What Is a Civilian Review Board?

A Civilian Review Board (CRB) is a civilian oversight body established by a local government to review aspects of police conduct, accountability, and policy. While many are designed to operate independently of police departments, their authority and degree of independence vary considerably.

Civilian oversight of police emerged in several U.S. cities after World War II and became more widespread during the 1960s amid growing concerns about police accountability. Today, many of the nation’s largest cities have some form of civilian police oversight, although the powers and responsibilities of these agencies differ significantly.

What Does a Civilian Review Board Do?

Depending on the city, a board may:

• Review citizen complaints against police officers.
• Examine Internal Affairs investigations.
• Conduct independent investigations.
• Hold public hearings.
• Recommend disciplinary action.
• Recommend changes to police policies and training.
• Publish reports to improve transparency.

Some boards have subpoena power and investigative staff, while others serve only in an advisory role. Not every board performs all of these functions.

Different Models of Civilian Oversight

There is no single model used nationwide. The most common approaches include:

Review Model

• Police Internal Affairs investigates complaints.
• A civilian board reviews completed investigations and recommendations.

Independent Investigative Model

• Civilian investigators conduct or direct their own investigations.
• Findings are presented independently of the police department.

Auditor/Monitor Model

• An independent auditor monitors investigations for fairness and completeness.
• The focus is on improving systems and accountability rather than deciding individual disciplinary cases.

Many cities combine elements of all three approaches.

Why Are Civilian Review Boards Controversial?

Supporters argue civilian oversight boards can:

• Increase transparency.
• Improve public confidence.
• Provide independent oversight.
• Give residents a voice in police accountability.
• Recommend policy improvements that may reduce future complaints.

Critics argue that some boards:

• Lack sufficient investigative resources or expertise.
• May duplicate the work of Internal Affairs.
• Have limited legal authority.
• Can create unrealistic public expectations if they lack subpoena power or disciplinary authority.
• Have not consistently been shown to improve public trust on their own.

Research suggests that the effectiveness of civilian oversight depends less on whether a city has a review board and more on its legal authority, independence, adequate funding, staffing, access to evidence, and whether government officials implement its recommendations.

In most jurisdictions, civilian review boards do not have the authority to discipline police officers directly. Instead, they review investigations, make findings, or recommend disciplinary action, while final disciplinary decisions typically remain with the police chief, city manager, police commission, or another authority established by local law