Office of the City Clerk - Record #: F2018-46

• Record #: F2018-46
• Type: Report
• Status: Placed on File
• Intro date: 9/20/2018
• Final action: 9/20/2018
• Title: Office of Inspector General Review of Chicago Police Department management of School Resource Officers at Chicago Public Schools
• Sponsors: Dept./Agency
• Topic: REPORTS - Miscellaneous

Date	Journal Page Number	Action By	Action	Result
9/20/2018	83310	City Council	Placed on File

I





> .„.:¦ SEPTEMBER 2018 • ¦

.' " ~r,-,-;.¦:. ' *"•_' -
CITY OF CHICAGO
ORiloIc^^^ f
A I
GENERAL
REVIEW OF THE CHICAGO. POLICE
DEPARTMENT'S MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOL.;; '
RESOURCE OFFICERS ". :

hmMmm




-a.


JOSEPH M FERGUSON INSPECTOR GENERAL
CITY OF CHICAGO OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 740 NORTH SEDGWICK STREET, SUITE 200 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60654 TELEPHONE: (773) 478-7799 FAX (773) 478-3949
TO THE MAYOR, THE CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY, THE CITY COUNCIL, THE CITY CLERK, THE CITY TREASURER, AND THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO:

The Public Safety Section (PS) of the City of Chicago Office of Inspector General (OIG) has concluded a review of the Chicago Police Department's (CPD or the Department) management of School Resource Officers (SRO) assigned to Chicago Public Schools (CPS), OIG has concluded that CPD's recruitment, selection, placement, training, specification of roles and responsibilities, and evaluations of its SROs are not sufficient to ensure officers working in schools can successfully execute their specialized duties.

OIG reviewed CPD's recruitment, selection, placement, training, specification of roles and responsibilities, and evaluation of its SROs assigned to CPS. OIG determined that, since December 31, 2016, CPD has assigned officers to CPS without a current legal agreement between the two agencies. Neither CPD nor CPS is able to provide an up-to-date list of SROs and the school locations to which these officers are assigned. Rather, CPD provided a list last updated in March 2017, while CPS provided a list current through 2014.

CPD currently lacks Department directives to address SRO-specific recruitment, selection, placement, training, or evaluation. Moreover, CPD's current processes for recruiting, selecting, placing, training, specifying roles and responsibilities, and evaluating SROs do not reflect best practices-as none have been adopted by CPD. Yet best practice standards exist. For example, in 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and U.S. Department of Education (ED) released a set of resources entitled the SECURe Local Implementation Rubric and SECURe State and Local Policy Rubrics— to help both local education agencies and law enforcement agencies develop SRO programs that foster school safety without violating students' civil rights or unnecessarily involving students in the criminal justice system. CPD's current lack of guidance and structure for SROs amplifies community concerns and underscores the high probability that students are unnecessarily becoming involved in the criminal justice system, despite the availability of alternate solutions.

For the benefit of CPS students, their families, and the Chicago community at large, within this report, OIG provides CPD with recommendations for the Department to



WWW CHICAGOINSPECTORGENERAL ORG | OIG TIPLINE (866) 448-4754 | TTY (773) 478-2066

establish an SRO program aligned with national best practices. To that end, OIG recommends that CPD,
draft and implement a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in collaboration with CPS and community stakeholders that, amongst other areas, states:
o the purpose of the SRO partnership;
o outlines the roles and responsibilities of CPD, CPS, and principals in schools; and
o emphasizes that SROs should not be involved in routine student disciplinary matters;
collaborate with CPS, students, families and the community to establish hiring guidelines for SROs;
establish and require initial and ongoing training for officers assigned as SROs;
establish performance evaluations aligned with established SRO roles and training that measures the ability of SROs to de-escalate situations and use alternatives to student arrest;
designate a program coordinator to enhance coordination and accountability; and
maintain and regularly update rosters of officers assigned to CPS.

Due to the high level of significance this issue holds within the community and in order to bring much sought-after clarity and resolution to this topic, OIG requested a prompt response from CPD detailing: (1) the Department's response to the findings; and (2) its intended actions to remedy this current state of affairs. OIG encouraged CPD and CPS to resolve these issues prior to the start of the 2018-2019 school year, so that CPS students could benefit from a functional SRO program rooted in national best practices as soon as possible. CPD, in turn, requested a 30-day extension for its response to this report. As a result, OIG received CPD's response on September 4, 2018 —the first day of school for the current school year.1

In their response, CPD concurred with many of the findings and recommendations detailed in the report. CPD's response indicated that the Department will:
Undertake best efforts to enter into an MOU with CPS that clearly delineates authority and specifies procedures for CPD officer interaction with students while on school grounds;



' See Appendix F


WWWCHICAGOIMSPECIOPGENERALORG | OIG TIPLINF {866} '?i8-
Develop a policy that defines roles, responsibilities, and appropriate actions of SROs, which will include an express prohibition on the administration of school discipline by CPD officers and provisions for the collection, analysis, and use of data regarding CPD activities in schools;
Develop and implement screening criteria to ensure SROs have the qualifications, skills, and abilities necessary to work.safely and effectively with students, parents/guardians, and school personnel; and
Ensure that all SROs receive initial specialized training and annual refresher trainings, and encourage SROs to exercise discretion to use alternatives to arrest and referral to juvenile court.

OIG acknowledges CPD's expressed commitment to making these necessary reforms. However, the reforms proposed by CPD in their response did not address other crucial areas of concern outlined in the report. Specifically, CPD did not acknowledge or respond to the following recommendations outlined in the report:
To include a broad range of community stakeholders in the creation of the MOU;
To create hiring guidelines and include a broad range of community stakeholders in the process;
To state the purpose of the SRO partnership with CPS in the MOU;
To define the data and information that will be shared between CPD and CPS;
To establish performance evaluations for SROs; and
To maintain and regularly update rosters of SROs.

Last, CPD indicated that their proposed changes will be implemented as part of the consent decree before the start of the 2019-2020 school year. CPD's failure to act more expeditiously to implement the reforms prior to the next school year leaves students, teachers, parents, and community stakeholders in the current school year without the protections and assurances of a school safety program that is aligned with national best practices.

We thank CPD management and staff, especially the Bureau of Patrol, along with CPS personnel for their cooperation with this review
WWWCHICACOINSPECTORGENEPAI ORG | OIG TIPLINE (866} 4 48-'V/b-'i | TTY (773) 478-2066

Respectfully,


Joseph Lipari
Deputy Inspector General, Public Safety City of Chicago

cc Charise Valente, General Counsel, CPD
Dana M. O'Malley Assistant General Counsel, CPD Robert Boik, Chief of Staff, CPD
Edward Siskel, Corporation Counsel, City of Chicago Law Department











































WWW C HICAG OIN S PEC TORG E N IE HAL O PC | OIG TIPLINE (866) /,/,8 'iVi/i | TTY (77.i) 478 2066

CPD MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS REVIEW
INTRODUCTION
The Public Safety Section (PS) of the City of Chicago Office of Inspector General (OIG) has concluded a review of the Chicago Police Department's (CPD) management of School Resource Officers (SRO). OIG found that CPD currently assigns SROs to CPS schools absent any identifiable program or programmatic support at the Department level. Since December 31, 2016, CPD has assigned SROs to Chicago Public Schools (CPS) without a current legal agreement between the two agencies. Moreover, CPD currently has no General or Special Orders, or policies or procedures that guide recruitment, selection, placement, training, roles and responsibilities, or performance evaluation for CPD officers that are assigned as SROs.2 CPD's current processes for recruiting, selecting, placing, training, determining roles and responsibilities, and evaluating the performance of SROs do not reflect national best practices. OIG's examination also revealed that the level of collaboration necessary to achieve national best practices and goals does not currently exist between CPD and CPS. As a result, CPD cannot presently ensure that the officers working in CPS have either the programmatic support and/or the skills necessary to successfully execute their specialized duties. OIG therefore recommends that CPD, in collaboration with CPS, develop and implement a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that establishes a comprehensive SRO program that includes guidelines for SROs' recruitment, selection, placement, training, roles and responsibilities, and evaluation.
BACKGROUND
Across the country, sworn local law enforcement personnel are assigned to public school districts as SROs to help ensure school safety and security. Nationally, SRO programs generally are established as "collaborative efforts by police agencies, law enforcement officers, educators, students, parents, and communities" with the ultimate goal of "providing] safe learning environments ... fosterpng] positive relationship with our nation's youth, and developing] strategies to resolve problems affecting our youth with the objective of protecting every child so they can reach their fullest potential."3 As a result, law enforcement officers assigned to work in public




1 See Appendices A and C The Department, does have a General Order regarding investigations in schools that, provides guidance for Department members interviewing, interrogating, or taking students into custody I lowever, it does not address SRO recruitment, selection, placement, training, roles and responsibilities, or evaluation City of Chicago, "General Order G04-0I-02 Investigations-Chicago Public Schools," accessed July 13, 2018, http//directives chicagopolice orq/'directives/clata/a7a57b9b-15f92c9d-af615-f92c-d8eabG458bcad279 pdPhl = true
3 To Protect: and Educate The School Resource Officer and iho Prevention of Violence in Schools
(National Association of School Resource Officers, 2012), 3: accessed July 13, 2018,
https/'/nasro orq/cms/wp-content/'uploads/2013/ll/NASRO-To-l Voted and-Fducate ¦nosecuritv pdf
PACE 1

CPD MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS REVIEW
schools may be expected to fill a number of roles/' According to the National Association of School Resource Officers (NASRO), an SRO serves as an "educator, informal counselor, and law enforcer."5 The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Education (ED) suggest that school districts, local law enforcement agencies, students, families, and community advocates work collaboratively to determine the specific role and responsibilities of SROs in their schools.6

A. NATIONAL BEST PRACTICES FOR SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER PROGRAMS
To assist schools interested in developing and maintaining "appropriate" and "effective" SRO programs, DOJ and ED released the 2017 SECURe Local Implementation Rubric and SECURe State and Local Policy Rubric (The National Rubrics).7 According to ED, when school districts and police departments work in partnership to develop programs using these guidelines, SROs are better prepared to foster school safety without violating students' civil rights or unnecessarily involving students in the criminal justice system.8 The National Rubrics counsel that such school district/police department partnerships,

• be grounded in an intergovernmental MOU that, among other things, outlines SROs' roles and responsibilities, while explicitly stating that SROs should never intervene in routine student disciplinary matters9;




'• To Protect and Educate. The School Resource Officer and the Prevention of Violence in Schools
(National Association of School Resource Officers, 2012), 3, accessed July 13, 2018,
https//nasro orq/cms/wp-content./uploads/2013/ll/NASRO-To-Protect-and-Educate-nosecuritv pdf|109|To Protect and Educate The School Resource Officer and the Prevention of Violence in Schools (National Association of School Resource Officers, 2012), 3, accessed July 13, 2018, htt.ps//nasroorq/cms/wp-content/uploads/2013/ll/NASRO-To-Prot.ect-and-Educate-nosecuritv pdf
G Secretary John B. King, Dear Colleague (U S Department of Education, September 8, 2016), 2, accessed July 13, 2018, https//www2 ed qov/pcMicv/qen/auid/school-discipline/'files/ed-letter-on-sros-in-schools-sept-8-2016pdf
7 Safe School-based Enforcement through Collaboration, Understanding, and Respect SECURe Local ' Implementation Rubric (U.S Department of Education and U S Department of Justice, September 8, 2016), accessed July 13. 2018, https//www2 ed qov/documents/press-releases/secure-implementation pdf and Safe School-based Enforcement through Collaboration, Understanding, and Respect SECURe State and Local Policy Rubric (U S Department of Education and U S Department of Justice, September 8, 2016), accessed July 13, 2018, https//www2 ed qov/aocuments/press-releases/secure-policy pdf|109|Secretary John B King, Dear Colleague (U S Department, of Education, September 8. 2016) 2, accessed July 13, 2018, https //www2 ed qov/policy/qen/gu id/school- disci pi me/Tiles/ed-letter on-sros-in-schoois-sept-8-2016pdf
9 Safe School-based Enforcement through Collaboration, Understanding, and Respect SECURe Local Implementation Rubric (U S Department of Education and U S Department of Justice), 2, accessed July 13, 2018, https//www2 ed qov/documeni.s/press-releases/socure-implementation pdf
PAGE 2

CPD MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS REVIEW
involve collaboration with community stakeholders on hiring guidelines that focus on officers' qualifications for working with young people in a school environment10;
establish policies for school-specific training for officers before they begin working as SROs and that they have regular refresher trainings11;
continually evaluate SROs in a manner that incorporates feedback from school staff, school administrators, students, and families12; and
develop performance measures to track SROs' effective use of alternatives to citations, tickets, and arrests.13

B. CPD OFFICERS IN CHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOLS
CPD has been assigning sworn officers as SROs in select CPS schools for decades. Until 2006, CPD's SRO program was managed through a dedicated, Department-level School Patrol Unit. In 2006, CPD disbanded the School Patrol Unit, delegating responsibility for SROs to each district from which SROs are assigned to individual schools.1'* According to CPD, this allows school sergeants and district commanders to more effectively supervise the SROs in their districts and to better address each school's unique needs. According to CPS, 74 schools15 had officers assigned as SROs during the 2017-2018 school year. Those 74 schools with assigned SROs are encompassed within 21 of the 22 police districts (all but Police District 14).





