Cleveland has made “undeniable” progress in police reform in recent years and might already be out from under court-ordered federal oversight if officials had cooperated more in the early years of the consent decree, according to the independent team that assesses the city’s efforts.
“We’re moving at a [rate of] progress that has not happened in the past,” said Melody Stewart, deputy monitor for the Cleveland Police Monitoring Team, at a hearing of City Council’s Safety Committee on Wednesday. If the city had worked at the same pace from 2017 to 2020, Stewart said, the consent decree “probably would be over. I can say that confidently, based on how we’re doing now.”
Cleveland’s consent decree
The consent decree is an agreement between Cleveland and the U.S. Department of Justice that requires police reforms. It came after a federal investigation that found a “pattern and practice” of police officers violating the rights of residents and using excessive force. The city and the federal government signed the agreement in 2015.
The Cleveland Division of Police is “vastly different” from 2015, said Christine Cole, who leads the monitoring team and has been a member since the beginning. Back then, “reluctance to engage” with the monitoring team was common, she said. In recent years, she said, some police officials have told her that they opposed the court-mandated reforms in the beginning but now believe that “the consent decree is the best thing that ever happened to us.”
The team’s presentation was a mostly positive assessment of where the Cleveland Division of Police stands in meeting the many requirements of the consent decree. Stewart singled out crisis intervention — responding to calls about people in the midst of a mental health or behavioral crisis — as “one of the crown jewels” of the city’s progress.
The team also cited its recent report on disciplinary processes, which showed some “gaps” but overall improvement in fairness and consistency.
‘Full speed ahead’ while waiting on the courts
Earlier this year, the city and the U.S. Department of Justice asked U.S. District Court Judge Solomon Oliver to end the consent decree. He declined, and recently he extended it for another two years. The Justice Department appealed Oliver’s decision. Stewart said there is no way to know how the appeals court will rule or when.
Until then, “we are full speed ahead,” she said.
Council Member Stephanie Howse-Jones asked what reforms would be most at risk if the appeals court sides with federal officials. Cole said that while some reforms, like in use of force policy and training, seem durbale because they’ve been in place for years, others “that are less mature,” like civilian oversight, could be vulnerable.
The Cleveland Community Police Commission is still getting on its feet after years of severe staff shortages, said Charles See, a member of the monitoring team. As of last month, the commission is fully staffed for the first time since gaining more authority in 2021.
If the appeals court were to end the consent decree, it might also provide a plan for the city to transition away from federal oversight, as courts have in other cities, Stewart said. In the meantime, the monitoring team is also discussing the future with city and DOJ officials.
‘This is irresponsible!’
Near the end of the committee, Howse-Jones accused the monitoring team of being out of compliance with the consent decree for failing to conduct a community survey since 2018. Part of the monitor’s work includes checking in to get community feedback on the reforms every other year.
“This is irresponsible!” Howse-Jones said.
Stewart said that the team asked the city earlier this year to seek a contractor to help do the survey work. “We were ready to go,” she said.
But after following up several times, Stewart said, the city’s Police Accountability Team asked the monitor to postpone its survey while that team launched its own, in a partnership with Kent State University. That survey is designed to improve police-community relationships.
“I feel comfortable saying we did all we could do,” Stewart said.
In response to questions from Signal Cleveland, Jorge Ramos Pantoja, a city spokesperson, shared a memo dated Sept. 10 stating that the “City and the Monitoring Team agreed” on the delay “to ensure that the City obtains the greatest value from both efforts.”
The spokesperson said that the monitoring team should explain why it has not conducted a survey “since the Jackson administration.
