At the outset of our investigation, we committed to communicating with JPD systemic concerns that required immediate attention and that, in our view, JPD could readily address with minimal technical assistance. In furtherance of that commitment, during the investigation we issued JPD three technical assistance letters that identified concerns regarding JPD’s foot pursuit practices, language access services, and early intervention system. And consistent with our commitment to conducting this investigation transparently, we published each of these letters on our website.[1] By and large, we are encouraged by the efforts JPD has made in response to these letters. We are hopeful that JPD will take a similar proactive and collaborative approach to the findings and concerns we have identified elsewhere in this Report.
We are hopeful that JPD will take a similar proactive and collaborative approach to the findings and concerns we have identified elsewhere in this Report.
Foot Pursuits
During our investigation, we observed officers engaging in foot pursuits that were both dangerous and unjustifiable. We determined that JPD did not provide its officers with adequate guidance or supervision related to foot pursuits, primarily because JPD did not have a foot pursuit policy. Foot pursuits are inherently dangerous,[2] and in recognition of the risk that foot pursuits present to officers, individuals, and the broader community, many police departments have adopted policies governing pursuit procedures and restricting their use.
We issued JPD a technical assistance letter in May 2023 that outlined our concerns. In response, JPD agreed to expedite its efforts to draft and implement a foot pursuit policy and training. Our office and JPD engaged in a series of negotiations regarding the content of the foot pursuit policy, which JPD ultimately finalized and implemented in November 2023. Although reliable data and experience under the new policy will be needed to assess its effectiveness, we commend JPD for taking concrete steps to address our concern.
JPD Lacked a Foot Pursuit Policy at the Start of Our Investigation, Leading to Foot Pursuits of Serious Concern
We saw several concerning videos of foot pursuits during our investigation, including, for example: pursuits that were initiated without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity; pursuits that involved officers running with their guns drawn when there was no immediate threat; and pursuits that involved officers deploying tasers at fleeing individuals, creating a risk that the person could fall face forward and sustain serious injuries. Because JPD did not have a foot pursuit policy, officers were left directionless, and frequently relied on their own judgment when deciding to initiate, continue, and terminate a pursuit.
In a meeting with JPD command staff on the topic, we learned that JPD officers engaged in foot pursuits quite frequently and that the Department did not maintain any cohesive reporting or tracking schemes for foot pursuits, hindering efficient and uniform supervisory review. JPD command staff also shared that they were considering developing a foot pursuit policy and/or in-service training.
We subsequently issued a foot pursuit technical assistance letter recommending that JPD immediately issue interim guidance and training documents on foot pursuits. The letter urged the Department to issue guidance to prohibit officers from chasing people when the justification for the pursuit is insufficient, require officers to terminate chases when high-risk circumstances emerge, prohibit officers from tasing fleeing people who are not an imminent public safety threat, and require officer documentation and supervision protocols for pursuits. We also called on JPD to implement a permanent policy and to engage with the community in the policy-development stage.
JPD Implemented a Foot Pursuit Policy and Should Continue to Make Progress on Ensuring Safety and Compliance During Pursuit
In response to our letter, JPD agreed to draft a foot pursuit policy, and it worked closely with our office in its development. Although JPD sought input from its officers on the policy, it did not engage with the larger Joliet community on the policy as we had recommended.
The foot pursuit policy JPD implemented in November 2023 is a positive step forward. Some of the policy’s key provisions, many of which our office advocated for, include:
- Recognizing that the safety and preservation of life of the officer, public, and all persons involved is the overriding consideration in assessing whether a foot pursuit should be initiated or continued
- Prohibiting engaging in foot pursuits based solely on a person’s flight
- Identifying numerous risk factors that officers should continually reassess when deciding to engage in or continue a foot pursuit
- Requiring officers to terminate pursuits when the safety of officers, the public, or the person being chased outweighs the need for immediate apprehension
- Ensuring all foot pursuits are documented
- Outlining supervisor responsibilities, including ordering the termination of the pursuit if the risk factors outweigh the benefit of the pursuit
JPD also conducted comprehensive foot pursuit training, which highlighted key points of the policy and provided additional guidance on tactical considerations. JPD subsequently solicited feedback from officers on the policy and training.
In response to our letter, JPD agreed to draft a foot pursuit policy, and it worked closely with our office in its development.
JPD should continue to assess its foot pursuit policy, training, and practices. Ongoing supervisory review of foot pursuit practices and analysis of foot pursuit data will help ensure that officers are complying with policy requirements and also identify areas of improvement. To the extent these reviews identify a need for policy revisions, JPD should engage with the community before implementing changes. JPD should also offer foot pursuit training on a regular basis, both to orient new members and to refresh seasoned officers. We commend the Department for moving quickly to implement robust policy and training when notified of our concern.