10 Safe School-based Enforcement through Collaboration, Understanding, and Respect SECURe Local ¦ Implementation Rubric (U S Department of Education and U.S Department of Justice), 2, accessed July 13, 2018, https//www7 ed ciov/documents/press-releases/secure-implementation pdf. " Safe School-based Enforcement through Collaboration, Understanding, and Respect SECURe Local Implementation Rubric (U S Department of Education and U S Department of Justice), 2, accessed July 13, 2018. https//www2 ed qov/documents/press-releases/secure-implement.ation pdf and Safe School-based Enforcement through Collaboration, Understanding, and Respect SECURe State and Local Policy Rubric (U S Department of Education and U S Department of Justice), accessed July 13, 2018, https//wwvv2 ed.qov/documerits/press-releases/secure-policy pdf.
12 Safe School-based Enforcement through Collaboration, Understanding, and Respect SECURe Local
Implementation Rubric (U S Department of Education and U S Department of Justice), accessed July 13,
2018, https//wwvv2 cd qov/documents/press-i eleases/sccure-impiementation pdf
13 Safe School-based Enforcement through Collaboration, Understanding, and Respect SECURe Local
Implementation Rubric (U S Department of Education and U S Department of Justice), accessed July 13,
2018, https//www2 ed qov/docuinents/press-releases/secure-implernentation pdf
¦'• Yana Kunichoff, "Police in Chicago Public Schools Operate with No Special Training and Little
Oversight," Chicago Reader. February 1, 2017. accessed July 13, 2018,
https//www chicacioreader com/chicacio/police-public-schools-cpd-cps-misconduct-
traininq/Content9oid=25347810
"'5 See Appendix D for the complete list of 7 A schools provided by CPS
PAGE 3

CPD MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS REVIEW
FIGURE 1: SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER PLACEMENT BY POLICE DISTRICT

0 000 8.000

CPD identified SROs' primary responsibilities as: ensuring the safety of students in • schools; preventing interruptions to the school day; maintaining order; and preventing trespassing on school property. Over time, CPS has narrowed the number of situations in which school staff should involve SROs or other CPD officers. According to the CPS Student Code of Conduct, school administrators should contact CPD only in the event of criminal activity or an emergency.16 The Student Code of Conduct outlines what definitely constitutes criminal conduct and what may constitute criminal conduct.17 It also includes a list of factors school staff and administrators should consider before involving CPD in any student matter.18 Those factors include the student's age, whether the student's actions resulted in physical injury or endangered others, the seriousness of the criminal violation, and the harm




Student Code of Conduct (Chicago Public Schools, September S, 2017). 11-13, accessed July 13. 7018, http//cps edu/SiteCollectionDocuments/SCC...StuclentCodeConduct English pdf " Student Code of Conduct (Chicago Public Schools, September S, 2017), 11-13. accessed July 13, 2018, http//cpsedu/SiieCollectionDocLiments/SCC_St.uderaCodeConduct_Enq[ish pdf 13 Student Code of Conduct (Chicago Public Schools, September 5, 2017), 11 13, accessed July 13, 2018, hi.tp//cps edu/SiteCollectionDocurner>ts/SCC.StudentCodeConduc.LEnqlish pdf
PAGE 4

CPD MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOL PESOUPCE OFFICERS REVIEW
caused by the student's actions.19 School officials must notify CPD whenever students are found with illegal drugs, narcotics, controlled substances, "look-alikes" of controlled substances, or firearms.20

According to CPS, teachers should never directly contact the school's SRO to intervene in a non-criminal matter. Instead, teachers should refer issues with students to school principals or administrators. Even in emergencies, teachers should call 911 rather than the school's SRO. In interviews with OIG, CPD stated that they try to respect CPS' request to use methods other than arresting students. However, according to CPD, once SROs become involved, they may have no choice but to arrest students depending on the circumstances of the incident.


































"•' Student Code of Conduct {Chicago Public Schools, September 5, 2017), 12, accessed July 13. 2018, http//cps edu/SiteCollectionDqcliments/SCC_StudentCodeConduct_Enqlish odf -:' Student Code of Conduct (Chicago Public Schools, September 5, 2017). 11. accessed July 13. 2018, htto//cpsedu/SiteCollectionPocurnents/SCC_SiuderitCodeConduct_Enqlish pdf
PAGE 5

CPD MANAGEMENT OF: SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS REVIEW
III. CPD DOES NOT HAVE A CURRENT INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH CPS THAT GOVERNS THE RECRUITMENT, SELECTION, PLACEMENT, TRAINING, ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES, AND EVALUATION OF SROs

A. THE SRO PROGRAM HAS OPERATED WITHOUT A CPD-CPS INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT SINCE JANUARY 1, 2017
According to DOJ and ED, a detailed MOU is essential to building and maintaining "appropriate" and "responsible" partnerships between schools and law enforcement agencies.21 At a minimum, the terms of the MOU should:

"... Meet constitutional and statutory and civil rights requirements including Federal, State, and local prohibitions on discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, language status, religion, sex, sexual orientation, and disability; on the use of excessive force; and on improper searches, seizures, or interrogations. "?-2

However, CPD and CPS have no current MOU or legal agreement that would meet this national best practice and standard. CPS and CPD's most recent agreement, which was a renewal of their initial Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) from 2013, expired on December 31, 2016.23 OIG spoke with both CPD and CPS on separate occasions, at which time representatives from both agencies confirmed that the only document that exists is the expired legal agreement from 2016. For more than an entire school year, CPS and CPD have operated without a current formal agreement that defines the roles and expectations of SROs functioning in schools.

Even while in effect, the since-expired IGA provided limited guidance relating to SRO recruitment, selection, placement, training, roles and responsibilities, and


21 According to the SECURe State and Local Policy Rubric, appropriate and responsible partnerships have "the goal of preventing unnecessary or inappropriate arrests, referrals to law enforcement, contact with the juvenile justice system, and violations of civil rights laws" Safe School-based Enforcement through Collaboration, Understanding, and Respect SECURe State and Local Policy Rubric (U S Department of Education and U S Department of Justice), accessed July 13, 2018, hit os //www2 ed q o v/d oc u m e n I s/'p r ess -releases/secure-policy pdf
¦ J Safe School-based Enforcen'ient through Collaboration, Understanding, and Respect SECURe Local Implementation Rubric (U S Department of Education and U S Department of Justice), 2, accessed July 13, 2018, https//www2 ed qov/documenls/press-releases/secure-implementation ndf
City of Chicago, "Authorize the First. Renewal of Intergovernmental Agreement with Chicago Police Department for School Patrol Services," December 16, 201S. accessed July 13, 2018, https//wwwcpsboeorcVcontent/actions/2015._12/l5-1216-PR8 pdf
PAGE 6

CPD MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS REVIEW SEP I EMBER 13, 2018
performance evaluations. For example, the only qualifications for becoming an SRO under the expired IGA included a working knowledge of CPS's Student Code of Conduct and completing standard police officer training.2'' The IGA did not address how a prospective SRO's working knowledge of the CPS Student Code of Conduct would be confirmed or when and how SROs should respond to violations of the Student Code of Conduct. The IGA also did not require any specialized training on working with youth in an educational setting.25

In interviews with OIG, CPS stated that it is currently working with CPD, student groups, and advocacy groups to draft an MOU. According to CPS, the MOU will provide a detailed description of SRO roles and responsibilities, include guidelines for referring students to counselors, and outline protocols for taking students out of schools. CPS needs the Chicago Teachers Union and Fraternal Order of Police to approve the MOU before it can be implemented. CPS could not provide OIG with specific dates as to when a new MOU would be completed, considered effective, or implemented, but stated that it aims to put one into operation by the start of the new school year. CPD made no mention of this MOU or of working with CPS on its production.

B. CPD LACKS FORMAL SRO RECRUITMENT, SELECTION, AND PLACEMENT PROCESSES AND STANDARDS
In order to select officers for SRO positions, school districts and law enforcement agencies should collaborate on quality recruiting and hiring processes. The SECURe Local Implementation Rubric recommends that school districts and law enforcement agencies work together to create hiring guidelines that focus on officers' qualifications for working with young people in a school environment.26 A wide range of stakeholders including school staff, students, parents, families, community members, and youth development experts should then interview qualified candidates.27



•-''City of Chicago, "Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City of Chicago and the Board of Education of the City of Chicago," accessed July 13, 2018,
http//wwwcsc cps k'12 il us/purchasinci/pdfs/coni:racts/2013..0l/13-0123-PR12-l oclf
35 City of Chicago, "Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City of Chicago and the Board of
Education of the City of Chicago." accessed July 13, 2018,
http//wwwcsc cps k!2 il us/purchasinci/pdfs/contracts/201301/13-0123-PR12-l pdf
20 Safe School-based Enforcement through Collaboration, Understanding, and Respect SECURe Local Implementation Rubric (U S Department of Education and U S Department of Justice), 2, accessed July 13,2018, https//www2 ed qov/documents/piess leleases/secure-implementation pdf 27 Safe School-based Enforcement through Collaboration, Understanding, and Respect SECURe Local Implementation Rubric (U S Department of Education and U S Department of Justice), 2, accessed July 13, 2018, https//www2 ed qov/documen is/press-releases/seem e-im piemen tat ion pdf
PACE 7

CPD MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS REVIEW
CPD does not currently have any formal recruitment, selection, or placement processes for SRO positions. Instead, school sergeants and district commanders individually assign officers to SRO positions based on their assessments of each officer's temperament and skill set. Individual district commanders may decide to interview officers for SRO positions, but the Department does not require that candidates participate in an interview process for the positions.

C. TRAINING
In order to prepare officers to work with students in schools, the National Rubrics recommend that law enforcement agencies and school districts establish policies requiring school-specific training for officers before they begin working as SROs, as well as regular refresher trainings.28

These trainings should emphasize alternatives to arresting students, as well as cover relevant topics such as:
Constitutional and civil rights; Childhood and adolescent development; Age-appropriate response to student conduct; Disability and special education issues; Conflict resolution and de-escalation techniques; Bias-free policing; Responses to trauma; Restorative justice techniques; and
Interacting with specific student groups such as those with limited English proficiency, or who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT).29



-s Safe School-based Enforcement through Collaboration, Understanding, and Respect SECURe Local Implementation Rubric (U S Department of Education and U S Department of Justice), 2, accessed July 13, 2018. https//www2 ed qov/clocuments/press-ieleases/secure-implementation pdf and Safe School-based Enforcement through Collaboration, Understanding, and Respect SECURe State and Local Policy Rubric (U S Department of Education and US Department of Justice), accessed July 13, 2018, https//www2 ed qov/documents/press-releases/secure-policv pdf
~'~ Safe School-based Enforcement through Collaboration, Understanding, and Respect SECURe Local Implementation Rubric (U S Department of Education and U S Department of Justice), 2, accessed July 13,2018, https//www? ed qov/documents/press-teleases/secure-implementation pdf and Safe School-based Enforcement through Collaboration, Understanding, and Respect SECURe State and Local Policy Rubric (U S Department of Education and U S Department of Justice), accessed July 13, 2018, https//'www2 ed.qoy/documonts/press-releases/secure-policy pdf
PACE 8

CPD MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS REVIEW
CPD stated that most SROs receive active shooter training and crisis intervention training. In the past, CPD's Juvenile Intervention and Support Center has provided sexual assault training for SROs. CPD stated that it would be open to providing more training for SROs in alignment with best practices.

CPS last conducted training for all SROs on its revised Student Code of Conduct in 2013 (Appendix B). The Student Code of Conduct outlines inappropriate student behavior, disciplinary responses, and CPS' anti-bullying policy3,0 While it defines the rights and responsibilities of students, parents or guardians, school staff, and the chief executive officer, it does not provide any specific guidance for SROs or address their roles and responsibilities.31

D. NO FORMAL WRITTEN GUIDANCE EXISTS SPECIFYING THE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF SROs
Neither CPD nor CPS has written roles or responsibilities for SROs. According to DOJ recommendations, MOUs should outline SROs' roles and responsibilities, while explicitly stating that SROs should never intervene in routine student disciplinary matters.32 SROs' responsibilities might include,
handling calls for service in and around schools;
conducting comprehensive safety and security assessments;
developing emergency management and incident response systems based on the national Incident Management System and the four phases of emergency management: mitigation/prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery;
developing and implementing safety plans or strategies;
integrating appropriate security equipment/technology solutions;
responding to unauthorized persons on school property;
serving as liaisons between the school and other police agencies, investigative units, or juvenile justice authorities when necessary and consistent with applicable civil rights laws and privacy laws;




¦i0 Student Code of Conduct (Chicago Public Schools, September 5, 2017), 2-5. accessed July 13, 2018, hup//cps edu/SiteCollectionDocui nerus/SCC.:_StudentCodeCoricluct_Fi K;ilish pdf :'; Student Code of Conduct (Chicago Public Schools, September 5, 2017), 2-5, accessed July 13, 2018, http//cps edu/SiteCollectionDocuments/SCC StudentCodeConduct__Enalish pelf
" Memorandum of Understanding Fact Sheet (U S Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services), accessed July 13, 2018,
https/Zcops usdoi qoy/pcJf/2017AwardDocs/chp/MQU__Faci._.Sheet pdf
PACE 9

CPD MANACEMEN I" OF SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS REVIEW
serving as a member of a multidisciplinary school team to refer students to professional services within both the school (guidance counselors or social workers) and the community (youth and family service organizations);
developing and expanding crime prevention efforts for students; and
developing and expanding community justice initiatives for students.7,3

When asked for Department policies or procedures specific to SROs, CPD directed OIG to a General Order, last updated in 1988, governing officers' investigations and investigative work products in CPS schools (Appendix A).34 This General Order only outlines the protocol for any Department member interviewing, interrogating, or taking students into custody on or around school property.35 It provides no guidance specific to SROs or their responsibilities.36 Other than this directive, the Department stated that it only has informal policies and procedures that district commanders communicate to school sergeants through individual conversations and/or email communications.

