With the recent murder of Sonya Massey by Deputy Sean Grayson, I’ve seen many different opinions on who was at fault for this horrible (and in my opinion, completely preventable) act of violence; an act of violence committed by one who swore to serve and protect.
Some say the hiring process at Sangamon County was flawed; that Grayson shouldn’t have been hired by the county in the first place due to his prior history of misconduct. Others say the issue comes down to leadership; that his supervisors are at fault for not having more control or oversight of Deputy Grayson.
What I haven’t seen discussed yet is Early Intervention.
Early Intervention is a HOT topic….like… I-just-stuck-my-hand-in-a-fire-and-have-third-degree-burns-now-hot.
I know this from personal experience, having managed the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department’s Early Intervention program. Officers hate it - they feel picked on, and like they’re in trouble for every move they make. Supervisors hate it - they feel like their officers are picked on, and it creates more paperwork for them. I received many angry phone calls from all sides often.
So why do agencies have Early Warning Systems/Early Intervention programs?
Currently, it’s to check a box.
The original intent of Early Intervention came from a place of good intent - to intervene early before an officer becomes a liability to themselves OR their department. Over the years, it’s morphed into a reactionary check-the-box system to show that departments are “doing something” to prevent officer misconduct.
In very basic form, traditional Early Warning Systems are threshold based, meaning agencies decide what data they want to track (complaints, use of force, vehicle pursuits, etc), and when an officer reaches a set threshold for these events, the system triggers an alert. The supervisor then sees the alert, and decides how to intervene with the officer.
To give an example of the above, let’s say an agency's threshold for complaints is four complaints in a one year timespan. Let’s also say that Officer Jones receives four complaints for his interactions with citizens over that year’s time. By the time Officer Jones’ supervisor receives the alert for Officer Jones’ complaints , the behavior has already happened four times. Early intervention has been lost. We’re now reacting to a behavior that has happened multiple times, instead of intervening early.
So how can agencies avoid being reactionary? How can they intervene early before an officer becomes a liability to themselves, or their department?
I believe it’s all about how agencies leverage their data.
What do I mean about leveraging data? A couple things:
How you track data matters!
There is a saying: “bad data in, bad data out”. If your data isn’t clean, consistent, and trackable (or tracked at all), you won’t be able to see patterns and trends to intervene early.
The kind of data you track matters!
Is your agency tracking many different data points, or just a few? To get the entire picture in order to intervene early, agencies should be tracking as many data points as they can.
Are you tracking wellness?
I saw this over and over again while working in Early Intervention. MOST OF THE TIME, an officer who was engaging in misconduct had other wellness issues going on in their personal lives, whether that was addiction, divorce, bankruptcy, etc.
Are you tracking the “little incidents” as well as the “big”?
It may seem like a “little” thing, but tracking an officer’s interactions with citizens can be a big thing. Oftentimes, the way an officer speaks to citizens is a direct reflection of what is going on in their lives. Think about it; when you are going through an extremely stressful time (like those examples listed in the bullet point above), do you always speak respectfully to everyone you come in contact with? Tracking things that may seem “little” can lead to big results.
Having an early warning software system doesn’t mean you’re using it correctly.
There are a couple different Early Warning System software systems out there. Are they nice to have? Yes. But if agencies aren’t leveraging their data correctly, the software systems won’t do much good. They also aren’t completely necessary for smaller agencies. If smaller agencies know how to leverage their data, they can make their own Early Warning System in Excel.
While the hiring process for Sangamon County most likely could have been better, Early Intervention - instituted correctly - could have played a key role in preventing Sonya Massey’s murder.
It hasn’t been stated whether Sangamon County had an Early Intervention program in place. I venture to guess if they did, their data wasn’t leveraged correctly.
If the data had been leveraged correctly, they would have seen a citizen complaint two months earlier where Grayson (along with other deputies) attempted to enter a residence without a warrant. Grayson himself screamed at a 17 year old girl to be let in (again, a “little” thing that if tracked, can prevent bigger things). The citizen complaint wasn’t only about not having a warrant, it was about his interaction with the girl!
If the data had been leveraged correctly, they would have seen the two previous DUI’s.
If the data had been leveraged correctly, they would have seen the divorce where his ex-wife left because of “extreme and repeated acts of mental cruelty”.
If the data had been leveraged correctly, even if Grayson “slipped through” the hiring cracks, supervisors would have seen all of the above, and been able to intervene early.
And that’s the whole point, right?
Jenna
Comments