Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Perf Data Reporting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
PAB members say PERF study shows reporting gaps; officials urge cautious interpretation
Summary
St. Mary's County PAB members reviewed preliminary Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) findings presented to state officials and raised concerns that inconsistent county reporting limits the study's utility. Members expect fuller data and statewide charts in June and discussed scheduling a future review.
At the May 15 meeting of the St. Mary’s County Police Accountability Board, members and legal staff summarized a recent Police Executive Research Forum presentation commissioned by the governor’s office and said missing county data limits the study’s conclusions.
County attorney John Houser and attendees described PERF’s presentation as a preliminary review of how the Police Accountability Act has affected reporting and case outcomes statewide. Houser said PERF did “a study, from top to bottom of how implementation of the PAB and ACCs are working statewide” and that a second‑phase report was expected in June.
Members who attended PERF’s briefing cautioned against overinterpreting percentage changes because not all counties provided the same categories or levels of detail. One participant who reviewed PERF materials said, “there is so much statistics not being reported by some counties,” and that the lack of uniform reporting “skewed” many comparisons between the old Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights (LEOBR) process and the new Police Accountability Act process.
Nut graf: PERF’s initial findings highlight some changes in allegation categories but board members said gaps in county reporting reduce the study’s immediate usefulness; the board will revisit the data after statewide materials are released.
Members discussed a sample of charts PERF previewed, including allegation categories and disposition distributions. Presenters noted an increase in bias/discrimination allegations under the new reporting framework and mixed results for other categories, but emphasized those figures were based on allegations, not adjudications. The board agreed to place PERF’s final materials on an upcoming agenda and asked staff to distribute documents in advance so members can analyze the charts.
Ending: Staff said PERF’s complete dataset and contact information for the study team will be circulated when publicly available; the PAB planned to revisit the analysis at its August meeting.