E. THERE ARE PRESENTLY INSUFFICIENT CONTROLS, GUIDANCE, AND STANDARDS NECESSARY FOR EFFECTIVE PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS OF SROs
DOJ and ED recommend that schools, school districts, and law enforcement agencies "... continually evaluate SROs and school personnel, and recognize good performance."37 These evaluations should incorporate feedback from school staff, school administrators, students, and families.30 DOJ and ED also recommend




33 Memorandum of Understanding Fact Sheet (U S Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services), accessed July 13, 2018,
https/Zcops usdoi gov/pdf/2017AwardDocs/chp/MOU._Fact. Sheet pdf
City of Chicago, Chicago Police Department, "General Order G04-01-021 Investigations-Chicago Public Schools," accessed July 13, 2018, http//directives chicaqopolice orq/directives/data/a7a57b9b-15f92c9d-af615-f92c-d6eab6458bcad279 pdPhl=true
35 City of Chicago, Chicago Police Department, "General Order G04-01-02 Investigations-Chicago Public
Schools," accessed July 13, 2018, htt.p//cliiectives chicaqopolice orci/directives/dala/a7a57b9b-15f92c9d-
afbl5-f92c-d8eab6458bcad279pdPhl=true
36 City of Chicago, Chicago Police Depar tment, "General Order G04-01-02 Investigations-Chicago Public
Schools," accessed July 13, 2018, http//diiectives chicaqopolice orq/directives/clata/a7aS7b9b-15f92c9d-
af615-f92c-d8eab6458bcad279 pdP»hl=tme
37 Safe School-based Enforcement through Collaboration, Understanding, and Respect SECURe Local
Implementation Rubric (U S Department of Education and U S Department of Justice), accessed July 13,
2018, https//www2 ed qov/documents/piess-releases/secure-implementation pdf
Safe School-based Enforcement through Collaboration, Understanding, and Respect SECURe Local Implementation Rubric (U S Department of Education and U S Department of Justice), accessed July 13, 2018, hti.ps//www2 ed qc^/documents/press-releases/secure-irnplernentotion oclf
PAGE 10

CPD MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS REVIEW
developing performance measures to track SROs' effective use of alternatives to citations, tickets, and arrests.39

According to CPD, an SRO's job performance is evaluated in the same way as all other Department members, leaving the possibility that the evaluation may not necessarily capture their unique roles and functions as SROs. CPD provided OIG with a directive governing Department members' performance evaluations (Appendix C)/'° This directive lists five "performance dimensions" used to evaluate all Department members' performance:
Accountability/Dependability41
Problem Solving/Decision Making42
Adaptability/Responsiveness43
Communication44
Job Knowledge/Professional Development45

None of these dimensions establish Department-wide performance measures specific to SROs' roles, such as the use of alternatives to arresting students.

35 Safe School-based Enforcement through Collaboration, Understanding, and Respect SECURe Local Implementation Rubric (U.S. Department of Education and U S Department of Justice), accessed July 13, 2018, https//www2 ed qov/documents/press-releases/secure-implementation pdf
',0 City of Chicago, Chicago Police Department, "Employee Resource E05-01 Performance Evaluations for all Sworn Department Members Below the Rank of Superintendent," accessed July 13, 2018, http//directives chicaqopolice orq/directives/data/a7a56e3d-12887ea9-ce512-887e-C3dce7cd73e28d57 pdPhl=t.rue
/rl City of Chicago, Chicago Police Department, "Employee Resource E05-01 Performance Evaluations for all Sworn Department Members Below the Rank of Superintendent," accessed July 13, 2018, http//directives chicaqopolice 0rq/directives/data/a7a56e3d-12887ea9-ce512-887e-C3dce7cd73e28d57 pdPhl=true
City of Chicago, Chicago Police Department, "Employee Resource E05:01 Performance Evaluations for all Sworn Department Members Below the Rank of Superintendent," accessed July 13, 2018, http //'directives chicaqopolice 0rg/directives/data/a7a56e3d-12887ea9-ceS12-887e-C3dce7cd7.3e28d57 pdPhl-true
'•L City of Chicago, Chicago Police Department, "Employee Resource E05-01 Performance Evaluations for all Sworn Department Members Below the Rank of Superintendent," accessed July 13, 2018, http /'/direct ives chicaqopolice orq/direct ives/data/a7a5Ge3d-12887ea9-ce512-887e-C3dce7cd73e28d57 pdPhl=true
City of Chicago, Chicago Police Department, "Employee Resource E0S-01 Performance Evaluations for all Sworn Department Members Below the Rank of Superintendent," accessed July 13, 2018, http /'/directives chicaqopolice orq/directives/data/'a7a56e3d -12887ea9-ceS12-887e -C3dce7cd73e28d57 odPhl=true
'•5 City of Chicago, Chicago Police Department,1 Employee Resource E05-01 Performance Evaluations for all Sworn Department Members Below the Rank of Superintendent," accessed July 13, 2018, http //directives chicaqopolice oro/ciirectives/'clata/a7a56e3d-12887ea9-cebl2-887e-c3dce7cd73e28d57pdPhhtrue
PAGE 11

CPD MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOL RESOUPCE OFFICERS REVIEW
Furthermore, SROs cannot be adequately evaluated on their Job Knowledge and Professional Development without policies, procedures, and training specific to their roles.

CPS stated that it does not conduct evaluations of SROs'job performance, but that principals may provide feedback about their school SRO to school sergeants and district commanders. Neither CPS nor the Board of Education evaluates SROs or their performance.










































PACE 12

CPD MANAGEMENT Oh SCHOOL RESOUPCE OFFICERS REVIEW
IV. CPD DOES NOT MAINTAIN CURRENT ROSTERS OF OFFICERS WORKING AS SROs AND THE SCHOOLS TO WHICH THEY ARE ASSIGNED
In order to establish the number of officers currently assigned as SROs, OIG requested a roster of officers serving as SROs as of May 1, 2018 from CPD. According to CPD, the Bureau of Patrol maintains and updates this roster. In response, CPD provided OIG with a roster dated March 21, 2017, that included officers' names, whether they were assigned to cars or schools, which schools they were assigned to, whether the officers had received crisis intervention training, and the name of their supervising school sergeant.

In an effort to cross reference the list acquired from CPD, OIG also requested a roster of CPD officers currently serving as SROs from CPS. CPS stated that CPD officers currently serve as SROs at 75 schools, and directed OIG to CPD for the list of those officers.

OIG's Center for Technological Analysis (CITA) also attempted to verify the accuracy and completeness of the roster provided by CPD by comparing it to CPD's administrative data housed within OIG and discovered a number of inconsistencies between the two sources which could not be reconciled. For example, according to CPD's administrative records of officer assignments, not all of the officers listed on the roster had a school-related posting as of March 21, 20174IS Of the 164 officers on the roster, 15 did not have a school-related posting; these included 3 officers listed as beat relief officers, 1 listed as a desk officer, and 1 listed as a tactical team officer. Of the 21 sergeants on the roster, 9 did not have a school-related posting as of March 21, 2017, and 1 had not held a school-related posting since June 10, 2015. Due to these inaccuracies, OIG determined that the roster could not be used for a point-of-time count of SROs or school sergeants.

In order to provide students, families, and community members with basic information about the number of CPD officers currently serving as SROs, CITA used CPD and City of Chicago administrative data to try and determine the number of CPD officers assigned to CPS schools as of May 16, 2018.

OIG found that as of May 16, 2018, 220 sworn CPD officers held school-related postings. More specifically, 132 officers were posted at schools, 75 officers were posted to school cars or mobile school cars, and 13 sergeants were posted as school




,eAn officer's posting specifically indicates an individual officer's duties
PACE 13

CPD MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOL RESOUPCE OFFICERS REVIEW
sergeants/'7 However, CPD's administrative data also includes a number of internal inconsistencies between officers' postings compared to their assignments and details. While SROs and school sergeants are assigned to schools in their districts, only 197 of these 220 officers with school-related postings were assigned to a CPD district. For example, 10 officers were assigned or detailed to the Education and Training Division and 5 were assigned or detailed to the Human Resource Division. One SRO was assigned or detailed to the Marine Operations Unit. OIG could not resolve these inconsistencies.

The following figures contain officer demographics of age, race, and gender. The administrative data was extracted from the CPD database and the Chicago Integrated Personnel and Payroll Systems (CHIPPS). The CPD database provided current SRO officer assignments, and CHIPPS provided officer information including race, age, and gender. Due to the inconsistencies between CPD's records of officers' postings and assignments or details, OIG cannot confirm the accuracy of these summary statistics.

FIGURE 2: CPD OFFICER DEMOGRAPHICS BY AGE










Overall Average
46.139 47.164. 46.836

Current Age (bin)








'"' SROs assigned to school cars are dedicated to a particular school, while SROs assigned to mobile schools cars patrol multiple schools According to CPD, school sergeants supervise the SROs assigned to schools in their districts
PACE 14
CPD MANAGEMENT Oh" SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS REVIEW
FIGURE 3: CPD OFFICER COUNT AND TITLE DEMOGRAPHICS BY GENDER' AND RACE

Officer Count Count by Title
n l «- . * .,- Grand
Nature Assiar- African Hisoamc White _ . ,
Total
Black or
Gender African Hispanic White t-^j
American ' " wn?rica/1
c . dS i'l 15 74: SCHOOL CAR t-7-1 r -,-7-7 ,a rJL
Female «... - „ ,„<,. " --' - 34.09-.*
Male
SCHOOL PATROl : - 4 ¦•' 13
.73 . 30 43! 146 1 SUPERVISOR 0.92?: i.:.2~ 3.IS?i 5.9Mb
33.18=i ^ 13.64% • 19.S5%. 66.36%' SCHOOL SECURITY 71 26 35 132
—-~i¦¦¦¦ : TEAM OFFICER 32.2~--: 22 c2~: 23.52i-: 60.009b
55.00^ 18_S4% . 25.36% 100.00%
GrandTotai * „ J* 220 . m 41 53 . ; 220
55.00% 18.64% 26.36% 100.00%: GrandTotai

As the data shows:
Women made up 34% of officers assigned to schools, compared to 22% of the force as a whole.
Men accounted for 66% of officers assigned to schools, compared to 77% of the force as a whole.
The average age for officers currently assigned to schools was 46.8 years old, compared to the average age of 42.4 years for the force as a whole.
Black officers accounted for 55% of SROs, compared to 21% of the force as a whole.
Hispanic officers accounted for 18.6% of SROs, compared to 25% of the force as a whole.
White officers accounted for 26% of SROs, compared to 50% of the force as a whole.

According to the terms of the expired IGA, CPD should twice annually provide CPS with documentation indicating which schools are assigned SROs, how many SROs are assigned to each school, and the names of the officers/'8 However, according to CPS, CPD last provided a roster of officers in October of 2014. CPD should keep and maintain accurate records of SRO placements.






City of Chicago, "Intergovernmental Agreement Between the City of Chicago and the Board of Education of the City of Chicago," accessed July 13. 2018,
http//wwwcsr. cps k!2 il us/purchasinci/pdfs/contracts/2013_.01/13-0123- PR!2 1 pdf
PACE 15

CPD MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS REVIEW
V. RECOMMENDATIONS
Partnerships between law enforcement agencies and school districts should be designed to ensure school safety and security, protect students' civil rights, and minimize any unnecessary student involvement in the criminal justice system.49 In order to establish an effective and responsible SRO partnership with CPS that aligns with established best practices, CPD should do the following:
Work with CPS, "juvenile justice entities, civil rights and community stakeholders" to draft and implement an MOU that "meets constitutional and statutory civil rights requirements."50 The MOU should:
o State the purpose of the SRO partnership;
o Outline the roles and responsibilities of CPD, CPS, and schools;
o Emphasize that SROs should not be involved in routine student disciplinary matters;
o Define what information CPS and CPD will share;
o Establish required initial and ongoing training for officers assigned as SROs; and
o Establish performance evaluations aligned with SROs' established roles and training that measure SROs' ability to de-escalate situations and use alternatives to arresting students;51
Collaborate with CPS, students, families, and community stakeholders to create hiring guidelines for SROs;5'-
Create Department policies and procedures, aligned with best practices and the MOU, that address SRO recruitment, selection, placement, training, roles and responsibilities, and evaluation;
Maintain and regularly update rosters of officers assigned to CPS; and
Designate a program coordinator to enhance coordination and accountability

Secretary John B King, Dear Colleague (U S Department of Education, September 8, 2016), 1, accessed July 13, 2018. https//www2 ed qov/policv/cien/auid/scliool-discipline/files/ed-letter-on-sros-in-schools-sept-8-2016pdf
~'° Safe School-based Enforcement through Collaboration, Understanding, and Respect SECURe Local Implementation Rubric (U S Department of Education and U S Department of Justice), 2, accessed July 13, 2018, https //www2 ed qov/documents/press-releases/secure-implementation pelf -'•' Memorandum of Understanding Fact Sheet (U S Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services), accessed July 13, 2018,
h11ps//cops usdoi qov/pdf/2017AwardDocs/chp/MOUFact Sheet, pdf
Safe School based Enforcement through Collaboration, Understanding, and Respect SECURe Local Implementation Rubric (U S Department of Education and U S Department of Justice), 2, accessed July 13, 2018, https//www2 ed qov/documents/pi ess-1 eleases/secuie-1mpiemen 1 ai.ion pdf
PAGE 16

CPD MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS REVIEW
VI. CONCLUSION
To protect and serve students, it is vital that CPD make immediate changes to ensure the safe and productive engagement of SROs with students and their families. The Department must, in collaboration with CPS, develop a comprehensive SRO program that includes guidelines for SROs' recruitment, selection, placement, training, roles and responsibilities, and evaluation. OIG recognizes CPD has stated that it is committed to reviewing and revising directives and policies to align with best practices and to address concerns noted by the community. These policy updates, along with future mandates within the upcoming consent decree, will support the Department's efforts to build relationships with the communities it serves based on mutual trust and respect. PS invited CPD to respond in writing to this review.

VII. AGENCY RESPONSE
In response to OIG's findings and recommendations, CPD identified the following steps they intend to take over the course of the next year:
Undertake best efforts to enter into an MOU with CPS that clearly delineates authority and specifies procedures for CPD officer interaction with students while on school grounds;
Develop a policy that defines SRO roles, responsibilities, and appropriate activities of SROs, which will include an express prohibition on the administration of school discipline by CPD officers and provisions for the collection, analysis, and use of data regarding CPD activities in schools;
Develop and implement screening criteria to ensure SROs have the qualifications, skills, and abilities necessary to work safely and effectively with students, parents/guardians, and school personnel; and
Ensure that all SROs receive initial specialized training and annual refresher trainings, and encourage SROs to exercise discretion to use alternatives to arrest and referral to juvenile court.

