Assignment Prompt & Instructions
respond to dqs
**Part I: Case Brief:**
For this exercise, the Robb Elementary School shooting in Uvalde, Texas, is a very good example of how officials would give inaccurate information following the shooting. Because of how egregious that public trust was violated in this example, officials' response to rebuilding is a challenging task, requiring transparency, accountability, ongoing dialogue, and reform. For this reason, it makes for an excellent choice for this exercise. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs (2024), an incident review of the response at Robb Elementary on May 24, 2022, found that a former student would enter Robb Elementary School and begin opening fire. Nineteen students and two teachers would die as a result, with an additional seventeen others injured. What was most concerning about this incident is the delayed response by authorities in confronting the shooter, waiting seventy-seven minutes from their arrival to the time they would confront the shooter. Following the incident, authorities would make several statements that were, at the very least, inaccurate, misinformed, and inconsistent. Upon the release of the DOJ report, communication was deemed one of the most significant mishandlings in this situation. Several questions arose, such as who was in charge? Why did officers wait? Why did statements change over time? From a public standpoint, the briefings following this shooting were more about authorities protecting themselves than about transparency to the public.
**Part II: Legitimacy and Communication Analysis:**
In connecting this case to procedural justice and legitimacy, Gilbert et al. (2015) discuss the importance of recognizing that officials have a duty to treat victims, families, and the public with dignity and respect. Officials in this case need to remember that the public has a voice in the matter and that when decisions are made appropriately, logically, and reasonably, this creates a sense of trust and confidence in the officials' actions. In the case of Uvalde, TX, authorities would make several inaccurate statements and provide inaccurate information. Officials' statements not only confused the community but also caused concern about their honesty. This had a tremendous effect on the legitimacy of the Uvalde Police Department and the Texas Department of Public Safety, as there was a sense that they were not forthcoming with information and were instead attempting to minimize their own harm.
The President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing (2015) discusses public trust and its essential role in policing. The report specifically acknowledges the principles of building trust and legitimacy, as well as policy and oversight, as key areas of reform that agencies should address. When it comes to Uvalde, this is specifically a failure of Pillar I, as communication was neither transparent nor accountable and lacked public engagement. Additionally, through Pillar II, it is recognized that, beyond communication failures, there are failures in agency policy and oversight. In preparation, there should have been an existing plan designating a Public Information Officer, a mechanism for verifying and releasing information, and a plan for correcting errors.
In connecting communication-related principles from Guiding Principles on Use of Force (Police Executive Research Forum [PERF], 2016), it must first be recognized that these principles are guidance for especially critical incidents such as Uvalde. The first of these principles is number twenty-two, which calls for prompt supervisory response to critical incidents to reduce the likelihood of unnecessary force. The DOJ incident review recognized a lack of incident command, as well as a clear decision-maker on scene (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, 2024). Secondly was principle twenty-four, which calls for officers to have access to training and less-lethal options. Again, it was reported that responding officers did not treat the situation as an active shooter incident and, as such, did not use resources effectively or move forward immediately and continuously to eliminate the threat (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, 2024). Finally, principle thirteen calls for agencies to be transparent in providing information following use-of-force incidents. It was reported that there were multiple communications challenges during and after the shooting. This included inaccuracies to responding officers who would arrive on scene and treat the incident as a barricaded subject (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, 2024). Additonally post-incident briefings, where support services were not provided to victims, survivors, family members, and responders (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, 2024).
The U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (2024) provides a toolkit as a mechanism for agencies to use as a resource when it comes to communication, planning, coordination, media response, and recovery from a major incident. Specifically, the toolkit calls for agencies to have protocols in place to confirm and release information, as well as to coordinate public messaging consistently. Secondly, there is an emphasis on communication with families, victims, and the public to provide timely, accurate information. This toolkit would have been exceptionally valuable for an incident like the one in Uvalde, where the first briefing led to public confusion followed by a follow-up briefing that came accross as defensive in the authorities' actions.
**Part III: Trust-Rebuilding Plan**
**Immediate transparency steps:**
In rebuilding trust, the Texas Department of Public Safety needs to correct its timeline. Incrementally, they need to explain to the public what was known and what was unknown during the incident, what information was wrong, and what is currently being investigated. Additionally, officials need to acknowledge the inaccurate and inconsistent information they previously provided and, as such, acknowledge the damage their communication caused. A Public Information Officer needs to be appointed who represents local, state, and federal agencies as well as the school so that the information that is passed along comes accross as a unified message. Additionally, out of respect, families should be the ones to receive verified information before the public and the media. Additionally, as updates become available, they need to be provided; even if there is nothing new to report, the public needs to be kept abreast of what is going on. This connects to the COPS toolkit specifically in confirming and releasing information, as well as for coordinating public messaging consistently. This is especially true for high-profile, sensitive situations such as this one, given its severity.
