Sacramento County Grand Jury • 2025-2026

Sacramento Community Police Review Commission: Window Dressing or Progressing?

Published: June 25, 2026 10 pages
View Original PDF

Findings and Recommendations 8 findings

F1
The City Council and the SPD have not provided the Commission with the ability to have effective community participation, including a public-facing website, dedicated email or other digital presence that links to the Commission, thereby limiting public access to the Commission’s work and reducing transparency (R1).
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The City Council and SPD should take steps to enhance community participation, including establishing a public-facing website and dedicated email address linked to the Commission, by December 31, 2026 (F1).
F2
The City Council’s failure to provide the Commission with an effective process for considering its recommendations limits the ability of SPD, the Council, and the community to evaluate the Commission's recommendations (R2).
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
The City Council should develop and implement procedures for considering Commission recommendations by December 31, 2026 (F2).
F3
The City Code does not require SPD to respond, formally or informally, to Commission recommendations, leaving a void regarding the status of the
Related Recommendations (2)
R3
The City Council should require SPD to provide formal written responses to all Commission recommendations and a timeline for those responses by December 31, 2026 (F3, F5).
R4
The City Council should acknowledge receipt of and the outcome of each Commission recommendation by December 31, 2026 (F3, F4).
F4
The City Council has no consistent process for documenting or publicly communicating the status of Commission recommendations once they are received, which effectively prevents the Council from participating in the process promised by the Commission’s creation (R4, R5).
Related Recommendations (2)
R4
The City Council should acknowledge receipt of and the outcome of each Commission recommendation by December 31, 2026 (F3, F4).
R5
The City Council should establish a formal, public tracking system for the recommendations by December 31, 2026 (F4, F6).
F5
With few exceptions, the City Council simply places Commission recommendations on its consent calendar, which diminishes the recommendations that reflect the community’s involvement (R3).
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The City Council should require SPD to provide formal written responses to all Commission recommendations and a timeline for those responses by December 31, 2026 (F3, F5).
F6
Neither the Commission nor SPD has a procedure to track the implementation of Commission recommendations, thereby preventing knowledge of their status (R5).
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
The City Council should establish a formal, public tracking system for the recommendations by December 31, 2026 (F4, F6).
F7
The City’s Code does not require Commissioners to receive training on oversight procedures, applicable law, and policing issues, undermining their ability to serve as an effective advisory body (R6). WINDOW DRESSING OR PROGRESSING?
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
The City Council should require initial and ongoing relevant training for commissioners to assist them in their duties by December 31, 2026 (F7).
F8
The City Council failed to act on the 2021 audit recommendations from the Sacramento City Office of the City Auditor to improve the Commission's effectiveness, thereby limiting the Commission’s ability to carry out its mission (R7).
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
The City Council should formally respond to all recommendations in the 2021 audit by the Sacramento City Office of the City Auditor by December 31, 2026 (F8).