CPD did not address the following recommendations noted in the OIG report:
Include a broad range of community stakeholders and CPS in the creation of the MOU;
Create hiring guidelines and include a broad range of community stakeholders in the process;
State the purpose of the SRO partnership with CPS in the MOU;
Define information to be shared between CPD and CPS;


PACE 17

CPD MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS REVIEW
Establish performance evaluations for SROs that align with developed roles and training that measure SROs ability to de-escalate and use alternatives to arresting students; and
Maintain and regularly update rosters of SROs.

The Department's letter responding to the findings in this report is included in Appendix F.











































PACE 18

CPD MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS REVIEW
VIII. APPENDIX A: CPD GENERAL ORDER G04-01-02: INVESTIGATIONS-CHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOLS

_ JL Chicago Police Department Gervef al Order GO4-O1-02 pt~ INVESTIGATIONS - CHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOLS llifl!3I3QD3BE]IICIQD[]GQQOnOIBBaflI IBlliSOQDQOOiQDQQQiJLTSIiQBEaBliil
ISSUE DATE: 2S Septernoer S9=S | EFFECTIVE DATE | 29 S:pterTfcer'1S83

MDEKCATEOORYt FreCrrtnar/ hvesSgaflons
PURPOSE
This d^scttve p-ovldK gu5de£nes Iter Department fswrosrs CDntiucthg. a pr esrmnar/ orioi&w-up investigatien In a Chicago FiiWte School or sd)aceru Board cf EducaScn property, eg., scfioal grounds, playgrounds, etc, dur*g the time periods when the scfvool Is Ji session.
GENERAL INFORMATION

The Board cr Educaiton has a ipclicy of Tu3y cooperating wtfi Is* enforcement persame! conducfing frwesllgatioris Wuin ichocls or adjacent Beard of Education properties during tours »'«le classes arc In session.
School eflciais frdudlng a: pmclaal or ris designee are responskle for

ver!fyi"/g Uie cfftclal SeJiCScallon -of a Department i-iemter assigned to cSSzen's dress duty who enters a school Ibr Eie purpose of Ti:e.rv;ewr>g, .ratrrogattog or arresting a student.
providing Cic parents or guardan with a prompt noeflcaSon whenever a Department rr^mbEr requests io interview, Interrogate cr lake Kd ejetody a student Si a Behcet.
siibstSjttog Tor the parents or guardian during Se TYlervle-a. or InfcerrcgaScn of a SuJde.nl by a Department fsemter whenever the parents or guardtari ol tre studer* canrsot oe nestled or are unavaiisbie So respond to fte school.
-. notifying the parents or guardian of the s&jderrt concerning the res&fts o3 the interview or Interrogation of tne SvJdent.
5. releasing a student lo- Ihe custody cf a department me/Rper in all instances wSversever the responsible ir*n-!ber has reasenaKe grc'jr.ds ani'cr proba'oie cause to arrest a student ?or a vbiaien 0 trie Saw or when tf-iere Is an outstanding arrest warrant for a student
MEMBER'S- RESPONSIBILITIES
A. DeparSrrAnt member conducing a presmSnary aniior fetonira inves-gaticn In a Chicago PuP3c Scnool durttg a ttr;e iperiDd when scrool is h session
ri other Shan cases cf emergency, proceed: a^rectty to the principal's efflce upon entryto a school.
Ideottrjr lumsss »the responsible seltcci ofScSi wtvejiever assigned to ttttseji's dress duty.
desert*, the members purpose tor entering tve school and request to interview anoVor Interrogate a named: student-si'.
afew S_«e school princpal cr hfoher designee a reasonable himt; oT Ut* » notify the parents or guardan oi the student prior o> beginning the interview or iriberrcgaicn.
postpone the Interview ardtor In'erroBaHon ot the r>i-ed stjden! lerppcrarily P4r»lirosrrtt S» sehcoi prr^loal or h&lier designee to- 6e present In Svt rcfl»r< ir. Lie sCA3i during fcve r-,5erv^w ari'or Interrogation of Tie :bj.3>T!t wnenever the oarenii cr •y^aralan car:no! be rotseo or they are 'jraolaoke io pro>~ptry respand tc the :chocl.
GiK-'jS-CI Irr/ectgxors - Chicago PJ^c Zcttx& C -ZKcyy: =o3ce rjepartner*; Sepajrioer 55=3
Curen: as cf C€ rto
CPD MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS REVIEW


<3. en sure "at:
1. the retpocijible rr#s»r»bEf5 supervisor has been nciritd, whsn practicable, wherever a stL'Sentls being taken Inlo custody.
B-iere are reasonable grojjtds>prGfcabie cause present fth*r.ever a sbideri: is being isXen into custody far a vtotartSon of trie la* cr there Is an outstaying arre-:t warrant ftr a KjdenL
3. a student who Is taken tnSa custody Is pccvaed w£h Be MJrarda Warnings prior to any questioning.
H. advise the school ip»tic5:>al or higher designee irelatlve: to- the iocaSon to which (ft a student arrestee
"aril t« iTariiSccrteq for *jrttier processing to facilitate a subsequent ncbficatlcn by the school principal
or rJsJher designee to Hie parents >nr guardian or the sbi-deri.
I. be responsible ?or nccPyfeg the parents or guardan of trie arrested student :pvlce facSlty to whlcti the student has been transported Tr*r Surtfter prrcessFfl.
J. be aware of the professional responslntlfes oi school oSctais to provide Tar Sic safety and weJ-oelng of al) s&Kteirta Tt thei- care and to therefore cctidirct ir«?iseives. in such a manner as to rstnlmtot srry dSraptSon ot the stiStoafs norn-fal operaSons.


LeSoy JAarUn Superistendent o* Police
S3-C74 RGE^mmdi
GD4-01-C2 In^e^B^s^s-CHca'goPJt-JcS^hccCs ¦S Ctttcagc ,=o3ce Oepar5ter>t. Sec'terr.ber
Caztctt. as cf OS Ho'.w&er 2D 17:1 -105 rtz Page i- of :

PAGE 20

CPD MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS REVIEW
IX. APPENDIX B: CPS STUDENT CODE OF CONDUCT


l ¦ approvad by Ins CEO's designee. ?. studsni suspended ,:nor« than three O day* .may fea required to attend-a Distrid-^cnsoi&d crojpsTi ria-rtns t"3 term Dfsuspsnsfcfi.


¦POiJCtl^lFiCATION GUSDitmiS
Scbsol administrators contact the Chicago Police- Department (CPD) £n two situations: OMos^fcaEastatwa wlOb -an *rnbar#ency situation, or Q} io notliy law enferceme-jit of a criminal act
Ennergency
School administrators havetfte respcnsiblllty ta call 9-1-1 in situations. lhtIn an emergency situation, administrators must make reasons-la Starts Id retliy parEnts/^uardlans, bTimadlate.f>' ater oarriadln.irCPD.
Criminal Acts.
When ardent en^a^ss in llfegsi acllvlty. It may be-necessary tor setae! staff to report 1he act to CPD. In Bus srtualKnv school officials contact fjpb to report-'Vtdationsof the law.- SchBatoflldats must net carta* CPD laerafc'.-to request removal olin aficn-errierKar.:? situation, adrrtnlslra'.ori must rrv-h! reasonable jtiorls lo contact parents-feuardlar£5:prter4o -cGntartlng CPD.
Ihaitosr.prc'prla^beha.viarsthc.t aredoarvlolallsnsci criminal lawara.ldan'ltaltd fir­ths next section ast-sriss:"J besrethe spacli:-; /lspprnpnate behavior. F-he. Inapprocfiare cchavsdr;- nat mav bn violations crlrnnal law ara Idsr.; -led In !hc-.nextsndiQn-.wliha double asterisk ¦¦C:'-*>'b&*:fe-thc-spacil^ utanprcprlate behavior.
F/rhooi officials mast assess, lbs slUial>oi oatae de-tear.! jibtj; '.vhnlhcr c-i nst to contact CPE1 lo report a crenlnaiad. Snhaol o'ltaais should o-.-sider (actors (ndadhs:
Whether lb: sluder: distributed or was m possession-si literal drugs, nax~Mc?.-, ajrilr-^tec subst sncos, or '';-::ok £:x;>s" ci s.;ci ajbslancr.;:- If sc. CPD rmist be «otlKeri.
Whalhar th.2 stud ant was >" possession &i g ttreant ¦ !¦ so. '"SO must be I Kind.



.-. ¦¦¦¦ :-;: .'.auc.:-:: 4 n i


PACE 21
CPD MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOL RESOUPCE OFFICERS REVIEW



¦ Tha severity ot thecrlrranal vioiatio-i a.rd the decree ot harm lo school oarr- Tiunlty,
Whether .3 parson was phvsicstry ln|ued as a fesjit c-5 tha si uden t's conduct,
Whether t to student pras&nts in lrnrr. nent danger lo tne -health, safely, or waiters ol others, and
"he students age. Far i'itude'U in llrth ("h> grads or b(3'a«v:s^aofeaft^ust'' corisiifl vilth the Law Qegsjtrnent (7^3/553-1700) pr^sr to.rjj»rl«ig
^IheadjteCPp
Ore* sdiool staff rreTibars contact CPD. the rescinding prilce orflcers •ultimately will detejrntne whether ar not ta LTOEstljgate, arrest, and/or taoa any other steps n response. 'School principals and stair" do mat nave ihe au&arriy ia decide wheBie' astudantwiil bsarrastsd rVtenscuGr. responding police alllccrs rJfo nei have ihe stitbcrlty to decide whether a. student win receive Intercerllonsor coasequauas al school'. Ihe sctex>l plnclpal wilt use the SCC lo dalarminc-tha appropriate inUtrventfcnf's) and/for consequancefs) to-address a students-behavior.


.. Possible Vtoratkmsaf Crtmliial Law
•... .'Cortsjiderlafctors ar*ove prior to riotiJyifig CPD ; ¦ Gambling (.3-2;
Forgery (3-7)
False activation cr 3 lue alarm that dees not .cause a 'school iaclitty 1o
ba ev3cu3ted cr do-as noi cause esrie^ency ^rvices 1r be ncstlt 'ad .; •.-A;saxiitv4-3}. , . . ,
Vandalism or criminal damape-kv-cfoparty-iihat costs, ieis ™~
th3nSi-00C4;4>
Batten? 0: aiding or abatt ing in co-nrnissicn oi abattsry which doe's •
not ,res*^.: in 3physical ln|urv (4-5)
• Ftghilng - more 1h«i two z&zpte ars/O' .rtvc-.vcu injury *.\- C) ;:,: ¦•,'ihsft OTcossessjQnal stoten pTcperty tnai costs fsss thanii&Q >:.-4 7) '
¦ Possession. «ise; sale, ^distribution ol tirewo-cMrt-S) -: t
"nespassinijF.onCPSpropsrly'^ll} . ¦•- .¦¦„;-.--¦-¦
• -.Used'mi imld2tlorvcr.sdibfs threats c: violence, coercion or persistent •severe buitvirg!(S, -1? ¦¦¦¦¦
¦ Inapprof^islfi sexual conduct (S-?> v '•• .*- Sscarid cr.fiepeat&ividl'alf m ol Behavior 4-l4u*s or possession of
.-alechohn school 'c at aschMi rc-!,r>!:;o (unction or bclors schorl ay .
beterea schoc^related'Juricfisn (5~iS) ¦¦ •


^ u > ir i'i. - ¦; j.r;;

CPD MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOL RESOUPCE OFFICERS REVIEW



Violations or trimlnial Law
¦ *Ca^^1ai^Ki^b^ prtar Cd mtljyfrig GM>
• Knowingly-or intenttena !ly using lha CPS neiwor< or inloHnaiirn iechnDfc-gy devices to spread viruses io tha CPS network (4~l2.)
.Aggravated assaiiit <5 • l;i
.Burgja"v

fhsfi orecssc-sslonc4 stolen property mat ocsts rnore.lhanSii.3 <5-3;
Gang activity or overt displays of gang a'hliiat'tei (5-6)
• E.ngajBting in anyothar liiejal ke^avlprwitlcti.lnt'ey^6res--v.'!th.tha schoc-J's
educational process,.including attempt £s-8)
Persistent cf severe acts of sexual harassment (i '9>
False activation of a I '2 alarm which causes- a schcol racify!~ be evacuated or raises emergency serrfcas tote rctded Battery., cr ahfeg-or abetting In theccfnmlsslon ora baitery, which , results In a pf?^ta1.3n|ury,<5-l2):'
Use a any computer; Incitidlng soda I nahvcrklng w-etsit es, er use ai any in*r.-rmatlen techrdogy davits to threaten, stalk, harass, buliy or otherwise Intimidate cthers,:cr hacking n.io the CPS .network to access .student records or rJner^iriaiithon.T.ed inlormaUra and/or to otherwise, dkuravant-tiiei. in tbfrnal fori secjrlty system i.5-M>
Vand:3iisn ;or .criminal damage to property that casts rr ere iha~ •$500 or iiiat is dene to personal property heiar^lng lo .any school parsonnei £515}
'Use or possfissloit of Illegal drugs, narcotics, controlled substances, Idok'-ariJKs" of such substances, or coMraband/or use of any ©the*
¦ .suMancerbr the purposed! Intoxteatlcn m school oral-a school related taction cr celdre schoo! cr belore a schoolrelated,1'uncllofl (5-17) ¦, Participating in. a.mob adictrcS-19}
Use, possession, aaid/cr ccncealme-nt of a :!iraarTVdetslructive device di oilier Aeapoitar "teok-aiifcas* cl weapons or use ox imeni to use-any other object to irnllct bodily harm fu l)
Int'entlohaliycausing-b'attem&iLig to-cause aii era porticn ol theCJPS network, to become Inoperabia (£-2)
• Arson
Bomb threat. <£--4Ji
Saie, dissribu! en, or Intent to se?! m disiribule alcohol, ili&gat druEs, narcoUcs. controlled substances, Nock-ai^xs'' cr suchsjbslances,-•conlraband, or any ether substance used for ihc- nurpose ol Intoxication, or second cr related vtaaifcn oi Behavior i'6-6>

