RIPA board to review POST field‑training program; urges continued review of stop‑data disparities

Angela Sierra, co‑chair of California’s Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board, told the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training on Aug. 28 that the board will devote two years to reviewing POST’s field‑training program and report back with potential recommendations.

The board, created under the RIPA statute enacted in 2015, also urged continued cooperation with POST as it reviews and certifies instruction on bias and racial‑identity profiling for law enforcement. “The disparities do signify that racial and identity profiling do remain a significant problem in California,” Sierra said during the commission meeting.

Sierra outlined the board’s work: it annually analyzes stop data submitted to the California Department of Justice, reviews POST‑certified bias training, and convenes researchers and law‑enforcement experts to interpret the numbers. The board told commissioners it will focus its initial year on collecting and reviewing materials about POST’s field­-training program, and employ two consultants — a law‑enforcement executive and an academic researcher — to help evaluate whether the field training officers’ role and the program’s content can be strengthened.

Mark Nagel, a POST law‑enforcement consultant, separately briefed commissioners on draft racial‑and‑identity‑profiling course guidelines developed to meet statutory mandates. Nagel said those instructor guidelines were prepared under the direction of SB 1102 and AB 953, which created the RIPA board and directed POST to set statewide training standards. The draft guideline, Nagel said, reflects 10 years of stop‑data analysis and incorporates input from law enforcement, civil‑rights organizations and community groups.

Sierra said the board has begun working with POST and expects an early report in 2026 that will summarize the board’s review of field‑training materials and identify issues to evaluate in a second year. The board also intends to report which prior recommendations it made to POST were accepted and which were not, and why.

Commissioners asked for more frontline perspective in RIPA reviews. Several commissioners urged the board to hear from rank‑and‑file officers and field‑training officers — those who collect and enter stop data — to understand operational burdens and how reporting requirements play out on patrol. Sierra said the board has heard from agency executives and is open to arranging ride‑alongs and direct contact with data‑entry personnel. Commissioner feedback emphasized the difficulty of accurately entering detailed stop data in high‑workload settings and suggested ride‑alongs be scheduled with highly active officers so observers see a representative workload.

Why it matters: The RIPA board’s work directly informs POST’s oversight of bias‑related training and how the state measures the effect of that training. The board’s conclusion that disparities persist — and its two‑year review of field training — may lead to proposed changes in academy and in‑service curriculum that POST must consider when certifying courses.

What’s next: The advisory board plans to publish an initial report in early 2026 and a fuller two‑year evaluation thereafter. POST staff and commissioners said they expect to remain engaged during the board’s review as draft recommendations emerge.

Ending: Commissioners and POST staff said they welcome continued, early engagement with RIPA as it forms its recommendations and will provide practical input about the feasibility and likely operational impact of changes to POST‑certified training.