Language Access
Effective communication between the Department and language-minority[3] community members is essential to safe and effective policing. Without it, misunderstandings can arise during interactions and may quickly devolve, potentially leading to the violation of community members’ rights. Inadequate language access[4] also limits opportunities for language-minority community members to assist in the prevention and solution of crime and invites mistrust between these communities and JPD. This is of particular concern for JPD given that more than a quarter of Joliet residents reported speaking a language other than English at home—primarily Spanish.[5]
During our investigation, we determined that JPD lacked policies, training, and resources to ensure that its members could communicate effectively with language-minority community members. In an effort to promptly remedy these concerns, our office issued a technical assistance letter in July 2022. After receiving the letter, JPD made substantial progress in improving its language access resources. Although we have some lingering concerns with JPD’s language-access services, we encourage JPD to adopt a similar thorough, data-driven approach to remedying other findings and concerns identified in this Report.
JPD’s Language Access Resources Were Inadequate
At the start of our investigation, JPD lacked a policy on language access and did not offer adequate language-access resources. JPD did not ensure the availability of qualified in-person or 24/7 remote interpretation for interactions in the community or at the Department. JPD also provided a limited number of documents in languages other than English. Apart from dispatch records, JPD did not maintain data on calls involving language-minority community members and did not use officers’ language capabilities or community language needs to inform staffing assignments.
JPD’s inadequate language-access resources directly affected Department members’ ability to communicate with language-minority community members and to provide them meaningful access to police services. It has also eroded community trust. For example, JPD’s failure to consistently provide Spanish-language assistance, despite the large number of Joliet residents who speak Spanish as their primary language, has caused community members to hesitate to report issues and crimes or otherwise interact with JPD. This is particularly harmful to JPD’s ability to build trust with immigrant communities in Joliet, whose residents may already be hesitant to interact with law enforcement because of immigration-related concerns, including deportation.
Our July 2022 technical assistance letter was prompted by the concerns listed above. The letter also noted that JPD’s practices could run afoul of federal and state laws, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Illinois Civil Rights Act. We recommended that JPD conduct a community language needs assessment, develop a comprehensive language access policy, invest resources to ensure qualified in-person translation services, translate Department written materials, and expand access to a 24/7 language line.
JPD Has Made Significant Progress in Improving its Language Access Resources
In response to our letter, the Department made substantial progress in improving its language access resources, beginning first with the development of a robust, data-driven language access plan. JPD’s language access plan appropriately recognizes that “officers must have the ability to communicate effectively with all individuals.” It assesses the number of language-minority community members that JPD serves, the frequency with which those community members interact with JPD, and the language-access resources available to Department members. The plan also proposes recommendations that, when implemented collectively, would significantly advance JPD’s ability to communicate with language-minority community members.
The Department also developed a promising “Limited English Proficiency Services & Deaf, Hard of Hearing” policy. Some key provisions of the policy include:
- Requiring Department members to identify the primary language of the person they are interacting with (via, for example, “I speak” cards[6])
- Directing Department members to consult a list of bilingual Department members that reflects each member’s language capability and shift
- Providing guidance on the use of interpretation and written translation services provided by a third-party language services company
- Disallowing the use of family members as translators (except in limited circumstances)
- Requiring periodic training on the policy and available language access resources
These significant efforts reflect that JPD is taking steps to meet its legal obligation to provide equal access to its services for language-minority and Deaf or hard-of-hearing community members.[7] And we have seen recent evidence that Department members are using JPD’s language access resources in practice.[8] What ultimately matters, of course, is that the effects of the plan and policy improve police services and are felt by the community.
Additional Work Remains to Ensure Meaningful Community Access and Trust
We commend JPD for the significant steps it has taken to improve its provision of services to language-minority community members. However, we have some remaining recommendations aimed at improving JPD’s language-access services. First, JPD should regularly train Department members on the policy and the language access resources that are available to them. Second, JPD should take steps to ensure its employees with non-English speaking skills are certified as qualified interpreters. Third, JPD should instruct Department members to rely on remote interpretation services only if qualified, in-person interpreters are unavailable. Fourth, JPD should ensure that Departments members across shifts and districts are available to serve as qualified interpreters. Fifth, JPD should use a professional translation service (instead of options like Google Translate) to accurately translate commonly used documents, legal documents, signage, and other public-facing materials to non-English languages. Finally, the Department must meaningfully involve language-minority and Deaf and hard-of-hearing community members, and organizations that serve them, as JPD continues to evaluate the effectiveness of its language access policy, training, and services.