Sax acts which include the use at' lorce oS-7)
Aggravated battery, or aiding and abetting 1st thc-csnrn'ssioai — an a^gr^vated battery (C 3)
» ivlurdsr (£-9)
Allemoied murder (C ¦r.-O)
¦ Kidnapping <;£> 11)
• Iheit or possession ti st>r*aa p'opertythal costs more tot $1,003 (642j

CPD MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOL RESOURCE OFHCERS REVIEW
X. APPENDIX C: CPD EMPLOYEE RESOURCE E05-01: PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS FOR ALL SWORN DEPARTMENT MEMBERS BELOW THE RANK OF SUPERINTENEDNET

A Ch'cagoPolbeDeparirJBnt Employee Resource E05-01 lEgf" PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS OF ALL SWORN DEPARTMENT MEMBERS ™ BE LOW TH E RANK OF SUPERINTENDENT 0 0 3 a ¦ a i s o s i s i i a a ? a s sbb ¦ e s its jt
IS WE DATE: 11S£EtaTfc-r2017 | EFFECTIVE DATE: | 11 Sejamba-Xlf
REiCSHDS: EC5-J1 VeSon 01 2CCS; B3S-01-01 VeScn 21 Febru*y 2BI2; =n&-31-X> Vsrton 21 rrtrjx/3Q12
INDEX CATEGORY: Caw Qcv«t:pr-ert

PURPOSE
TrfcsKEcUra:
A. conttiiES annual pettarancg evaluations la sworn msrrtes below ife ran of servant using tfie efecScrtc P&formanoe Evaluation System (PESjk
& irercducesthe;
1. arrasl peffanance eratoatlDns for all sivm supervteors Mow the ran* of SuperirtenirenL
2. PHtarmance tvSuiton—©awn Super.lscrs &rm fpPD-6^i57L
l Petfarrance trnprtremefn Plan, (PtP)-©jifDm Supentears rccm (CPl>5Z353;l
dteccnfrsiestrieusecf fte:

r^orr^i(HR2ilng<^(CPO-6Z3E9|i
PerJcm'.anreEvaUj&nS^iEm^
s3i£ne£CAL&\i^,vQTarrerTKnts-i3«S3.T3rQf crap*5f35.
POUCY
The Depiteent Is carrsrrtited 3d ensuring thi Evadors ot aE tui-erre employees are ccreliicfrd ana ctocurnerrsd amuatty. Tiie purposes of perttfmsroe eraftistlcns are Id:
1. siandartfze Ire nature of Ihe persanre. o^sBrHnafchg process;
2. assure me puttie 3iat tefalment pesainat are qualified to earn' out their assigned dUies;
prutfde memfcers ^Ih -he necessary Womutfcin so asSst fiern in mairtlrSng sp&roprlate Cetuvos;
etMnate iraarxopiias fc€h3«c8s; are)
oorrpy iKSh Murtc&a Code cf Chteags MCC 2-Si-i3C, wnieii requlses the Crt'csgo Polls Deparrriern io rate m sex>m martesT
7?ie asjesstrem of a ne.Tte"j !os o?frtxv}s.-,ce k sr, cfigarjg excess an! vie smual ayfoTrense sraiieien fo not && ortV arc j&tng tne yes/ mat samftas atarcf fiaags ogt&T^Jice i55i»°s
c. Gnqaftq coasift? atf fefii5ac)t iCroi-.ijej s^rvrjars w?i ooacrT!irjS£s rrreugtotiT Lte ',~a-ro:
1. igftCLS msinaarf eriat; 5 aifana refoTTaree flaneur reattach allows mansea's a jj.lKt n'Air ate/ire; to perttMnanse TOreygrrevi: nesfti sfij is ,w:?rae4 a asasr men .Vi
signfflca* creasm; fa? sy^r a*;!? g avMe aMce aro
cgrrwH.-nrfaTe aft'a ne-TOere my sua&rce a cores rase lVoo.^c.


ECS-CI .sefonrx.es £valus»K: 3* -V Swarr Coxment Mancer: 6e«f 3is Oxwt a:- cf 11 Sewfrax M 12 hi
RarkolSir^r.nawen! PACE 24
« Cv:aso rules Ce»xii»ail, Septsrccr 2) l? Psge ' cf 15

CPD MANAGEMENT Oh SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS REVIEW
Perfcrmance evafciatora wa -as conducted annuity and -«ia be completed upan an Aflminlsradve Message Center (A9AC) Announcement toy (fre Dirictar, Bxrrsn Resources Division, 'jnse-ss Dtfcer*lse estabSshed by this oErecjve.
Tfte JTJArecrgf hViTra/i flgsourcca aVAstcm, w.g ensun ffiui ing seffonn-aacc graVjf.toi- AVrcflatons are o'memftiaretf fo a,V swsr.n Decurrmgnf cf-Btti >.n me f,rg OL'jfrer o/i»;g .near.
Com-and personnel are jespons&Je Per the ad^nlstradan of peift-rmance evafuasens tor al sworn m-rrtcn under their supervision and will ensure that peformance evaluations are administered fatrty and mat ail members are evaluated Impartially and under tne same standards settoy «sdtrectt*e.
TraKnff wis I be provided So aM supervisory members Sal *I8 te responsfcie rcr svalua£ng Department b-;*-bera.
III. SWORN SUPERVISOR EVALUATIONS
A. Performance evafeisfcccs for all sworn supervisors wR be documented cn Br* Performance EvaiuaSon —Sworn Supervisors term. Coirirand KalPunti commanding: officers -*IS erasure that
Bre tap secSon cf the form Is completed. tar eacti sworn supervisor assigned la the una and fee Jarm Is dfctr&jted ta evaluating supervisors.
all supervisors are evaluated ay S-* neat ttfgher-farAlng supervisor in their Immediate titan oi comn-and.
a performance evaDjaticci form tar each sworn supervisor srye ran*, c£ semeanl or above Mill be corrected and:
a. . the original tarm wil be sent to the Human Resources Cession and retained ¦far ttve
years.
a cop)' wil be placed |-> the rated supervisors Unit Watch Personnel =le.
a copy wil be given ta the rated supervisor.
dL the annual evaluation wil be entered Into the CLEAR Watch AppflcaScn by trw date i-jdlcated by 1ft* Director, Human Resources Division
¦i. arty swam supervisors wt» have been under a supervisor's oa—mantf tor a* less* thity days prior ta the announce mens of a» evaluation period are evaluated. Those who have AGrted for a commanding o3cer tor less fian thirty days wBI be evaluated by their prsvicusly assigned supervisor.
When appScatoie, B-* CGiTiSTiand stafPunlt commanding officers »I2 appoint tea sis of supervisor': to evaluate thetr subordinates. Eadt learn wEI operate under the direction a rVgher-ran>.&ig supeiviser.
C. When applicable, lieutenants wn confer wKn other supervisor/ i-embers wta'n evetr unit -when evaluating* sergeants. The sarr* principle applies ta higher ranks.
C-. .A supervisor above die wA ot the evakiited supervisor must sign the performance ev&'ua&cn linn. The command staauns rommandtng officers wil ensure ShS the signaSj-es cf sKpeivisDry members are agfcie and; h ink and that each supervisor has indicated his cr her rank and starteT;p:o-/ee number, stgrsalure stamps will cat ds used.
Supervisors m1H be evaluated In S-»elr ass%r.*d or deta:ea un& i? they were assigned Ic that urJt Tar al ieast Wrly dar/3 or —are prtor b> die announcement c5 a?* eviuaion period. IT not, they will be e\*aiuftted ay superviscn in the iasl unit af assigrartentor detaS.
A -sijpeivSsw *IS net be evaluated if he or she ha-: beer.;
1. cn the medical rclifer an line:;: ar r.;ur/, cn -ar pff duey, -far sir ccrvsecubve mcn-tvs -ar more Immedatety preceding the •arr.ouncErrtERto-'i-e eva-ua^cn perlsd.
cr a leave af atosence ^or slit or ran consecutt-ve months Immediately preceding the aor.ounsement cf £¦» eviuat-cn period.


EE5-D1 ,"erTDrrnaf»:E E^Jitons of .Al $/Kim Department iVterbers seiaw the -CuTem as cf 1 • Seaernaer 2317:1113 iris Rand cfSiissrtrrjenctefE
4 -Srii/iagf; Po3 cs De pan-Ter.% J« ienroer 2D 17 ?->3e i -zf ' ~i

PACE 25

CPD MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS REVIEW


NOT€: "C-e top portcn cf Ferfor!7the appropriate bait rr.arked, and the fem forwarded la the Hyman Resource: DMskas along with 1fie offif evaluations.

IV. RESPONSIBILITIES IN EVALUATING SUPERVISORS
The evatuaiar will checs the boi indlcatng. the evafcjatos category for each e' the Ttve per*onr-anre dirrensJcns cn £-e evaiuaScn form.
Each evaiuator must make comments |tn the comment secdan cf the Sorm) *or each category. Remarks will be percneri and as spectflc as possible.
The evairator wil sign his or r»r rase and ^jdtate rank, star.empioyee number, ar.d the date In the space designated on the perfonriance evaluation form.
D- The evafcjafiens wil be reviewed; approved, and signed by Sis supervtsonexempt member In the evaluating supervisors Im-ediatecnaln oi corvTiand. The ssgr^jreofiaJ supervisors must be legible and Include rank and startempkyvee number.
Easa evaiuator must evaluate his or her ssJMrtlnates under ine sara set c' 'air and hiparUal standards as set by this directive.
In evaiuatSig stpervlsury personnel, the evafciator must not. onr/ consider the supervisors performance, but aiso, when applicable, how wet the supervisor moSvates subcrdhates to perform. Wflingness to bike Initiative, accep* icsponsibtlty, and eicercbe discpilnc evusl al be considered when assessing perfanriance.
A supervisors evafejaScn shorid not flrctuate gneatiy from period to period without sufficient cause.
The evaluate! rsusS consider recognSon received ;by Sse nr,ember such as Honorable Mentions, Department Commendations, or other awards. Ukenlss, a suspension or any type of dlsclplnary accon or misconduct cfartna the evaluation period trust te addressed In Ihe evaluation.
I. WES) reference to "Dependab3£y, Attendance, and Promptness,' absences far medical reasons ii>u:£
be carefully evafcated before assignfcg an evaluattan. The reasons, duration, and number of meotcal
incidents are factors to be considered. A long-term absence due to fejary or lifcess shsuki .not be
viewed Hie same as muifple absences of short duration. Members absent becajse or injury an dutj'
¦«I3 not be penatzed.
J. In units where several supervisors have supervised the same member, they may confer wsi each •other in evaluaBng tne isefrVoer-
K. The evaiuatar wil deterr-Jne ire overal perfornisnce evaluation categor/ based on the evaluations receded for each of the live performance d£T*.nsSefls and n accordance w£-i the chart in Secton v> C cf S-ss directive.
V. PERFORMANCE nJHEHSICHS. FOR SUPERVISORS
A. In assigning ratfegs based upon tre ftve perfomrtance drr.ensiGns, evaluates wil consider various components under eacft dimension, depending upon the leb description of sse supervisor beita evaluated.
1. Enforotmaint of Work -Standards and itaft Development: Hold: r.emoers respcnst-lefcr Job perfomrvince, cc*-p> ranee with Department aaScy, and addressing problems apnmprater/.
Uses positive feedback and aoal setting io Improve meBit&er perfcrrianci.
Regular^ observes and reviews r.eiribcr performance.
Uses appropriate occurrences as Talnrg to Improve the- future Denatlcr of s>±»ord:nates.
o. Administers prooresilve discipline -a her. necessary.
e. Rates supervisors on their abllty to train, evaluate, and i-onitcr re r suscrdrates, ? applicable.
EE5-3I rerfsrrnarnt =valuators of A3 £"A>om Department .'.terbers below the Rank cf 3uperrter>3en:
C ChJogoroace 'Zepamtr-, Sec-temper 2317
C«reni as of II SeasemDer 2317:111S nz Faije jof S3

CPD MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS REVIEW


f. Discusses new peifcles and* prc-cedxes Win members., 6ci» coSedfveiy and
ftdtvtdualy, to ensure that members understand when, farm, and why a policy or
procedure shauld de Implemented
g. . Provides puo2c feedback and; purple recognition gives rreali where credlt Is due.
h„ Demonstrates sufficler.t knowledge of subordinates !? Pe a*are of their personal situations and potential problems that wil afect work perTarmar.ee .
AnaiytJt and Proiilsm Solving: Is able ta gather and analyse Infcnr^fon from various sources related to a specific problem and ts able ta develop a plan to so.Ve fiat orobisnn based upon an objective analysis.

Monitors conditions So idenSfy and respond to errerglng alms trends.
Allocates jescurces to an area before a prcbiem escaates.
Develops contingency and fail-back pians.
a. Considers possible unintended consequences of a given course of actton arsd thinks ahead to prevent long-term negatrve consequences.
e. Donslders the Impact or problems an other watches iMften applicable! and pro vides support to those other watches h addressing those pmbiema.
r. When appJcable, creates ItnriaEzed processes far members on di*"erent watches to sttare hformadan about crime patterns, emerging proKenv:, and an/ other issues related to the ibeat
g. Recognizes wftefl decisions wil set precedent or cause Sabl'ty and takes tnese factors Into consideration.
tv. Can |use*/ decisions.
PsiconaJ LeadareJilp: MoSvates rsersvbers and acts as a role modei in demcrdtratl-g a positive astuds In service lo the public.