**Short-term community dialogue mechanisms:**
In developing a short-term community dialogue mechanism, the best course of action would be to hold a private family/victim briefing before a broader public briefing. The meeting should include mental health providers, victim advocates, law enforcement officials, school officials, and community representatives to better answer questions, provide information, and assist with the grief of victims and their families. It would be appropriate for these meetings to be held in locations that both victims and families recognize as institutional staples of their community, rather than in representatives' governmental facilities. Holding a "town hall"-style meeting is appropriate, as it gives those affected a private forum for their concerns and treats them with dignity, rather than a press briefing, where it is handled as a matter of public relations.
**Long-term legitimacy anchors:**
For Uvalde's long-term sustainability and to avoid another briefing like this, all agencies involved need to develop a communications policy. This policy should address how communication is handled, and spell out who the Public Information Officer is, how information is verified (written & Social Media), family/victim notification, and how to handle the correction of inaccurate statements. Additionally, law enforcement should be conducting joint active shooter training/exercises to include schools, telecommunicators, EMS, Fire Department, and neighboring agencies to simulate such an instance if it were to happen again. Additionally, agencies should continuously review this training through after-actions and make necessary policy changes following the completion of each exercise. Long-term family and victim support should be made available to those affected as grief lasts long after the incident has subsided. Each of these steps aligns with the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing (2015), which focuses on trust, legitimacy, policy, and oversight, as well as PERF’s (2016) Guiding Principles on Use of Force, which emphasize building trust and legitimacy, as well as policy and oversight.
Dq2
**Part 1: Case Brief**
The case I chose for this discussion is the Robb Elementary school shooting that happened in Uvalde, Texas in 2022. In 2022, police were alerted to an active shooter alert that was taking place inside of an elementary school. Numerous officers rushed to the location within minutes, but it was nearly an hour and a half later before officers would ever enter the school. What should have been the highest priority somehow turned into a waiting game while 2 teachers and 19 children were killed during the attack. After the shooting, the Uvalde Police Department held a press conference (KSAT 12, 2022) to explain the timeline of events as well as to answer questions from the public about the incident. During the press conference, the primary speaker, Steve McCraw provided the public with an account of the timeline from the initial report until the conclusion. While the information presented to the public was timely and consistent with the timeline of events of what happened, more questions, uncertainty, and mistrust stemmed from the press conference regarding the ability of the Uvalde Police Department to effectively do their job.
Simply put, what remains the topic of conversation surrounding the incident is how could the Uvalde police department stand by while there was an active shooter inside of the elementary school and allow the shooter to continue firing for over an hour without responding. Questions surrounding agency competency, training, policies, and principles were at the forefront of criticisms and questioning from the public. While there were 21 victims, this shooting also affected the entire community and arguably impacted every police department across the U.S. This tragedy serves as an example of how serious training, communication, policies and procedures are to maintaining public trust, legitimacy, and operating effectively.
**Part 2: Legitimacy and Communication Analysis**
While the discussion of the policies and procedures that the Uvalde Police Department should have implemented prior to the incident is somewhat of a moot point, using the incident as an example of the “worst case scenario” will aid the Uvalde Police Department (including law enforcement agencies across the U.S.) in identifying areas that need improvement and should be a priority for the present and to ensure future preparedness. From officers' response to the incident itself and the discussion that took place during the press conference, the biggest priority for the Uvalde Police Department should be to establish and build trust and legitimacy in the public view. Borrowing a key idea from Pillar 1 of the _President's Task Force on 21st Century Policing_, the Uvalde Police Department should consider establishing procedural justice policies within the agency while ensuring to include the community to gather and integrate feedback (President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, p. 29). This would allow the community to see how the Uvalde Police Department is learning and taking accountability for the 2022 Robb Elementary shooting and implementing new strategies to prevent repeating the same mistakes. Additionally, by including the community and allowing for feedback the agency can identify other areas where the community may feel the agency is lacking and work to improve relationships within the community. Lending support to the establishment of procedural justice policies and community feedback, the agency should also increase and enhance training as mentioned in _Procedural Justice and Police Legitimacy_, as a step to rebuilding public trust (Gilbert et al., 2015).
