10-Community Feedback Report .pdf

Introduction This report summarizes feedback gathered during community listening sessions for the appointment of an Independent Monitor team to evaluate implementation of the Community Commitment: Louisville’s Consent Decree. The sessions aimed to provide community members an opportunity to share their recommendations regarding the Monitor’s qualifications and role.

Across two listening sessions and 192 total survey responses, Louisville residents voiced a comprehensive—sometimes converging, sometimes conflicting—set of expectations for the Monitor team to guide the forthcoming Request for Proposals. This summary weaves together the detailed comments from both in‑person meetings and the quantitative/qualitative data captured by the in-person sessions and the Zencity survey.

Methodology:

Two community listening sessions were held on June 17 and June 28, 2025, organized by Louisville Metro Government’s Office of Equity and facilitated by an unaffiliated community facilitator. Sessions were conducted in the West Louisville and Newburg neighborhoods to maximize accessibility to residents.

An online survey from Zencity was made available from June 9 to July 1, 2025 for residents unable to attend an in-person session. Participants were informed that their feedback would be used to develop a Request for Proposals for interested candidates to serve as a Monitor for the Community Commitment. Data was collected through facilitated discussions, written survey forms, and online surveys. Qualitative data was analyzed to identify key themes and recurring concerns.

Quantitative data, where available, was analyzed to identify trends. This report was prepared by the Office of the Mayor in anticipation of the Request for Proposals.

COMMUNITY LISTENING SESSION REPORT

Feedback for the Independent Monitor

“Needs real life experience-success in implementing consent decrees (direct accessibility/communication)”

-Facilitated Discussion from Community Listening Session

July 2025

In both the online survey and the in-person sessions, community members were asked to rank the qualities they would like to see in an Independent Monitor and share additional qualities to consider.

A shared foundation of core qualities. Six factors emerged above the others from both sessions and survey responses:

Community Engagement, Knowledge of Louisville/LMPD, Diverse Experiences and Perspectives within the Team, Prior Consent‑Decree Experience, Legal Expertise, Accessibility/Communication Skills. [See Graph 1]. Collectively these account for roughly 70 percent of all “top‑three” preferences, creating what one participant called the “non‑negotiable baseline” for credibility. In the listening sessions, those same characteristics were repeatedly underscored as prerequisites for “honesty,” “competency,” and the “intellectual fortitude” to withstand outside pressure.

Independence as the keystone but defined in different ways. One of the most frequently repeated phrases in open‑ended remarks was “no ties to Metro Government, LMPD or the FOP.” Some advocated an outright ban on former police officers—fearing an “entrenched mentality”—while a second bloc argued the monitor “must have law‑enforcement experience” to speak the same technical language and to “engage with police leadership.” Still others suggested a hybrid solution: a multidisciplinary team that includes practitioners who have worked under—though not necessarily inside— policing institutions elsewhere. Independence, in other words, was a common theme, but defining that characteristic varied by personal experience and trust levels for government institution.

Demographic representation. Based on characteristics shared on the survey, responses closely matched Louisville/Jefferson County’s demographics: 55 percent of respondents identified as white, 28 percent identified as Black, 5 percent as other races, and 12 percent preferred not to say. Age ranges spanned from 18 to over 75. During the listening sessions, participants, especially from the West End of Louisville, advocated that the monitoring team itself should reflect the community —“looks like the population it serves”—because personal experience influences recognition of the disproportionate impacts of stops, searches, and use‑of‑force. Several asked for team members with direct experience of police misconduct or with expertise in mental‑health crisis response, homelessness, and poverty.

Feedback: Team Qualities

“The Monitoring Team should [be] able to effectively communicate to all members of the community their role, i.e.

what they do, and what they don't do. Be direct with their responses and be responsive to community feedback”

-Survey Respondent

2Graph 1

"Top Three" Rankings

Community Engagement

Knowledge of Louisville/LMPD

Diverse Experiences and Perspe…

Prior Experience with a Consent…

Legal Expertise

Accessibility/Communication S…

Law Enforcement Experience

Local Presence

No Ties to Louisville

Cost Effectiveness

Judicial Expertise

Ability to Meet a Deadline

In addition to sharing their preferred qualifications for the Independent Monitor, participants also shared how—once appointed— the team should carry out its duties to reflect the needs of Louisville residents.

Transparent, two‑way communication—not just public reports. Participants wanted more communication from the monitoring team than the twice‑a‑year formal reports filed with the Community Safety Commission. Ideas ranged from “radio broadcasts or podcasts like the Governor’s COVID briefings” to real‑time data dashboards and neighborhood feedback circles.

Survey comments warned against “legalese,” preferring simplified updates that clarify the reform requirements and the Monitor’s own limits (“what they do, and what they don’t do”).

Many asked for built‑in avenues for residents—including youth, unhoused people, and those with past negative encounters with LMPD—to weigh in between formal reports.

Authority and collaboration. While the Community Commitment makes clear that the Monitor cannot discipline officers, many residents still pushed for subpoena power, mandatory access to data, and “measurable benchmarks” tied to clear timelines. Skeptics worried that without enforceable leverage, reports could “sit on a shelf,” echoing earlier reform efforts. Others balanced that concern with a preference for collaborative rather than punitive approaches, emphasizing the Monitor’s role as a “bridge‑builder” who can translate findings into practicable change.

Cost and necessity. A minority of comments questioned either the price tag or the very need for an external monitor if the Inspector General and existing oversight bodies are empowered. Those participants urged “cost effectiveness” (listed in 10 percent of survey responses) and cautioned against duplicating functions. Counter‑voices replied that independent verification is itself a guardrail against future litigation costs and public‑trust erosion.

Feedback: In Practice

Summary Threading the common themes and concerns together, community feedback imagines a Monitor team that is:

Structurally and culturally independent, yet sufficiently versed in policing practice to carry out their technical duties and command respect.

Demographically and professionally diverse, bringing legal and law enforcement expertise, data analytics, behavioral health, and lived experience to the same table.

Visible and responsive, offering easy-to-understand updates, community‑oriented engagement opportunities, and transparent methodologies.

Outcome‑oriented, with publicly shared metrics and the capacity to call out noncompliance.

Raw data from the survey and in-person listening sessions will accompany this report. 3