Creates a vision or goal fox moving She Departsjtrrt forward' and su:cessf?Jty cofamunlcaces it to rrefrfbers.
Listens we 3 and considers other viewpoints te'ore massing a decision.
kVorSs well siB ȣejvisors, subordinates, and the pubSc.
NegoSatea conflicts fairly and effectively.
Leads by enampie and gets Involved to r>sip resolve praoiems and meet deadlines.
When applicable, reaches out and esiatotlsttes reisScnshlps with community eacers 1a engage them In solving crime p-robfe—a.
Adapts verbal and written language to ghe specie audience, whether Deportment members or the genera! pubflc
-. Del»gailan or rotponclbllrhot: Pricrarcs and assigns tasks accordfctg to member's strengths and abides.
a. Idenbfes and dulds on an Individual rrerr.oers strengths.
b. Delegates tasks to develop rremoer strengths, *hen aparopriate.
c. Explains the bigger p cture «hen delegating wars.
d. . Structures teams ar.d delegates *orx to ensure the test use cf time ana £-* -os-t
effective outccrr.es .
e. Keeps up-to-date on changing circumstances -arid prepares members *or new-
demand:.



ECEf-D t .-erformafKe ^valuatons of A3 Sworn Department .Verbers peiow the Current -as cf 15 Sestemser 2117:11 "3 firs Rank cf -Superlrtfirident
£ Chiicsgc Poles :Depan:-erit, Seoamoer 2317 Fage * zf '3


PACE 27

CPD MANAGEMENT OH SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS REVIEW


S. D*fpa;ndaJ>lirt}\ AttaradanoB, and Prornptne^G
a. Demonstrates erceifcnce n perianal appearance, attendance,-and pro—p-toes:. b„ IVarSs •»e)l wish ilde ar no pjcervtslon.
Can be refled cn to cot-spie-e assigned cas£s; ftl'ows-up and ffcds sciubcms -when tasks become complicated.
Completes work Yi a tfceiy manrer.
Responds promptly to requests Tor revew of Department pa^cy and proceti'jres.
VI EVALUATION CATB3QRIE4 FOR SUPERVISORS
The TbYWtq flour performance eva'uaton categories are used to svaitiaa a supervisor's job performance for each of the five performance dimensions:
1. Exoeedo Ezpoatabonc: Tfve member consistently displays performance of the duties and rcsponcibillbes of the Jab at a level that exceeds performance expectations for this dhiensjan.
12. Meets Expaotailone: The rrember rreets |ob performance expectations for mis dimension.
3. Requires improvement The member rust Improve JOO performance to meet expeetattons rcrlhls drrnasslon.
¦4. UnaooeptaSila: The mere-i>e.rfaQs to neel job petfcrmance eapectoBans Tar &Ss dimension.
A mombar's tsvwBi) portoimanco ovatv&tian category wtil be dOrivad tan tha evaluations raGg/vacf foraocft of tfto tto* parfanrrsnco dunwiatona.
EC5-31 Fe-farrrnnce svasjatons of .Al S-«om Departmen; Mercers aeizw the Rank cf SucefWendent
4 ChJcagc Folce Oeparc-er,- Seoarroer2D17
Cuienl as cf 15 ScpoemDer 2017:1l "3 rtz Page s -of 33


PAGE 28

CPD MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS REVIEW


C Performance evaluations for supervisors
Caiacary Performance evaluation Categories
Exooadc Expecitations Majority of individual dimension evaluadans are "Exceed: Expsciat'ons." No Indh/iduaJ dimension evaluations cf "Requires 4-prcvemenf No Individual dimension evaluations cr "Unacceptable.' - - EEgible to te considered far speclaJzed training. - '/ill nave prbrtty consideration for assessor assignments.
Itaete Expectations Majority of individual dimension evaluations are at leact'Meets EipecSaScos." No mzrr than two Individual dimension evaluations at "Requires Improvement" No Individual dimension evafcuOcna at "Unacceptable." - EBgMe to te considered for specla£xed training. - WIL be considered for assessor assignments.
Requires Improveaiorat Majority of individual dlrensScn evaluadans are "Requires teprovemenl" No rrjore than tso Individual dimension evaluations of •Unacceptable.* MOTH; For Captains A second period ai Overall Evaluation !fi "3: quires Improvement" w3l Tesutt h the hlttaBan cf the Captain EES rerciovol process. - Not eligible for speclalzed hairing. - Not eligible for assessor assignments. - Not ellgStls for assignment: outside district laa enforcement
Unaooeplable Tersest mane ^dividual dimension evaluations of ''Unacceptable.' NOTE; ?or Captains: An Overall Evaluation of "Unacceptable" In a rating period will casus in the fr-idatton of die Captain SEE removal prorets. - Nat elfcjitle far specialized hairing. - Nat eligible for assessor assignments. - Nat ellgtbie for assignments outside district la* enforcement
VU. REVIEW OF SUPERVISOR EVALUATIOWS
A. The evaiuator *tl provide .tod performance feedback to supervisors receiving a perfar-ance evaluation at the conclusion of the rating period and wit cover Die following areas;
tise resus of the performance evaiuaicn Just rcoatete:!;
t-< level of performance expected:
evaluation criteria cr goals for the new reporting period; and
-. career suggestions relative to sucl-i topics as advancement, spetlaiEaUan, or training appropriate for the merrtoers position. The evaluating supervisor will facilitate a rse.--.bers career choices, cc*-Dre,-encJcn of career goa's, and atnievement of career goaic ra-ougi-i meani-:g*ji and welHrtfomted entices.

EG5-31 ,=ertonn»LS Evaiuat-ons of .Ai Sworn Department .Vfe-ters aetawtne Current as cf n Sepfterroer 2317:1 H3 rvs Rank of Supertttenderr.
C Chicago =cdce Qepari-ent, Beptemoer 2D17 Page ; ? 13

PAGE 29

CPD MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOL RESOUPCE OFFICERS REVIEW



B. TPiB evaiuator wlit prepare- a To/From Stibjaol Report to hit or her frnmedtata cupervlccr
reguectlnB 4fia1 a Pprftpt imaroverrtgriit Plan >!PIFI—awem supgrYlsore iQr&tt.2$£Ltat
nraoared for any merr4)gr who raoqirie* a rating for any raiTonnanqa dimensions In the -Penolrec lmDrnven»ir.1" or "UnaooBncaMe" oateoorv. If a Perfptmanc? HmprovaimBnt Plan |PIP>—3 warn Supervisor at approved, tha av&luator will prepare Ine PIP and submit ri to his or har Immadlata supervisor who will ens-ure thai the PIP te ravleivad during tha snext performanae evaluation and thai a oopy k ptooed In tea rated tupst-vlc-ofc UnsM Watoh Perennnal Ella.
C Ccmcisnd c/affNOTE; Command slafPunr! commanding oncer wJI ensure Sial any completed Performance
Improvement Plan iPIP) - Ssram Supervisor are reviewed: quarterty and that the irecomiTendatons for Imprcieirents are Implemented!.
The evaluated sapervlsorvil!! sign and date the performance evaluation Torn *i trie space .provided to tefcate Ssal he or she has reviewed the evaluation. A cofTiments space is provided on ire evaiuation fann for any comments the evaluated supervbor elects lo Indude.
tf a supervisor refuses to sign and date the perftmrance evaiuaBon form, the evaluatar will indicate this arson tn the comments section by printing the words "Refused to Sign," faiowed by the evafuasort naire arid the date. .All unsigned perforr-tance evaluation forms *tl de reviewed by the unit commanding officer, the district cemrsarsder, or, *hen applicable, tie. next-level exempt rremoer h a lev'ewed supervisor's chain of command, who »1lt:

interview the supervisor regarding the refusal and Inform tiSn or her of tne appeal process, consistent wssi item vill ot ens directive.
a»t hfe or her signature and the date of the interview on the bacti of the perronrance evaluation rcrm, should the supervisor continue to jeSase to sign tne perton-arce evaluation rorm.
Once the evaluation has teen approved and: signed try the supervisar.'exempt member In the evaluated: cnain cf cot-mand, the evaiiaosr wil sign and date the performance evaiuadan farrri assnow'edging that he or si-e has reviewed toe evaiuaBon t^th the evaluated ember.
YDI. APPEAL PROCESS FOR SUPERVISORS
A supervisor may requesl a review cf the perfcrmance evaluation wtUiiTi seven calendar days the date the supervisor signed, or refused to sign, tie perfonrsante evaluadon form by submitting a Ta-Fram Subject report to ihe ta-snandlng o"5csr or the unit assigned. If tne commanding offtcer Is tr* evaiuator, the request »1li go to the next-level e«ei- pi member In the chain of command.

The exempt (Temperas ccrri-andrig .officer will revlsw al unsigned performance evaluation terms 1a determine if ftere Is a recfdesS tor review imember's report^ on Sis.
IS a performance eva.Ua'ien form Is unsigned and toe supervisor has faled so request a review of the perfcrmance evaluation, She exempt metrJjeirtrJt ccm~andi-g officer iatli interview the meraber to ensure rat tne member fas had ever/ opportunity to avail him cr hersei! of the appea' process.
In response to a request 1st a retfew of an evaluation, the Department member hearing the review may Interview or recrJre written reports fron any individual deemed approoriate. The decision o* the reviewing member willbe flrat and wil te documented In writing. A coo/ cf the jeve*'r.g -e-oers report wil te given to the member and another wil be placed In the 'JnS i^atch Personnel Fse. The original wil Dt sent to ire. Human Resources- DlVisfcn and retained for five years.
tf a performance evaluation is charged for any reason, re .-.emoer }»armg the aapeai *I5 ensure that a new perfor7r>5nce evaluation fcrm is prepared, signed, and dated by al panes. The ne-A fpr-a!S te completed and nu-cereo '2 cf 2" tn the upoer dght-Trand comer. Tne cnglnal fonri All te
ErJ:-D1 ;=e^tjrrrar>:s =s-a#uatorc of Ai 3A*om Djpartment itertsrs Pei?* toe ^unem as of 1 *i Sesterrier 2317:11 *s3 "vs
Rand. cf-Superttjeodem
* Chicago-i=oJce Cepartrrer', Sep&mter 2D17 i=-ije cr '3

PAGE 30
CPD MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS REVIEW



numbered *3 cf 2," i—arkeo 'VOID," and attached by p-aoer ci'p te the new form. BoBi fcrrris will te sec*; ia toe Human Resources Division and wfj be retained for f,ve years. One copy wSI be kept si the Unit Watch Fersonnel fie and one given ta the evaluated supervisor wnose avateiaSan was changed. The evaiuated supervscr has fee nght to request a review of his cr her changed evaiuatfcn.
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SYSTEM i'PE3] FOR MEMBERS BELOW THE RAHK OF BERQEAHT
A. Members wia be evasuated arnualy tn Bis quarter prior ta the quarter of the anniversary of sver date of hire. The evafciaciens win be completed within Silly days of the conclusion of Die ovaJuaBon pettod. The annual calendar quarters are as foil-jss:
1"1 ffiuarter 2pi Grjarter y* Quarter Quarter
January, February, Marti-April, May, June July, August, September October, Naveir.ber, December
The following marrbr clarifies when perfanr^nce evaluations *il be com Dieted-

Quarter Annfven-iry Date Month of the Member TJib Quarter ihiB Merrtbor Will Be Evaluated Due Data olthe Evaluation
1* January, February, March 30 January
2*a Apri, May, June 1* 30 .Apr3
3* July, A'jgust, September 2* 3D Jury
October, November, December 3* 3D October
Ifthe messfcers date cf h&e Is:
31 March, She nrvembers oerformance evafctaSon will be completed! In tre 4th Quarter. Tne due date for the perrormarjce evaiuaBon will te 2 0 January.
11 3ep5e>tV0er, the rreKTiders perfdrmancs evaluation will be completed tn the 2,:J Quarter. The due date -far Bsc performance evaluation wl! be 10 Jiry.

Supervisors wil participate n Srahirsg and receive a Ferforrsance Evaluation Syste>-< Procedure Manual regarding the purpose, Implementation, and use of the Performance Evaluation System.
To eiTecbveiy evaluate and document Job performance of merbers under their command, supervisors wSI use toe FerEarr^ance Recognition System Oo record Earty Intervention Activity Events, asdefneated it tne Department directive entlEed'Perforr^teRetoanSor! System."
The Director, Human Resources Division, has overall authority overtre PEG and wil coordinate trie 5T;plei7ientar>jn, managerent, and rrAniorftg of toe evaiuaBon process Depariment-silde.
PERFORMANCE EVA LU ATI OH CRITERIA FOR MEMBERS BELOW THE RANK OF SERGEANT A. Members below the ran*, of sergeant wil:
te evaiuated by toe supervisors! of toe unit die rrervDer was assigned l detailed to for at least tre to&ry calendar days Immediately preceding ire announce/rent o? the evaluation period.
not be evaluated *bo have been:
a. an the medical roil for an Uness or injury, on or off duty, for stir consecutive months or mere ii-redate*/ preceding tne arincuncerrertofth: evaluation period.
t. on a leave o* aacence far sir consecutive menrts cr mere immediately preceding the anncurcemer t of the evaluation period.