Joliet Historical Society
Early Intervention System
An effective early intervention system is one part of a broader set of tools—such as supervision, incident review, performance review, and discipline—that allow police departments to oversee the conduct of its officers. The distinct purpose of an early intervention system is to identify officer behavior that is known to be an early indicator of potential future problems, even if the behavior itself does not warrant discipline. By tracking this behavior and responding to it early with non-disciplinary intervention and support, supervisors can prevent serious misconduct and improve officer wellness.
A typical early intervention system relies on performance metrics collected in a database, which departments use to identify patterns of behavior. Even when the behavior making up the patterns may not be a violation of the department’s policy or otherwise problematic, the patterns can reveal a variety of issues. For example, they can help detect when an officer is deficient in an important skill, such as de-escalation, and needs additional training; temperamentally ill-suited to their assignment and may require additional training or even reassignment; or experiencing acute professional or personal stress that, if left unaddressed, can precipitate harm to the officer or abuse of power.
Early in our investigation, it became apparent that JPD lacked a functioning and reliable early intervention system to identify concerning officer behavior that might provide an early indication of future problems.[9] In an effort to advise and assist with this discrete issue, we issued a technical assistance letter in January 2022. Following our letter, JPD made some efforts to adopt an effective early intervention system. Still, the Department must continue to work to develop and implement this system.
JPD Lacked a Functioning Early Intervention System at the Outset of Our Investigation
At the outset of our investigation, JPD had both an early intervention policy and software, but the system was not functioning as intended. The software tracked certain metrics, such as complaints, administrative investigations, lawsuits, uses of force, vehicle pursuits and accidents, and allegations of racial profiling. Yet in the five years preceding our investigation, JPD had not taken any remedial action in response to alerts in any of these categories. No officer was ever counseled by a supervisor, required to undergo remedial training, encouraged to seek mental health counseling, or referred to other resources. We found no evidence that the alerts flagged by JPD’s early intervention software were given more than a cursory review or analysis.
Our January 2022 technical assistance letter was prompted by the concerns listed above, along with the understanding that serious misconduct can be prevented by an effective early intervention system. In that letter, we encouraged JPD to act quickly to remediate these problems. We made several recommendations, including:
- Revising its early intervention policy to provide clearer guidance to supervisors
- Carefully assessing the thresholds (the number of incidents by a single officer that will trigger an alert) it sets and the data it collects and tracks
- Requiring supervisors to play a more integral role in assessing and responding to early intervention data and alerts
- Making serious efforts to implement a robust and reliable early intervention system
Because developing and implementing an effective early intervention system is a critical task that requires specialized expertise, we also encouraged JPD to engage outside professionals to assist in this effort.
JPD Has Made Efforts to Improve its Early Intervention System, but Additional Changes Are Necessary
JPD has made some changes to its early intervention system since we issued the technical assistance letter. For example, JPD acquired and implemented software that gives supervisors access to more comprehensive information about their officers, including complaints, use of force reports, vehicle pursuits and accidents, and sick time use. The software also serves as a repository for shift-level counseling, aggregating in one place information that was previously recorded in paper form and dispersed among various record-keeping systems.
Without a broader and deeper revamping of its system, JPD cannot expect its early intervention system to be effective, and preventable problems are likely to continue.
JPD also revised its thresholds for alerts. However, under the revised thresholds, most officers in the Operations Division have triggered an alert. The high number of alerts may indicate that the thresholds are not set properly and may even be counterproductive. In addition, any threshold—especially use of force—should account for job type or assignment, something that JPD currently does not do. JPD must consider, for example, setting a higher threshold for an officer in a tactical unit, where force is a more common occurrence, than for a patrol officer. JPD must devote sufficient resources to ensure its system functions effectively.
JPD also revised its early intervention policy, but the revisions did not address most of the policy shortcomings we identified in our January 2022 technical assistance letter.
A well-functioning early intervention system helps a department reduce problem behaviors, guard against unnecessary or excessive uses of force, and reduce complaints by community members. Creating an effective system is a complex task. That is why, as we stated in our 2021 letter, JPD should seriously consider engaging outside professionals to help it set up an effective early intervention system that is tailored to the Department’s needs and circumstances. JPD must also commit sufficient resources to support the operation of the system and provide clear guidance in its policies and comprehensive training to supervisors so they clearly understand their responsibilities and the resources available to them. Without this broader and deeper revamping of its system, JPD cannot expect its early intervention system to be effective, and preventable problems are likely to continue.