The second highest priority for the Uvalde Police Department should be on identifying and establishing principles that will guide the internal and external reforms that the agency should undergo with particular emphasis on reforming training. Officers’ responses during the shooting and the press conference held afterward highlight key principles that the Uvalde Police Department should have and should presently emphasize moving forward. Utilizing the Police Executive Research Forum’s _Guiding Principles on Use of Force_, the Uvalde Police Department should establish guiding principles to restructure internal and external controls and ensure that future decision-making during crises adheres to the principles of the agency. The first crucial element that the Uvalde Police Department handled poorly which affected community trust is listed as the first guiding principle, “The sanctity of human life should be at the heart of everything an agency does” (Wexler, 2016, p.34). Had the Uvalde Police Department adhered to this principle, there may have been an opportunity to reduce the loss of life that resulted from the shooting. Allowing an active shooter to remain inside the school for nearly 90 minutes while law enforcement en masse is gathered outside of the school with no urgency in providing directives is a primary example of how the agency failed to prioritize the first principle. Arguably, the officers’ response to the incident may have been more effective if the officers had disregarded orders and entered the school acting alone. While the efforts would have been uncoordinated, the response time would have been significantly improved and the active shooter could have been handled.
The second guiding principle that the Uvalde Police Department should establish is listed as #15, “Officers should be trained to use a critical decision-making model” (Wexler, 2016, p.53). Had the Uvalde Police Department established a critical decision-making model prior to the shooting, even if officers failed to rely on previous training and communication, relying on the decision-making model would have provided leadership with the necessary steps to evaluate the information and establish the best course of action to handle the active shooter threat.
For future preparedness efforts the Uvalde Police Department should adopt the _Critical Incident Preparedness Toolkit,_ created by the COPS office under the U.S. Department of Justice, to evaluate the current preparedness of the agency and to guide all policy and training adjustments (U.S. Department of Justice, n.d.). The Uvalde Police Department should share this toolkit with all major response agencies in the community with particular training efforts dedicated to working alongside school staff so that in the event of a crisis everyone involved knows what steps to take to protect human life. Implementing the toolkit as a yearly assessment will ensure that the agency is continuously prepared for any crisis and that they are well equipped to effectively work together.
**Part 3: Trust- Rebuilding Plan**
1. Immediate transparency steps:
Some immediate steps that the Uvalde Police Department can take to rebuild trust in the community are to issue the public release of information regarding the 2022 shooting and to establish either a forum or website dedicated to transparency regarding reports, timelines and actions, and any after incident reviews that may have taken place following the tragedy. Next, the agency should initiate an independent oversight review of the incident, officers’ actions, and agency procedures for errors or other contributing factors that resulted in the agency’s overall failure. Lastly, the agency must take accountability for everything that went wrong during the incident. Moving beyond an official written statement, the agency must publicly announce other steps that will be taken to take accountability for the incident and to establish public trust.
1. Short-term community dialogue mechanisms:
Short term mechanisms to increase community dialogue following the incident would be to create community listening sessions in which the public is encouraged to share feedback (positive and negative) with the Uvalde Police Department regarding the incident and officer’s actions. The listening sessions should serve to allow the community a platform to be heard while offering constructive feedback that the agency can work toward corrective actions. The next step would be to establish a community advisory council composed of teachers, mental health professionals, community representatives, and if possible the victims’ families. By including a variety of community members to serve as a community review and advisory board, law enforcement is able to implement changes and programs that would directly assist the community. The last step for the agency would be to establish community and school partnerships (with the assistance of the community advisory council) that are targeted as building positive relationships with the community and ultimately rebuilding trust in the agency.
1. Long-term legitimacy anchors:
Some long-term steps to rebuilding trust in the agency are to reform and enhance training and professional standards. As mentioned in #24 in the _Guiding Principles on Use of Force_, “scenario-based training should be prevalent, challenging, and realistic” (Wexler, 2016, p. 70). On-going training that is both realistic and challenging is a great way to ensure that officers are prepared for any scenario. Training should be continuous and not limited to annual sessions to meet performance standards. Officers should be mandated to undergo various types of training frequently to reinforce policies and standards for crisis response. The second step that goes alongside on-going training standards is continuous performance measurement. Officers should frequently be evaluated to ensure they are meeting professional standards and are well equipped to perform their job at all times. Establishing measurable indicators to evaluate performance aids in building public trust and confidence in the agency as a whole. The last step that should be implemented by the agency as a long-term anchor is establishing public transparency and accountability meetings to share with the public how effective any changes are within the agency, discuss progress with reform efforts, and to continuously gather recommendations from the public about areas of improvement.
– 7.5