ECr-D I Ferlcrmancs Eva*u3tonc of A3 Sworn Department .'.te-ber: ceiow the Current as of 11 Seotemcer 2317:1113 Its Ran* cf -S jcenrtenden:
€ ChJcagc-Folce DeparraerK, Seostmoer 2317 .=age •: cr" O

CPD MANAGEMEN I OF SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS REVIEW


3. te evaluated by superilsorvs) wha may consult with ctirer supervisors re member has worked «ah If the member has merited for mere than cue supervisor ipjrT-a the evaluation period.
S. Performance Dimensions
There are five performance dV-enslGns used In the evaluation of a me-Jber's job performance:
AccountablSty) Depend abttly:

TaSes respsnsibiiSy far Job performance in the assigrjrent area and far Dcvrim&TiEnls, adScns, and derision:
Warts effectively with, minimal supervision and show's tnSaBve by foiiowfog Ssrouuh on assignments wttvout proiTiplir.o.
Adheres to war* schedules and ccvTip'etes work aclMBes In a timely manner.
Prabies Solving f Decision rttaking:
a- Recognizes and diagnoses problems accurately, effcceveiy, and In a rtoeiy manner.
Identities S-* need tor KormaScn and 'ahere to rind It, usiig an open mind to evaluate the relevance and accuracy of the Information.
Collects and organizes Information and naSes va5d and tttrely decisions using sound judgment to provide aitemaBve sotuttons io problems.
AdapcabStfy / Respans^eness:
a Adapts rapidly and easfy la changing demands arid drcuraslances.
b- Malrrtahs cairn and dfcpiays restrain* and perseverance when faced with 'unexpected obstacles, opposition, or hostility.
Communication;
a. Presents information In a we§-orgarized manner, speaks and writes ciesiy, and understands tr* meaning or spoken and written l.nfcnriatsori.
b„ Makes a conscious effart to listen, analyze, arid effectVety resoand to what others say and relates to others by demonstrabng diplomacy and tact.
5. Job KncwteJge I Pmfessionaj Develop/Tienl:
a. . Has knoflfedge of relevant taws, Department policies and procedures, and
techniques related to (ob assignment and applies &ls knowledge when perfars-^ng job acSvSes.
b. Seeks- cut learning opportorJBss and continually develops pre'essionas skit: and
knowledge.
c. Uses feedback from others to hirther develop Knowledge and skills.
C Evaiuabon Categories
There are four categories used to evaluate a merrJoers job peffararance far eacn cf tr.e perforrrance dirensions:
Exoeedc Expectations: TT-e member consistently olspMeetc Expectations The -ember meets |ce performance expectations for this d»ner<5»n.
Requires Improvarnenl: The member wok Improve jab performance te meet expectations
for this dimension.
¦i. UnaooeptaJjla: The .-.emoer faSs lo meet jot perfcir-ance enpectaoora for this dimension.

EE5-D1 ,=en"orrrar>:e EvaSuatorts of AS Sworn Eepartment .^tatters below the Cumeni as cf I' Sescerrsoer 23)7:1113 Its Rank cf 3upert-tef>der
«Crteagc-;=cJceOeparrTent, SepiemE*r2D17 Page-j of "i3

PACE 32

CPD MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS REVIEW


D, Overai Performance evaluation Category
A member^ overai performance evaiuaBon category will bs based an Sis evaluations received rbr each of the *ve performance dimensions.
Described betow is a sumi~ary erf criteria associated w£-> a members overaa perTarrTiance evaluation category.

p^SSiCategory;.;; ''.'¦.¦te--;r/.' ' ,1 ¦ f$i PeiflafmanceEya^ Cabegofes for members ibelaw rankifc£|Jj ¦V;:--'i'i--;sfis^^&"'-iC--sergeant ' • , . .
Erceeds Expectations Majority of lndl«1dual dimension evaluations are "Exceeds Expectations." No ridtvidaal dimension evatiaborss of Unacceptable" or "Requires Impravement" - ESIglblB former"! consideration and special assignments.
Meets Expectations Malcrity cf IndWdual dimension evaluations are at least "Meets Expectations." No more ttian one Individual dimension evaluation of "UrsacceptaKe" or 'Requires ImprovervenL" A second year win an "Unacceptable" evaluation on the same dimension wil place tne member in the c-vera! 'Requires Improvement" evaUatcn category. - BlglblB for setit considerabon and special assignments.
Requires iSrprcvsment Majority of Individual dimension evaluations are "REquires Impravement" No more iftan l»c individual dimension evaluations of "Unacceptable." -Three cansearivE years cf "Requires feprcvement* Overall Perrarmance Evaiuabans wil pfcsce trie member n the "UnaccEptable* categciry and no salary slip Increase will te given. - Nc4 allglble for merit consideration, special asslgnmEnts, or special employment.
Unacceptable Three or more Individual dlrension evaluations of "Unacceptable." - No salary sap recreate. - Nol allQlble for merit consideration or specs! as:ignrrents, special empioyment, or wcrting seconcary employ—enl. - Two consecutive years at "JnacrepiaPie" Overall Fejfcrmance Evafjabans w3 result :Sr» charges bekvg Tied to ttrmlnabe «-pioyment based cn Incompetency or fcES'iclency In performance of duty.
XI. RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THE PES SYSTEM
A. DIsTsCfijrJt commanding officers wit
1. monitor the ? =-2 process to ensure that it is admnstered fainy and Is conducted equitably oy superiors unoer their command.


EE5-31 re-farrsirvtE SvaSualons of .*S Swam Department fJerixn oeiw the O/rert as cf 11 Sectemoer 2317:1153 im Ran* cf Siterrtiencfcm
; Chicago =oic: Icpan-er; Seotemier 2317 Page m a*-13

CPD MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS REVIEW
review evaluations sobrnJUted hy designated supervtsore under tnetr comssand and Indicate concurrence or ron-concurrence with Ihe evaluation Jesuits. If the district I unit commar.dfrg oScer:

concurs with a performance evaiuaBon, the evaluation will te approved-
t- daes not poseur with a performance evaluation, the evaluation Mil be returned ta tve designated supervisor for segments supporong ihe evaluation anoVor revisions s necessary.
designate 8ve appropriate unit supervisor to oversee Ire PE3 process for thefe- watm.

Designated unit supervisors wl5:

averse; fne PES process for their watch.
ensure that
a- ratings are entered bra the PES and are forwarded to the d&BicI! unit commandfcg officerfcr review.
any member transferred Into the unit during tne quarter of that nresT; tier's performance evaluation period receives an evaluation that reflects the re>—.befs performance for 1he entire evaluation period and not onry for the Kme spent in the new uriit
IdenBfy whlcfi supervisors wil provide eacfi Department member's performance evaluation ar>d £b performance feeflback during any quarter.
i. print ere prell-'nary raltrags to be reviewed and lead She performance evaluation review session.
Reviejvfrg supervisors wil:

be notified of whScti members are 1a receive Bieir yeahy performance evaiuason one month prior to ttte rrfonlh the evaluations are due.
tndependentry consider ttie &to perfarrHance or each idsnBfed sworn merrioer under Bteir command.
review performance JiformaBon contained in tre rrember's pcrt/clio wSrin the Perfterr*ance Recognition System and contact the merribers supervisors In previous units of assignments ,' Petals, if Bie men-Joer was assigned .' detailed 1a another urit for a period of twenty-eight days or more during She evatobon period, to provide an accurate assessment of job. perfom:>ance.
-. tndepenidenby provide preltsifeartfy evaluaScns for members designated for Bieir review and entej a pretmlnary rating far each dimension.
5. participate ft a performance evaiuaton review session, uncier ere olrecflon cf the dts'gnated unit supervisor (unit commattding officer, lo:
a, review and dScuss the;
iTi the Jab performance of ar.y member for who- there is a divergent raring cri ore or more dimensions.
(21 specfTc events tnat support tfe preliminary performance rating ffiey gave for ire dl-ensionfsl m question.
b . Kjpnort their ratiigs wtBs specific examples as to wl-y rey gave a particular rating for any member under discussion.
evaluate each affected merrier with: Sve oa.$ecc've of reaci-ing a consensus on the appropriate rating for each divergent -performance evaluation dimension.
EB5-31 Perrcrrronce =valuators of Al Sworn Department JJereters cefov; the Rank cf aiiicerrtenctet
* Chicago =o.1ce CeparrTer.c, Septemoer 2217
'fjurrerrt as cf 11 Seocemoer 2317:1113 ris Page i % of -13

CPD MANAGEMfc-.N I OF SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS REVIEW


D. Supervisors designated 1a provide members wfHi their overall perfcrrvanpe evaluation wil:
provvcto fab portormanca feedback to mambors rocaiv.'ng a partotmanca ava/aatian.
propjrpa PortotmancirtmpfOYmrmtPfart(PiP\ tf any m-ar-ibcrjpcaivoa aroHng toranr partormanca dimension in (ho 'ftfUfulrvs imprcvament'tir 'Itnatcoptabfo" catofjory.
XM. R EVIEW OF EVALUATIONS sFOR MEM BERS BELOW THE RANK OF S ERGEANT
2-*orn members:

Hill have access ta review their evaluations for each dimension and tneir overall pertons-anre evaiuaBon.
ttJtiase Job performance fas bean evaluated wSl aotept or reject the^ perterrriance evaluation In Bie FES.
The evaiuator wil provide led performance feedbad! to members recefriig a perfarrssnce evaluation at the conclusion of ire radng period and wQ cover the following areas:

Eve resu2 at the perfbn~~ance eviuat cn Just cccipieted;
&* level of performance eapected;
evaiuaBon criteria or goals for die new reporting period; and
¦i, career suggestions rctasrve to such topics as advancement, speclaizaBon, or trateng appropriate for ihe employee^ oosiBan. The evaluating supervisor w!l fadlSate a rsterasoer's career choices. ccrapreJanston of career goals, and achievement of career goats Srcugh meanitgfjl and vielHr/formed choices.
If a member does not accept a rattog for an individual dtrension or tee overall perfamssnce evaluation, fre superviscrvri" dccumeril foal Ihe menJ&er has re.5ected £ve evaluation in BieFSE.
The designated unit supervisorAonlS coosnndteg offlcer'all:

review ai rejected: performance evaluations;
Interview Uie nember regardinff his or her rejection of the evaiuaBon and verbaly Infer:- Bie mesTiber of ere appeal process that may be exercised wlUiln seven ciendar days of Bie interview- and
document Bre interview In the FB3 and indicate whether the member continued to reject the evaluation.
XDI. APPEAL PROCESS FOR MEMBER BELOW THE RANK OF SERGEANT A. Primary
3wom CepartT.ent members rriay:

appeal tf*ir overai peiformance evaiuaBon and Bieir performance dteensicn assessments.
.request a revle* oi tftetr performance evaluation by Bie district < urit command tig officer. The mec^e,'wis document the reasons for rejection of ire evaiuaBon within the PES within seven calendar days of Uie date the me— ter reviewed and refused to accept the overail performance evaluation rating.
Cisthct'unlt oa- manding officers vsll:
a . review resected performance evaluations.
b. conduct an appeal meeting wir> tns member to discuss the perfaiT7rSiTvce evaiuafoan.
In response te' a request for a review -of a peiformance evaluation, the distfieVun* ccmmar.diig officer may require written reports tree- any Individual oeered appropriate. The

EOE-DI rerfanrarxe SvaSjiScns of .Al &Aom Deparimen! A,fe_cers Eei-ow tne a/reni as cf 1 !> Eeptemoer 2317:11 "3 irz Rank cf Sucerte^deT
•S Chicago-.-oJ at Depart-twa; Seo&moer 2017 Page o";3

CPD MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS REVIEW


decision ot Uie dstrict'uni commanding eacer as to the appropriate rarrnfl is final tar any rating other than "Unacceptable" ana wil db documented in re automated system.
B. Final Level Ssiiew
I*a member's overall performance evaluation rating ret7»a'n: "Unacceptable' after Tie Dnmary appeal w£n the dlsaicttj-it commanding officer, the merJcer may request a secondary review with ere appropriate deputy chief, via the PES, within seven calendar days ol the date die meTibtr .reviewed and refuted to accept the overai performance evaluation ratrsg by the district/unf: coitnrn- andSng officer.
In response » a request for a review of a performance evaluation, eve deputy chief may require written reports from any Individual deerted appropriate. The decision of the deputy chief as to the appropriate rating Is *nal and wil be documented in tire autamated system.


Authenticated try; KC
Kev*5 Navarro
Acting Superintendent of Police
S3 15-D31



























EES-31 .-erf-rrra-ii:- iEvaCuBions of .K) Swcvn Department Me-cer. beiaw the Ctmni as of 1H Sepr-moer 2317:1113 rvs
Par i. cf 3 n>errter>aem
¦i Cr.cagc role; Cepart-er;; Seoar.cer 2317 Page : t cr ' 3



PAGE 36

CPD MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS REVIEW
XI. APPENDIX D: LIST OF SCHOOLS SROs WERE ASSIGNED TO DURING THE 2017-2018 SCHOOL YEAR (OBTAINED FROM CPS)

SY 17 School List
i i : Police | District School Name Address
| 001 Jones College Prep 700 S State St Chicago IL 60605
; 001 Dunbar H.S. 3000 S King Dr Chicago IL 60616
\ 002 Phillips 244 E Pershing Rd Chicago IL 60653
[ 002 Martin Luther King 4445 S Drexel Brvd Chicago IL 60653
002 Chicago Milit Acad 3519 S Giles Ave Chicago IL 60653
r 002 DuSable Leadership Academy 4934 S Wabash Ave Chicago IL 60615
i 002 i Kenwood Academy 5015 S Blackstone Ave Chicago IL 60615
| 002 Dyett H.S. 555 E. 51st Street Chicago IL 60615
003 Hyde Park 6220 S Stony Island Ave Chicago IL 60637
| 004 Chicago Vocational 2100 E 87th St Chicago IL 60617
' 004 Bowen 2710 E 89th St Chicago IL 60617
: 004 Washington 3535 E 114th St Chicago IL 60617
| 005 Harlan 9652 S Michigan Ave Chicago IL 60628
005 Corliss 821 E 103rd St Chicago IL 60628
005 Carver Milit Acad 13100 S Doty Ave Chicago IL 60627
006 Hirsch Metro 7740 S Ingleside Ave Chicago IL 60619
006 Simeon 8147 S Vincennes Ave Chicago IL 60620
007 South Side Occup 7342 S Hoyne Ave Chicago IL 60636
007 Hope College Prep 5515 S Lowe Ave Chicago IL 60621
007 Robeson 6835 S Normal Blvd Chicago IL 60621
007 Englewood 845 W 69th St Chicago IL 60621
007 Harper 6520 S Wood St Chicago IL 60636
007 Lindblom 6130 S Wolcott Ave Chicago IL 60636
008 Curie 4959 S Archer Ave Chicago IL 60632
008 Goode 7651 S Homan Ave Chicago IL 60652
008 Gage Park 5630 S Rockwell St Chicago IL 60629
008 Hubbard 6200 S Hamlin Ave Chicago IL 60629
008 Bogan 3939 W 79th St Chicago IL 60652

