When people have concerns or complaints about potential police misconduct, those concerns need to be heard, investigated, and resolved. At Austin’s Office of Police Oversight (OPO), everything they do is to promote an atmosphere of earned trust between Austinites and the Austin Police Department (APD). Their goal is to make it easy, accessible, and safe for Austinites to provide information and start the process to creating a better safety.
Historically, two-thirds of complaints investigated by Internal Affairs and monitored by the Office of the Police Monitor were internal complaints. Internal complaints are complaints that originated from within the Austin Police Department. The difference between internal complaints and external complaints (those arising from the community) is quite significant. It raised several red flags for Austin’s Police Monitor. It was apparent there are barriers to the complaint process but it was not clear exactly what those barriers were or how to fix them. The Police Monitor enlisted the assistance of the City of Austin’s Service Design Lab and partnered with Austin Tech Alliance, to conduct research on the barriers of the complaint process.
Our Goals
How might we help the Office of the Police Monitor make the complaint process more accessible and responsive to public needs?
Understand how complaint intake, processing, and follow up works including any pain points, opportunities, and/or gaps in these processes
Identify opportunities to address pain points and gaps and test ideas to help the Office of the Police Monitor deliver a more accessible and responsive service.
Who: Service Design Lab / Austin Tech Alliance / Office of the Police Monitor / Austin Police Department
Role: Design/Research (Foundational/usability interviews, Synthesis and ideation of data, service blueprint creation, wireframe creation, Presentation of work and recommendations)
Website: Office of Police Oversight
As the lead service designer with the City of Austin's Service Design Lab 2018-2020, I played a pivotal role in enhancing the police complaint process, focusing on accessibility and community trust aimed at exploring evidence-based best practices for police oversight to improve the effectiveness, transparency, and efficiency of the Office of the Police Monitor (OPM).In the initial planning phase, I assisted to secure funding for the project as well as created full-time equivalent (FTE) positions to support myself as well as OPM to successfully sustain, monitor, and better the new process.
Everything began with a Stakeholder meeting to identify objectives of research, methods to be used and timelines or milestones required. It was during this time I began a project planning document to outline a beginning middle and end, beginning with framing and defining the problem.
Project History
On March 22, 2018, the City Council passed Resolution 20180322-047, directing the City Manager to develop evidence-based best practices for police oversight and report recommendations for improving the system's effectiveness, transparency, and efficiency. In response, the City Manager established the Police Oversight Advisory Working Group (Working Group) to advise on these improvements, tasked with analyzing data, evaluating best practices, and drafting proposals.
The Working Group consisted of 15 members, including representatives from various city departments, community organizations, and oversight agencies. Together we studied oversight practices in cities like San Jose, Seattle, Minneapolis, New Orleans, and Denver, using their findings to inform recommendations based on the twelve core elements of effective civilian oversight outlined by the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE).During our time we discussed challenges and develop recommendations for enhancing the current Austin police oversight system. This research helped to inform the strengths and weaknesses of the various oversight models and together we outlined the 12 Core Elements for an effective police oversight system.
Creation of a Community Panel /Advisory Board
The Working Group supports community participation in civilian police oversight. Community Advisory Boards or CABs are one of the most common forms of police-community engagement bodies in the country. Both progressive leaders of policing agencies and proponents of civilian oversight frequently cite a range of potential benefits of CABS to both the police and the communities they service. There is general agreement in support of a community panel but additional discussion is needed to flesh out the scope, role and responsibilities of the panel/board, leading to the creation of a community panel. Our panel met weekly in the evenings at local community centers and libraries around the city.
Some general guiding principles of the community panel/board include:
Diversity of membership representative of all the communities in Austin.
This panel/board should have the authority and purview to make policy-level recommendations regarding discipline, training, community relations, the complaint process and address any other issues of concern to the community.
Form policy and training recommendations regarding practices of the Austin Police Department.
Review closed Internal Affairs cases where the findings were sustained and led to the discipline of one-day suspension or more.
Review the Travis County District Attorney’s Office declination letters on criminal investigations of APD officers to form potential policy and training recommendations.
Survey
As part of our community outreach, an online survey was created to gain feedback via the City of Austin’s Speak up Webpage. Nearly 600 surveys of six questions were completed before the close date. As demonstrated within the advisory group a wide range of opinions and priorities emerged from the survey.
Current Experience
Shadowing is a useful behavioral observation of a user in their natural environment that provides ideas for further user research. We conducted various scenarios and observed a resident filing a complaint, at the OPM office. Shadowing then lets us understand existing behaviors, pain points in the process etc, so that we can adapt our designs to those behaviors. This also assists with identifying other issues like messaging or physical/environmental obstacles (file the complaint at a police facility, ID Required to enter, lack of parking).
Interview
To successfully set up and conduct UX research in such sensitive environments, I knew I needed to engage in meticulous planning and coordination. I started by developing a detailed project schedule, outlining timelines for each phase of the research to ensure I had ample time for recruitment, interviews, and analysis. Reaching out to diverse user groups required strategic communication, so I crafted tailored outreach messages that would resonate with each demographic, including residents, community leaders, and law enforcement personnel.
Interviews were conducted in person and on location at the OPM office, online, resident homes, grassroot community centers, as well as city hall and police stations. They helped us gain a deeper understanding into people’s behaviors and why they do what they do. This helps identify users’ pain points or struggles to answer your problem statement.
