dee

respond to dqs

 

Part I: Case Brief:

For this exercise, the Robb  Elementary School shooting in Uvalde, Texas, is a very good example of  how officials would give inaccurate information following the shooting.  Because of how egregious that public trust was violated in this example,  officials' response to rebuilding is a challenging task, requiring  transparency, accountability, ongoing dialogue, and reform. For this  reason, it makes for an excellent choice for this exercise. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of  Public Affairs (2024), an incident review of the response at Robb  Elementary on May 24, 2022, found that a former student would enter Robb  Elementary School and begin opening fire. Nineteen students and two  teachers would die as a result, with an additional seventeen others  injured. What was most concerning about this incident is the delayed  response by authorities in confronting the shooter, waiting  seventy-seven minutes from their arrival to the time they would confront  the shooter. Following the incident, authorities would make several  statements that were, at the very least, inaccurate, misinformed, and  inconsistent. Upon the release of the DOJ report, communication was  deemed one of the most significant mishandlings in this situation.  Several questions arose, such as who was in charge? Why did officers  wait? Why did statements change over time? From a public standpoint, the  briefings following this shooting were more about authorities  protecting themselves than about transparency to the public.

Part II: Legitimacy and Communication Analysis:

In connecting this case to  procedural justice and legitimacy, Gilbert et al. (2015) discuss the  importance of recognizing that officials have a duty to treat victims,  families, and the public with dignity and respect. Officials in this  case need to remember that the public has a voice in the matter and that  when decisions are made appropriately, logically, and reasonably, this  creates a sense of trust and confidence in the officials' actions. In the case of Uvalde, TX, authorities would make several inaccurate statements and provide inaccurate information.  Officials' statements not only confused the community but also caused  concern about their honesty. This had a tremendous effect on the  legitimacy of the Uvalde Police Department and the Texas Department of  Public Safety, as there was a sense that they were not forthcoming with  information and were instead attempting to minimize their own harm.

The President’s Task Force on  21st Century Policing (2015) discusses public trust and its essential  role in policing. The report specifically acknowledges the principles of  building trust and legitimacy, as well as policy and oversight, as key  areas of reform that agencies should address. When it comes to Uvalde,  this is specifically a failure of Pillar I, as communication was neither  transparent nor accountable and lacked public engagement. Additionally,  through Pillar II, it is recognized that, beyond communication  failures, there are failures in agency policy and oversight. In  preparation, there should have been an existing plan designating a  Public Information Officer, a mechanism for verifying and releasing  information, and a plan for correcting errors.

In  connecting communication-related principles from Guiding Principles on  Use of Force (Police Executive Research Forum [PERF], 2016), it must  first be recognized that these principles are guidance for especially critical incidents such as Uvalde. The first of these principles is number twenty-two, which calls for prompt supervisory response to critical incidents to reduce the likelihood of unnecessary force.  The DOJ incident review recognized a lack of incident command, as well  as a clear decision-maker on scene (U.S. Department of Justice, Office  of Public Affairs, 2024). Secondly  was principle twenty-four, which calls for officers to have access to  training and less-lethal options. Again, it was reported that responding  officers did not treat the situation as an active shooter incident and,  as such, did not use resources effectively or move forward immediately  and continuously to eliminate the threat (U.S. Department of Justice,  Office of Public Affairs, 2024). Finally, principle thirteen calls for  agencies to be transparent in providing information following  use-of-force incidents. It was reported that there were multiple  communications challenges during and after the shooting. This included inaccuracies to responding officers who  would arrive on scene and treat the incident as a barricaded subject  (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, 2024).  Additonally post-incident briefings, where support services were not  provided to victims, survivors, family members, and responders (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, 2024).

The U.S. Department of Justice,  Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (2024) provides a toolkit  as a mechanism for agencies to use as a resource when it comes to  communication, planning, coordination, media response, and recovery from  a major incident. Specifically, the toolkit calls for agencies to have protocols in place to confirm and release information, as well as to coordinate public messaging consistently.  Secondly, there is an emphasis on communication with families, victims,  and the public to provide timely, accurate information. This toolkit  would have been exceptionally valuable for an incident like the one in  Uvalde, where the first briefing led to public confusion followed by a  follow-up briefing that came accross as defensive in the authorities'  actions.

Part III: Trust-Rebuilding Plan

Immediate transparency steps:

In rebuilding trust, the Texas  Department of Public Safety needs to correct its timeline.  Incrementally, they need to explain to the public what was known and  what was unknown during the incident, what information was wrong, and  what is currently being investigated. Additionally, officials need to  acknowledge the inaccurate and inconsistent information they previously  provided and, as such, acknowledge the damage their communication  caused. A Public Information Officer needs to be appointed who  represents local, state, and federal agencies as well as the school so  that the information that is passed along comes accross as a unified  message. Additionally, out of respect, families should be the ones to  receive verified information before the public and the media.  Additionally, as updates become available, they need to be provided;  even if there is nothing new to report, the public needs to be kept  abreast of what is going on. This connects to the COPS toolkit  specifically in confirming and releasing information, as well as for  coordinating public messaging consistently. This is especially true for  high-profile, sensitive situations such as this one, given its severity.