PAGE 37

CPD MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS REVIEW

Police District School Name Address
r 008 Kennedy 6325 W 56th St Chicago IL 60638
008 Hancock 4034 W 56th St Chicago IL 60629
008 Solorio 5400 S St Louis Ave Chicago IL 60632
" 009 Kelly 4136 S California Ave Chicago IL 60632
" 009 Richards 5009 S Laflin St Chicago IL 60609
009 Tllden 4747 S Union Ave Chicago IL 60609
" 009 Air Force Academy 3630 S Wells St Chicago IL 60609
009 Back of the Yards 2111 W 47th St Chicago IL 60609
010 Farragut 2345 S Christiana Ave Chicago IL 60623
010 Collins 1313 S Sacramento Dr Chicago IL 60623
010 Little Village 2620 S Lawndale Ave Chicago IL 60623
11 Westinghouse 3223 W Franklin Blvd Chicago IL 60624
" 011 Manley 2935 W Polk St Chicago IL 60612
r 011 Marshall 3250 W Adams St Chicago IL 60624
' 011 Al Raby 3545 W Fulton Btvd Chicago IL 60624
" 011 Orr 730 N Pulaski Rd Chicago IL 60624
012 Clemente 1147 N Western Ave Chicago IL 60622
012 Whitney Young 211 S Laflin St Chicago IL 60607
012 Crane Tech 2245 W Jackson Blvd Chicago IL 60612
012 Juarez 2150 S Laflin St Chicago IL 60608
012 Wells 936 N Ashland Ave Chicago IL 60622
015 Douglass 543 N Waller Ave Chicago IL 60644
015 Austin H.S. 231 N Pine Ave Chicago IL 60644
015 Michelle Clark 5101 W Harrison St Chicago IL 60644
016 Taft 6530 W Bryn Mawr Ave Chicago IL 60631
016 Foreman 3235 N LeClaire Ave Chicago IL 60641
017 Von Steuben 5039 N Kimball Ave Chicago IL 60625
017 Roosevelt 3436 W Wilson Ave Chicago IL 60625
017 Carl Schurz 3601 M Milwaukee Ave Chicaao IL 60641






PACE 38

CPD MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS REVIEW

Police District School Name Address
017 North Side Prep 5501 N Kedzie Ave Chicago IL 60625
018 Lincoln Park 2001 N Orchard St Chicago IL 60614
\ 018 Ogden 1250 W Erie St Chicago IL 60642
019 Lake View 4015 N Ashland Ave Chicago IL 60613
019 Lane Tech 2501 W Addison St Chicago IL 60618
U 019 Uplift 900 W Wilson Ave Chicago IL 60640
;: 020 Amundsen 5110 N Damen Ave Chicago IL 60625
j 020 Mather 5835 N Lincoln Ave Chicago IL 60659
| 020 Senn 5900 N Glenwood Ave Chicago IL 60660
s 022 Morgan Park 1744 W Pryor Ave Chicago IL 60643
r 022 Percy Julian 10330 S Elizabeth St Chicago IL 60643
022 Christian Fenger 11220 S Wallace St Chicago IL 60628
% 024 Sullivan H.S. 6631 N Bosworth Ave Chicago IL 60626
025 Kelvyn Park 4343 W Wrightwood Ave Chicago IL 60639
025 Prosser 2148 N Long Ave Chicago IL 60639
025 Steinmetz 3030 N Mobile Ave Chicago IL 60634
«. 025 North-Grand H.S. 4338 W Wabansia Ave Chicago IL 60639






















PAGE 39
CPD MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS REVIEW
XII. APPENDIX E: EXTENSION LETTER



Rahm Emanuel
Mayor
Department of Folic* • Cily of Chicago 3S10S. Michigan Avenue • Chicago, Illinois60653
Eddie T, Johnson Superintendent of Pol ice

Joseph M, Ferguson Inspector Genera! Office of the Inspector General 740 North Sedgwick, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60654
July 27,2018
Reference; Review of the Chicago Police Department's Management of School Resource Officers Dear Inspector General Joseph M. Ferguson:
This correspondence serves as the Chicago Police Department (CPD)'s request for an extension of thirty (30} days in order to respond to the above-referenced report. Additional time is needed to confer with representatives of the Chicago Public Schools concerning the recommendations delineated in the report issued 18 July 2018. Should the CPD's extension request be granted, its response would be due 4 September 2018. (September 1st falls on the weekend and Labor Day is 3 September)

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Deputy Director Tina Skahill of the Office of the General Counsel at (312) 745-6115.

Sincerely,

Eddie T. Johnson Superintendent of Police





PAGE 40
CPD MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS REVIEW
XIII. APPENDIX F: DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TO OIG


iDi'HJirlriKnl ofl'nlifc ¦ i:ityarCh\t*)S9

Ssptcaibci 4,2&SS

losi'ph M. Ferguson
Inspector General
Cicy of Chicago
Office of I itsgretdir Genera)
?4t> North Sedgwick Slreet, Suite 200
Chicago, Illinois 606:-!

Dear InsjiL'ckii Ocneral Ferguson'.
This l«uer k in response ?o tic City ofChtago Office of Inspector General'* fQJG") report entitled. Review. of the CW\cn\jn I-'qElcc. Deufliwiem Management of School Resource Officers} (July I&20I8).

Maintaining anil prcsnnthi^ ihe safely iind security of diiMren, teachers, and oilier staff nf Chicago PuWfc Schools f CPS") Is of^ai importance lo the Chicago Notice Department ("CPD" or •'Ucpartmeiic"). CPD las dcnionsiaaied! an iin-goitigsoranrilmciM to tltose efliwts by deploying copious »cw>Hrecs4ind pamdrog police officer* sti Uaigmctod school* to enhance Safely und deter crime." Et is in this tight, 1hai CPD exjxesses its appiKximjon lo the OIG for providing iheir evaluation of the Department'* School Rcsouiee OflWcSRO") program. We thank you iW yimr patience while we rtvidwed the report. Wo haw As yoit kitftw, Cl'O is presently engaged in ihc latterstage*ofiicgoliattonaiJiai will lend W a consent decree wr.h the Illinois Attorney General's Of fit*, litis serious undertaking will align our operational ftoaian* with hevi practices ond eoBSiituu'onal policing. To achieve fitos* goal*, tfw ^ralU consent dcciec will rvu,uire Hint CPD reform its SRO program by formally adopting a comprehensive docUine of policies that reflect unii.wial best practices for school resource officer programs. Aller reviewing the OIG's icpon. Cl'D is pleased lo find ihai the rev istorci in our current policies by tlio draft ecmsrait decree rclatusg to tfte Sl-tO program wiil miaor the OlG's rLvru in greater •::;:(-ii I below.

Recommendation Hi: CPD dra.fi and itisplemrai a Mcmorandaai of Under^uljny, (\10iJ ) in collaboration with CPS .and cominuniiy stakeholders Ibst establishes a comprehensive program, and ihai outlines the roles and icspiJiisibitifc of CPU.
Department KcspciM«: Oil- Department agrees with ttiis rvuwnwndption. Pukumi to ihe: draft consent decree, the Department will before ill*.- 20l*)-2(l2n school year begins, undertake best efforts to enter into a n:t-nn-T:in:li:in t>i'understanding with (T'S, thai clearly delineates an-ihurity irad specifies
r.ntr;;r,i^ mil l'n->i.|.| I.»«. arrti, mil 1TV: hriihiwhr iWhki > I I \« Ka^-ivi mllTf V; |„."5f:< ' ...i-. •!.'. r|f. i-:t.; ~
i; Jil*i): ^.:i"LV>>>'.y.;i^iuii:0.[TF. • Vr*t,.il:*; " :H»^il^.^>U:^.,;(;i:|.jtirL:



PACE 41

CPD MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS REVIEW


procedures lb? CPD alTivei iitieraciipit with stadems while 0:1 school grounds, consistent with the law.
bes* pfaciiccs, and '.hi.* Airrciiincitl.

Rewnrtuietidiiiiini M2: Cl'D should formally otiUiiK she SRO's rales awl responsibilities, which shall eoiiCJiit an explicit pr^xihiiion of SRO* from inimeiring In rtHituw student disciplinary macteis.
Department Response: The DepunrncDt agree* vviiti this recommendation. Before ihe 2019-2021) •«hw.>l yenr begins-, in consultation vrtth CPS, CPD will develops policy ftat clearly defines Ihe roles, responsibilities aitd appropriate actions of SROs, and which will include an express prrohililrion on the adisiioUifalkin ofschoi.il discipline bv CPD otltcers. The policy will tc-flea be*' practices and will c-on-iain inc coliecti«iv, analysis, mi use ofdaia recording, CPD activities; in CPS schools.

Recpmnteodalion #3; CPD have formal SRO reeruilrrtent, election, and placement process and si4iniinn,is. Crease hiring guidelines tlsat hem on nffiQcrs, qualifications fear working wliSi young people irs a school environment
Department Respond: Tin: Departniiejit concurs with this rceonitfiscndaiion, Iks consent dctfce will require Ihai before ihe 201%2<>20school year bcgiisa, in ctMUtittaiit'in with CPS. CPD will develop and implement screening criteria to ensure Dial ail offices assigned lo work in CPS schools lave the qitalilications, skills, and abilities necessary tuwk safely and effectively wtihsutkntsi, parents, pii!rJi*rvs, and school pcrionnel. Only CPD officer* who satisfy Ihe- sceocning criteria will & nssnjraed (o \\\>rk i.n CPS schools.

Rf£i>iiiaieitdatitm H4: CMH should ctfuWiish policies requiring school.specific training for officers hefoe they l>igir> wjrtttng as -SRQS, as well as iegoist refresher tr;nnb.gs< 'Hicse trainings aliotild emphasis ahcmitfives to arresting snidtntft as well as topics such as. constilutlettal and civil rijjliis, childhood and adolescent dfivrfopmcni, ago-ajipropriale response lo i-ludeni conduct, diwbility and special education Biue.s conlliei resolution ond de-escalatiosi techniques, restorative; justice, techniques, and inlciattiiig with .specific sludent groups such as jhosc with iimiiai! English proficiency or who art lesbian., gay, hiscMial or (rnftigesidcr.
Department Response; The DepartmejM concur* wiili this wtfommendation. As such, under the dr.sft consent dscree-. CPD has already CDitimiued to ensuring that ali officers assisted t« w«rk in CPS schools will receive speeiali/d initial iind annual refresher training iliat is \i; {3)school-based legal iopicji.(2>culiuTii| competency .{3) proMeni-solvingypl) de-est;ibiion,(5) use of restorative approaches, (fahsahility issues. fTichildhood and adolescent development, {&) crisis isiie?i,eiiiinn4, and {>>j methods i'nd tievttegics that create positive itrtenjetien* with specific student groups »«di as fee who aic IXiiJ'LQlA individuals^ a person ofcolcr. have limited Kaglish fsKificiovcy, or who are. experiencing hoiiiclc^.-ies.'i.
AildijLoiKilly, xvYicn interne liny: with youih, CPD will uncoupijifi nijiecrs 10-exercise diicietiiin to use nlierntnives to arresi and ahefisatiu-5 io referral tojtiv«nitc court sncliMling, but nolltoiifcd lo; issuing wvimings. arid providing u.cidimce; sefijeral lo community services and re^cmrccs
I:.ai.-.'; ncy m4 ft V: i;M



PACE 42

CPD MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOL RESOUPCE OFFICERS REVIEW

drug trtauneii-1, mentoring, and cotin&sh'ng CKgaiii/sitiojis,. cducaUona! services and other ajicncics; station atijt!stnicr.il5; and. civil ehaianns.

Rectunmtndatioji &Sj CPD should ifeignaic u program co&fdiiiauir id enhance oac-idinalioa atid jiccoytwibiliiy.
Department R*>pi>nse; Al Ihe present time, the SRO pt-ognan functions under the Bureau of Patrol, The Department wiji gfvs care fid consideration to this rcromsncndasKra fof a pta-gram coordinate? for the SRO program moving forward.

The new practices CPD will mil in place m meet the terms of the forthcoming consent decree track very close with the OICs reeomtutridaiknKj. In Ditl, nearly all of the OJO's rttfommerdalEoiis are incorporated irtio ihe tenuis of the -diaft eoisstrnt &eice-,
The Chieap Police Department is ecttain ihai it will deliver on wealing a strong SRO program reeled in jSrtmirsliiji between CPD and CPS, tlsat meets national kest practice*standards, and pnjWcts sSutk-nts' civil rights, Nonetheless, the Department welcomes the opportunity to discuss with ycu any of ihe recommendations thai you do n«i« believe we have addressed by ihU Micror by the draft conscait decwe.

Superimeiidcn? of Police
















irriyro mtj Tl V: M-i ¦ Nm ejki'ith v tni TTV; ' ••"l-.fi GiJ iiflllsi 3-1-1 - ?Vuii Kmrrprro. ,m| if I V; (outSntt-cilV liriiiiVsi I -I "-IMOif i




PAGE 43

MISSION
The City of Chicago Office of Inspector General (OIG) is an independent, nonpartisan oversight agency whose mission is to promote economy, efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity in the administration of programs and operations of City government. OIG achieves this mission through,
administrative and criminal investigations by its Investigations Section;
performance audits of City programs and operations by its Audit and Program Review Section;
inspections, evaluations and reviews of City police and police accountability programs, operations, and policies by its Public Safety Section; and
compliance audit and monitoring of City hiring and employment activities by its Hiring Oversight Unit.

From these activities, OIG issues reports of findings and disciplinary and other recommendations to assure that City officials, employees, and vendors are held accountable for violations of laws and policies; to improve the efficiency, cost-effectiveness government operations and further to prevent, detect, identify, expose and eliminate waste, inefficiency, misconduct, fraud, corruption, and abuse of public authority and resources.

AUTHORITY
OIG's authority to produce reports of its findings and recommendations is established in the City of Chicago Municipal Code §§ 2-56-030(d), -035(c), -110, -230, -240, and -250.

Cover image courtesy of Creative Commons