Creating an interview guide was crucial, and I made sure it was adaptable to different user experiences while remaining sensitive to the emotional weight of their stories. I focused on open-ended questions that allowed participants to express their thoughts and feelings freely, as well as prompts to help navigate complex or traumatic experiences without causing distress. Additionally, I recognized the importance of interviewing not only the users but also the staff on the backend who receive and process their complaints. This dual approach helped me understand both the user experience and the systemic challenges faced by those responding to their needs.We explored how all users currently navigate through the system providing an idea of what they consider important, pain points, how they problem solve, and how they feel when interacting with the service.
Throughout this process, I prioritized a trauma-informed approach, regularly reflecting on my emotional state and the ethical considerations involved. This not only safeguarded the well-being of the participants but also enhanced the quality of insights I gathered. I was acutely aware of the emotional weight these conversations carried, especially when fear, safety, or potential repercussions were involved. I made sure to define the project’s scope clearly, establishing explicit goals and non-goals in my planning documents to keep our discussions focused. I realized that conducting a high volume of interviews in such sensitive contexts could be overwhelming and even unethical without proper support. Monitoring my own physical and mental health became crucial, as the emotional toll of these interviews was significant. I learned to balance client expectations with what was reasonable, emphasizing the importance of gathering actionable insights without delving too deeply into participants’ unprocessed experiences. Ultimately, I recognized that creating a safe environment and prioritizing participants’ well-being not only led to richer insights but also contributed to my own growth as a researcher.
Identifying Patterns and Opportunities
In our UX agile research process, we first collected valuable data and then regrouped to analyze it through clustering and theming. This critical analysis allowed us to frame user stories, develop detailed personas, and create journey maps, which ultimately informed our larger front and back end service blueprint. These blueprints traced the experiences of users as they interacted with the service or tool across time and touchpoints, highlighting gaps, pain points, and opportunities for various departments. By honing in on these insights, we empowered teams to leverage information effectively and enhance service delivery.
These insights and findings will later frame our ideation around solutions to address these gaps, pain points, and opportunities. After reviewing our finding and insights, we made sure each recommendation fell under one of these 12 core element categories. The outcome is our recommendations address research insights, using opportunities that correlate with core elements proven to work.
Key recommendations and Outcomes
Independence: Securing stable funding for the OPM to ensure its operational independence.
Complaint Process: Simplifying the filing process and providing multilingual online forms while keeping complainants informed.
Community Engagement and Outreach: Fostering relationships with community organizations and improving communication through town hall meetings.
Transparency: Regular reporting on complaints and investigations and creating an online data portal for public access.
Community Panel/Advisory Board: Evaluating existing oversight panels for effectiveness and resource needs
Complaint Process specific
Community members highlighted several issues regarding the complaint filing process, including the need to visit a single location and restrictions related to identification (e.g., Texas DL/ID).
Accessibility of Intake Forms: Ensure that complaint intake forms are accessible and available at various locations throughout the City of Austin.
Online Complaint Form: Develop an online form that is accessible in multiple languages, allowing for immediate submission of complaints and compliments.
Community Training: Provide training for community members on the complaint intake process to help reach those facing barriers.
Community Engagement: Deputize community members to accept complaints, with the Office of the Police Monitor (OPM) establishing relationships with community organizations for forwarding complaints.
Communication on Complaint Status: Implement a system to keep complainants informed about the progress and outcome of their complaints, compliments, or concerns.
Anonymous Complaints: Accept all complaints, compliments, and concerns, whether sworn or anonymous, including the creation of an online complaint form that does not require a signed affidavit.
Example of insight share-out
Informing and Advocating for Resource
Wireframes and beyond
We conducted Card Sorting exercises to Assess the information architecture (IA) of a website or homepage, Learn how people understand different concepts or ideas, and how they feel about them, Understand where users expect certain content to be found, Get inspiration for labeling and grouping content or ideas.
Design
After finalizing recommendations, securing funding, I created wireframes and conducted collaborative testing with front-end and back-end teams to ensure feasibility. This included:
Create Low-Fidelity Prototypes: Developed rough sketches and wireframes for quick testing.
Conduct Usability Testing: Observed user interactions and gathered feedback for iteration.
Iterate and Refine: Adjusted designs based on user feedback, leading to high-fidelity prototypes.
Validating with Users and testing: Repeated usability testing to ensure our design met user needs.
Begin working closely with engineers during the build process to preserve design intent.
Extensive testing was performed on the high-fidelity prototype, leading to the completion of accurate specifications. We enhanced the mobile interface, making it accessible for users preferring mobile engagement.
Concept Testing / A/B Testing: Early design concepts were presented to users to gather initial feedback, helping shape our design direction based on user insights.
Usability Testing: We observed users interacting with prototypes to identify pain points. After creating low-fidelity prototypes, we conducted usability testing sessions, which informed our design iterations.
By prioritizing user feedback throughout the design process, I ensured that our final solutions aligned with community needs, fostering greater trust in the oversight system. Involving community members enriched our findings and strengthened the relationship between the OPM and the public, demonstrating the effectiveness of user-centered design practices. The project aimed not only to improve the complaint process but also to empower the community by enhancing their engagement with the oversight system.
Prior to release of form, the police monitor received less than 10 complaints filed a month on average since its launch in 2018, 3/4 where internal police complaints. After form launch, first year, the OPM averaged 80 contacts a month, with 94 Thank You’s total, which led to positive police reform. Demographic information is not collected as it is optional.
The Police Oversight Advisory Working Group project exemplifies the application of agile UX research methods to enhance the police oversight framework in Austin. The collaborative nature of the project, combined with a strong focus on user-centered design, resulted in impactful recommendations that improved accessibility and community trust. This case study demonstrates my ability to conduct comprehensive user research, lead design efforts, and collaborate effectively with diverse teams.