Short-term community dialogue mechanisms:

In developing a short-term  community dialogue mechanism, the best course of action would be to hold  a private family/victim briefing before a broader  public briefing. The meeting should include mental health providers,  victim advocates, law enforcement officials, school officials, and  community representatives to better answer questions, provide  information, and assist with the grief of victims and their families. It  would be appropriate for these meetings to be held in locations that  both victims and families recognize as institutional staples of their  community, rather than in representatives' governmental facilities.  Holding a "town hall"-style meeting is appropriate, as it gives those  affected a private forum for their concerns and treats them with  dignity, rather than a press briefing, where it is handled as a matter  of public relations.

Long-term legitimacy anchors:

For Uvalde's long-term  sustainability and to avoid another briefing like this, all agencies  involved need to develop a communications policy. This policy should  address how communication is handled, and spell out  who the Public Information Officer is, how information is verified  (written & Social Media), family/victim notification, and how to  handle the correction of inaccurate statements. Additionally, law enforcement should be conducting joint active shooter training/exercises to include schools, telecommunicators, EMS, Fire Department, and neighboring agencies to simulate such an instance if it were to happen again. Additionally, agencies should continuously review this training through after-actions and make necessary policy changes following the completion of each exercise.  Long-term family and victim support should be made available to those  affected as grief lasts long after the incident has subsided. Each of  these steps aligns with the President’s Task Force on 21st Century  Policing (2015), which focuses on trust, legitimacy, policy, and  oversight, as well as PERF’s (2016) Guiding Principles on Use of Force,  which emphasize building trust and legitimacy, as well as policy and  oversight.

Dq2

 

Part 1: Case Brief

The case I chose for this discussion  is the Robb Elementary school shooting that happened in Uvalde, Texas in  2022. In 2022, police were alerted to an active shooter alert that was  taking place inside of an elementary school. Numerous officers rushed to  the location within minutes, but it was nearly an hour and a half later  before officers would ever enter the school. What should have been the  highest priority somehow turned into a waiting game while 2 teachers and  19 children were killed during the attack. After the shooting, the  Uvalde Police Department held a press conference (KSAT 12, 2022) to  explain the timeline of events as well as to answer questions from the  public about the incident. During the press conference, the primary  speaker, Steve McCraw provided the public with an account of the  timeline from the initial report until the conclusion. While the  information presented to the public was timely and consistent with the  timeline of events of what happened, more questions, uncertainty, and  mistrust stemmed from the press conference regarding the ability of the  Uvalde Police Department to effectively do their job. 

Simply put, what remains the topic of  conversation surrounding the incident is how could the Uvalde police  department stand by while there was an active shooter inside of the  elementary school and allow the shooter to continue firing for over an  hour without responding. Questions surrounding agency competency,  training, policies, and principles were at the forefront of criticisms  and questioning from the public. While there were 21 victims, this  shooting also affected the entire community and arguably impacted every  police department across the U.S. This tragedy serves as an example of  how serious training, communication, policies and procedures are to  maintaining public trust, legitimacy, and operating effectively. 

Part 2: Legitimacy and Communication Analysis

While the discussion of the policies  and procedures that the Uvalde Police Department should have implemented  prior to the incident is somewhat of a moot point, using the incident  as an example of the “worst case scenario” will aid the Uvalde Police  Department (including law enforcement agencies across the U.S.) in  identifying areas that need improvement and should be a priority for the  present and to ensure future preparedness. From officers' response to  the incident itself and the discussion that took place during the press  conference, the biggest priority for the Uvalde Police Department should  be to establish and build trust and legitimacy in the public view.  Borrowing a key idea from Pillar 1 of the President's Task Force on 21st Century Policing,  the Uvalde Police Department should consider establishing procedural  justice policies within the agency while ensuring to include the  community to gather and integrate feedback (President’s Task Force on  21st Century Policing, p. 29). This would allow the community to see how  the Uvalde Police Department is learning and taking accountability for  the 2022 Robb Elementary shooting and implementing new strategies to  prevent repeating the same mistakes. Additionally, by including the  community and allowing for feedback the agency can identify other areas  where the community may feel the agency is lacking and work to improve  relationships within the community. Lending support to the establishment  of procedural justice policies and community feedback, the agency  should also increase and enhance training as mentioned in Procedural Justice and Police Legitimacy, as a step to rebuilding public trust (Gilbert et al., 2015). 

