Award Nomination Form

The NACOLE Achievement in Oversight Award recognizes a specific achievement that rises above what the individual or organization would normally accomplish in the performance of their duties and responsibilities. The achievement could involve innovation, persistence, creativity and courage. The achievement should also demonstrate a commitment to effective oversight of law enforcement, jails, or prisons and to NACOLE’s mission, vision, and values.

This can be a specific accomplishment by an individual (such as an oversight agency employee, a member of an oversight board or commission, an elected official, a journalist or a researcher), by an organization, an oversight agency or body, or an organization not directly affiliated with an oversight agency.

The accomplishment can be for a single event or for multiple events usually (but not necessarily) within the past year.

Achievement Nomination Criteria:

1. Effort involved in the achievement. Examples include time and energy expended; obstacles or opposition encountered; demonstrated courage and conviction; personal or professional sacrifices.
2. Skill(s) demonstrated in working towards the achievement. Examples include civilian oversight skills such as conducting an investigation, audit, or review and changing or implementing a policy or procedure.
3. Innovation & Creativity. Examples include innovation or creativity in civilian oversight practices such as conducting an investigation, audit, or review; changing or implementing a policy or procedure; and working to effect legislation to establish, strengthen, or defend oversight.
4. Impact on or support of the civilian oversight community. Examples include contributing or supporting changes in a law enforcement agency, jail, or custodial facility; working to create, advance, strengthen or defend oversight in a community; advocating for or advancing legislation; having a significant impact on or significant support for NACOLE and/or civilian oversight.
5. Commitment to transparency and community engagement. Examples include reporting or research on law enforcement, jails, or prisons; advocating for transparency in law enforcement, jails, prisons, and civilian oversight; and working to advance open and constructive dialogue with stakeholders.
6. Commitment to NACOLE’s mission, vision, & values (including NACOLE’s Code of Ethics).

Nominations must address at least one of the criteria above, which will be used as the basis for evaluation. Nominations should clearly indicate which criteria they are addressing and provide sufficient information - including links to relevant webpages and documents - to evaluate the nominee. Please note that the achievement need not involve more than one criteria.

The nomination should be a factual description of the nominee’s specific achievement and the criteria it involved, providing as much relevant detail as possible. Supporting materials (such as support letters, reports, news articles, legal documents, meeting minutes or legislative materials) should provide factual evidence documenting the action or actions that form the basis for the nomination. If the nominee was part of a group or organization responsible for the achievement, the nomination must specify why the nominee is more deserving of the award than others who participated in this project. Overall, you will help the nomination review committee accurately assess nominees by providing specific, factual information related to the criteria you have identified as qualifying your nominee for an award.

If you are submitting statements from individuals in support of the nomination, they should be specific and factual and should address the criteria you have identified as the basis for the award. General laudatory descriptions of the nominee alone are not sufficient to demonstrate qualification under criteria for an award.

The NACOLE Contribution to Oversight Award recognizes multiple actions or accomplishments by an individual, an organization, or an agency that played a significant role in supporting, advancing or defending a specific civilian oversight entity, oversight in a state of region, or oversight more broadly. The contribution could be made by someone directly involved with oversight, or by an individual or organization working outside of oversight. Nominees could include oversight agency leaders or practitioners, members of boards or commissions, community leaders,  community groups, advocacy organizations, journalists or news outlets, researchers or programs or projects whose work made a significant contribution to oversight that is more than transitory.

Contribution Nomination Criteria:

1.    Effort involved in the contribution. Examples include time and energy expended; obstacles or opposition encountered; demonstrated courage and conviction; personal or professional sacrifices.

1. Innovation & Creativity. Examples include innovation or creativity in civilian oversight practices.
2. Impact on or support of the civilian oversight community. Examples include contributing or supporting changes in a law enforcement agency, jail, or custodial facility; advocating for or advancing legislation; helping create, advance, strengthen or defend oversight in a community; having a significant impact on or significant support for NACOLE and/or civilian oversight.  The contribution could be within a specific locality or could have an impact on a broader geographic area.
3. Commitment to transparency and community engagement. Examples include researching or reporting on law enforcement, jails, or prisons; advocating for transparency in law enforcement, jails, prisons, and civilian oversight; and working to advance open and constructive dialogue with stakeholders.
4. Commitment to NACOLE’s mission, vision, & values (including NACOLE’s Code of Ethics).

Nominations must address at least one of the criteria above which will be used as the basis for evaluation. Nominations should clearly indicate which criteria they are addressing and provide sufficient information - including links to relevant webpages and documents - to evaluate the nominee. Please note that the contribution need not involve more than one criteria.

The nomination should be a factual description of the nominee’s specific contribution(s) and the criteria it/they involved, providing as much relevant detail as possible. Supporting materials (such as support letters, reports, news articles, legal documents, meeting minutes or legislative materials) should provide factual evidence documenting the action or actions that form the basis for the nomination. If the nominee was part of a group or organization responsible for the contribution(s), the nomination must specify why the nominee is more deserving of the award than others who participated. Overall, you will help the nomination review committee accurately assess nominees by providing specific, factual information related to the criteria you have identified as qualifying your nominee for an award.

If you are submitting statements from individuals in support of the nomination, they should be specific and factual and should address the criteria you have identified as the basis for the award. General laudatory descriptions of the nominee alone are not sufficient to demonstrate qualification under criteria for an award.

Past recipients of the Achievement in Oversight or Contribution to Oversight awards include:

• Legislators or elected officials who sponsored legislation that established or strengthened oversight.
• Community activists and organizations that advocated for legislation to establish or improve accountability or led a successful campaign to defeat a ballot measure that would have weakened oversight of a law enforcement agency.
• Oversight agencies and individual practitioners that performed an exemplary or innovative review, audit, and/or investigation of law enforcement actions.
• An oversight agency whose leadership and staff courageously and successfully resisted an attempt to significantly diminish its independence and effectiveness.
• A non-profit journalism production company that published tens of thousands of police misconduct records in an innovative interactive public database.
• Journalists whose investigative reporting uncovered police killings in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, sparking a federal investigation that led to the prosecution of the officers responsible for the post-Katrina shootings and the cover-up of the shootings.
• Journalists who investigated significant issues in San Diego’s local law enforcement, including deaths in the county jails and patterns of misconduct in the police Department.
• Oversight practitioners whose work contributed to effective oversight in their community or to the oversight community at large.
• An oversight agency attorney who successfully negotiated significant policy changes in the San Francisco Police Department that became models for police and oversight agencies around the country.
• An oversight agency mediation coordinator who developed a highly successful mediation program that became a model for other agencies, and whose expertise and guidance supported creation of similar mediation programs.

Nominees could include (not an exhaustive list):

• Individual oversight practitioners, including oversight agency staff members or members of volunteer oversight boards and commissions

• Oversight agencies, boards, and commissions

• Grassroots or advocacy groups

• Oversight and accountability organizations

• Community activists or activist movements

• Journalists or news organizations

• Academicians

• Researchers

• Individuals, organizations, or government officials or agencies involved with monitoring or implementing consent decrees.

• Civil rights advocates whose work advance effective oversight of law enforcement, jails, or prisons

• Educational institutions

The Awards Committee and the NACOLE Board reserve the right to shift a nominee to a different category or award level.

Nomination for this year's awards will be accepted electronically. For more information and to submit your nomination(s) please click HERE.