Compliance form that confirms the agency is complying with the mandatory activities including conducting new supervisor training, keeping up to date with weapons qualifications, and identifying any organizational changes within the department. The department also maintains compliance with VLEPSC through routine staff inspections as outlined in policy 350 (Inspectional Services). The inspections include a review of facilities, quarters, equipment, vehicles, files and records, officers and staff, and policies and procedures. This review ensures that, as part of the accreditation process, CPD is evaluating its performance and using the results of the evaluation to improve the quality and delivery of services.

CALEA identifies national and international standards and best practices related to policy development, informed decision-making, emergency planning, community engagement, oversight, and analysis. Departments accredited by CALEA may benefit in terms of improved operational efficiency, reduced liability, and the adoption of data-driven strategies that may directly impact officer performance and community relations. The auditing and oversight framework CPD uses to maintain VLEPSC compliance will similarly apply for maintaining compliance with CALEA. Although the CALEA accreditation process is presently ongoing, CPD appears to be near completion.

To complete accreditation tasks, CPD employs a dedicated, full-time civilian Accreditation and Compliance Manager who is responsible for maintaining the accreditation program files, including ensuring the accuracy, completeness, and compliance with established documentation protocols. In addition, the Chief plays an active role in monitoring compliance efforts along with CPD’s Professional Standards Division.

Recommendation 5.3a. Maintain the activities necessary for ongoing accreditation with VLEPSC and CALEA and create a policy or SOP that outlines the steps necessary for ensuring accreditation compliance. 

Adhering to VLEPSC and CALEA standards, including incorporating comprehensive inspections and audits, not only helps the department meet regulatory requirements but also serves as an effective means of increasing accountability and enhancing overall operations. By maintaining a consistent focus on these activities, the department will continue to uphold its commitment to excellence and best practices in law enforcement.

CPD should include the necessary compliance-verification steps that the Accreditation and Compliance Manager takes in a new policy or SOP. This will help ensure ongoing compliance with accreditation and safeguard institutional knowledge of the process. The policy or SOP will then serve as a type of transition plan that outlines the accreditation process and maintains an accessible repository of documentation for compliance activities, ensuring that the processes will remain in place even during staffing changes.