The second highest priority for the  Uvalde Police Department should be on identifying and establishing  principles that will guide the internal and external reforms that the  agency should undergo with particular emphasis on reforming training.  Officers’ responses during the shooting and the press conference held  afterward highlight key principles that the Uvalde Police Department  should have and should presently emphasize moving forward. Utilizing the  Police Executive Research Forum’s Guiding Principles on Use of Force,  the Uvalde Police Department should establish guiding principles to  restructure internal and external controls and ensure that future  decision-making during crises adheres to the principles of the agency.  The first crucial element that the Uvalde Police Department handled  poorly which affected community trust is listed as the first guiding  principle, “The sanctity of human life should be at the heart of  everything an agency does” (Wexler, 2016, p.34). Had the Uvalde Police  Department adhered to this principle, there may have been an opportunity  to reduce the loss of life that resulted from the shooting. Allowing an  active shooter to remain inside the school for nearly 90 minutes while  law enforcement en masse is gathered outside of the school with no  urgency in providing directives is a primary example of how the agency  failed to prioritize the first principle. Arguably, the officers’  response to the incident may have been more effective if the officers  had disregarded orders and entered the school acting alone. While the  efforts would have been uncoordinated, the response time would have been  significantly improved and the active shooter could have been handled. 

The second guiding principle that the  Uvalde Police Department should establish is listed as #15, “Officers  should be trained to use a critical decision-making model” (Wexler,  2016, p.53). Had the Uvalde Police Department established a critical  decision-making model prior to the shooting, even if officers failed to  rely on previous training and communication, relying on the  decision-making model would have provided leadership with the necessary  steps to evaluate the information and establish the best course of  action to handle the active shooter threat. 

For future preparedness efforts the Uvalde Police Department should adopt the Critical Incident Preparedness Toolkit, created  by the COPS office under the U.S. Department of Justice, to evaluate  the current preparedness of the agency and to guide all policy and  training adjustments (U.S. Department of Justice, n.d.). The Uvalde  Police Department should share this toolkit with all major response  agencies in the community with particular training efforts dedicated to  working alongside school staff so that in the event of a crisis everyone  involved knows what steps to take to protect human life. Implementing  the toolkit as a yearly assessment will ensure that the agency is  continuously prepared for any crisis and that they are well equipped to  effectively work together. 

Part 3: Trust- Rebuilding Plan

1. Immediate transparency steps: 

Some immediate steps that the Uvalde  Police Department can take to rebuild trust in the community are to  issue the public release of information regarding the 2022 shooting and  to establish either a forum or website dedicated to transparency  regarding reports, timelines and actions, and any after incident reviews  that may have taken place following the tragedy. Next, the agency  should initiate an independent oversight review of the incident,  officers’ actions, and agency procedures for errors or other  contributing factors that resulted in the agency’s overall failure.  Lastly, the agency must take accountability for everything that went  wrong during the incident. Moving beyond an official written statement,  the agency must publicly announce other steps that will be taken to take  accountability for the incident and to establish public trust. 

1. Short-term community dialogue mechanisms: 

Short term mechanisms to increase  community dialogue following the incident would be to create community  listening sessions in which the public is encouraged to share feedback  (positive and negative) with the Uvalde Police Department regarding the  incident and officer’s actions. The listening sessions should serve to  allow the community a platform to be heard while offering constructive  feedback that the agency can work toward corrective actions. The next  step would be to establish a community advisory council composed of  teachers, mental health professionals, community representatives, and if  possible the victims’ families. By including a variety of community  members to serve as a community review and advisory board, law  enforcement is able to implement changes and programs that would  directly assist the community. The last step for the agency would be to  establish community and school partnerships (with the assistance of the  community advisory council) that are targeted as building positive  relationships with the community and ultimately rebuilding trust in the  agency. 

1. Long-term legitimacy anchors:

Some long-term steps to rebuilding  trust in the agency are to reform and enhance training and professional  standards. As mentioned in #24 in the Guiding Principles on Use of Force,  “scenario-based training should be prevalent, challenging, and  realistic” (Wexler, 2016, p. 70). On-going training that is both  realistic and challenging is a great way to ensure that officers are  prepared for any scenario. Training should be continuous and not limited  to annual sessions to meet performance standards. Officers should be  mandated to undergo various types of training frequently to reinforce  policies and standards for crisis response. The second step that goes  alongside on-going training standards is continuous performance  measurement. Officers should frequently be evaluated to ensure they are  meeting professional standards and are well equipped to perform their  job at all times. Establishing measurable indicators to evaluate  performance aids in building public trust and confidence in the agency  as a whole. The last step that should be implemented by the agency as a  long-term anchor is establishing public transparency and accountability  meetings to share with the public how effective any changes are within  the agency, discuss progress with reform efforts, and to continuously  gather recommendations from the public about areas of improvement.