Civilian oversight

According to the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE):

"Sometimes referred to as citizen oversight, civilian review, external review and citizen review boards (Walker 2001; Alpert et al. 2016), this form of police accountability is often focused on allowing non-police actors to provide input into the police department’s operations, often with a focus on the citizen complaint process. In some jurisdictions, this is sometimes accomplished by allowing oversight practitioners (both paid and volunteer) to review, audit or monitor complaint investigations that were conducted by police internal affairs investigators. In other jurisdictions, it is done by allowing civilians to conduct independent investigations of allegations of misconduct lodged against sworn law enforcement officers. It can also be accomplished through the creation of mechanisms that are authorized to review and comment on police policies, practices, training and systemic conduct. Some oversight mechanisms involve a combination of systemic analysis and complaint handling or review."[15]

Dr. Kuehn's evaluation of the consensus on civilian oversight in the military is as follows:

"A hierarchical relationship in which civilians make decisions that are binding for society as a whole, with the military responsible for advising on and implementing those decisions that have been delegated to them by the civilian decision makers. Consequently, the degree of civilian control depends on the degree to which civilians have the authority to make socially binding decisions, as well as sufficient oversight to ensure that the military fulfils its delegated functions in the way that the civilians want (Welch 1976; Agüero 1995; Alagappa 2001; Feaver 2003). Accordingly, civilian control can be understood as that distribution of authority and oversight under which civilians are able to autonomously decide on all relevant political decision‐making matters, can delegate and repeal the delegation of political decision‐making and implementation to the military, and can oversee and direct the making and implementation of those decisions that they have delegated to the military."[16]

Civilian oversight is the result of a profound change in public attitudes toward government particularly related to trust. There is a lack of trust between communities and government/business because of historical misconduct. Misconduct included racial discrimination during the civil rights era, illegal activities during the Watergate scandal, and more recently the general public disagreement with government bailouts and financial fraud like Enron scandal. All these actions have caused an increased demand in accountability. Trust is a measured by gauging how effective ordinary civilians feel local policies and authorities are in their duties as official.[17] A series of laws have been created indicating the growing public concern about the need for oversight of government agencies.

The new trend shows that parliamentary oversight committees have existed only in the last two decades, revealing that the “parliamentarization” of the oversight of intelligence services started very late both in new and old democracies.[18] Where scandals and new laws have out of a necessity to control problematic programs made civilian oversight a requirement over national security and law enforcement.

• Freedom of information
• Sarbanes–Oxley Act
• Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
• Inspector General Act of 1978
• Privacy Act of 1974

Benefit Increased focus on monitoring, reporting, strategic advising, value creation, accountability, and the creation of professional standards.[19]

Weakness or setbacks Accountability, transparency, and reporting are important to citizen oversight. Acts like Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act have caused an increase in oversight responsibilities requiring increased reporting, extensive examination of performance, and increased accountability of internal citizen oversight.[20] Oversight can be excessive and ultimately detrimental to desirable outcomes,[21] and administrators spend a significant amount of time on monitoring and less on strategies.[22] Difficulty forming citizen groups, failing to function effectively, agency role is not visible enough or influential, group is abolished altogether.[23]

Civilian participation and accountability initiatives have become a common practice in democratic nations.[24] Reporting and monitoring results are now regarded as fundamental governance responsibilities [25] The growth of civilian oversight is not confined to the United States. Citizen oversight (particularly for the police) is universal and has expanded across the English-speaking world and is spreading in Latin America, Asia, and continental Europe [26] International Asian countries do not look at service-oriented policing like western countries. Asian democracies focus on defense and maintenance of established rules, reviewing and monitoring government actions and policing human rights violations, police corruption, and corporate management.[27] Research in the United Kingdom has noted the importance of oversight of state functions such as prisons to ensure the fair and humane detention of vulnerable persons such as prisoners.[28]

Hong Kong's civilian oversight is considered to be far more transparent, independent, sufficient at holding government accountable. Possibly a result of being largely more democratic, than countries like China. Nearly all Asian democracies have some form of oversight, but only 3 have civilian oversight.[29]

Internationally, in the developed world most democratic countries contain a well-established civil-military relationship. While most new democracies have had to work towards establishing the same kind of relationship to avoid civil-military conflict:

"From a humanitarian perspective, civilian control increases the probability that militaries will operate with respect for the population because it increases accountability to that population. Democratically accountable civilian control is also associated with more prudent internal uses of armed force. Militaries with excessive autonomy from the state—or with largely party- or identity-based lines of authority—often engage in corruption or coerce the population with impunity. But shortcuts to civilian control can also undermine security. Coup-proofing efforts, for example, can empower civilians but make the military less professional and effective. Civilians need to have the capacity to manage the military closely and in ways that do not implicate the military in domestic politics. Competent civilian controllers in an empowered Ministry of Defense (MoD) also serve coordination and centralization functions, saving NGOs from having to conduct separate negotiations with different military commands and allowing them to work more effectively with the government. Thus, both the existence and the quality of civilian control of the military have direct impacts on the safety of the population and the success of humanitarian activities."[13]

The first organized efforts to conduct civilian oversight of police began in the 1920s. The table below is predominantly related to police oversight between 1920 and 1980. By 1980 there were about 13 agencies, and by 2000 more than 100 such as the Independent Police Auditor (IPA) in San Jose, California and Seattle, Washington and the Office of Independent Review (OIR) in New York City, New York.[30]

• National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE)
• Links to U.S. civilian oversight agencies
• Bad Apple Oversight Commission Lookup Tool