Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ohio CollaborativeReport2020
Ohio CollaborativeReport2020
C at
h io i
ve
O
rd
Co m mu
Bo a
ry
n
ty
i
s
o
-P v i
ol ic e A d
ROBERT A. CORNWELL
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
On behalf of the members of the Buckeye State Sheriffs' Association (BSSA), I am again proud to join
with the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police (OACP) and the Office of Criminal Justice Services (OCJS) to
participate in the Ohio Collaborative certification process.
The contributions of the BSSA as participants, receiving certification, as assessors and as peer support
providers in the certification process, has enriched the overall Collaborative effort and played a key role
in its accomplishments. We welcome the opportunity to assist our members as they play a vital role in
the development and Implementation of the Collaborative standards.
We look forward to continuing our work in partnership with the OACP and OCJS in the future.
Sincerely,
Robert A. Cornwell
Executive Director
The Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police (OACP) is pleased to continue to partner with the
Ohio Department of Public Safety (DPS) and the Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Service
(OCJS) on the Ohio Collaborative statewide minimum standards.
During the fourth year of the Collaborative, OACP has continued to assist in the re-
certification process. Congratulations to all certified law enforcement agencies! We stand
ready to help departments meet the 2019-2020 Law Enforcement Vehicular Pursuit Standard
as well as all other Standards.
The Associations provides peer support, reviews, and on-site assessments for agencies
participating in the assessment process. Nearly 1000 peer and assessor assignments have
been successfully completed by the OACP.
We want to take this opportunity to thank Chief Michael Navarre, Oregon PD, for all his
time, hard work and commitment as the OACP representative on the Collaborative.
The OACP executive board strongly advocates minimum law enforcement standards and
extends the continued support of the Association to the Ohio Collaborative certification
process.
Sincerely,
Tom Miller
Sheriff, Medina County
Joe Morbitzer
BCI Superintendent
Ohio Attorney General’s Office
Michael J. Navarre
Chief, Oregon Police Department
Ronald J. O’Brien
Franklin County Prosecutor
The next three standards (three, four and five) are referred Standard:
to as Group 2 standards. Law enforcement agencies that use body-worn cameras
must establish a written policy for their use. The policy
GROUP 2 shall address the following areas:
Policy statement for the State of Ohio standard for • The purpose and organizational philosophy regarding
Community Engagement use;
• Requirements and restrictions for activation and
Purpose: deactivation of the device;
It is the shared responsibility of law enforcement agencies • Criminal and administrative use of the camera
and the communities they serve to work together to build captured data;
relationships based upon trust and mutual respect. A • Data storage, retention, and disclosure requirements
strong relationship between law enforcement agencies reflective of public records law and privacy concerns;
and the community will improve public safety and allow and
communities to thrive and prosper. • Accountability and training requirements for users
and supervisors; and requirements for a documented
Standard: review of camera captured data.
Agencies must adopt a community engagement strategy
with a primary focus on improving Police – Community Commentary:
relations. Agencies who utilize body-worn cameras must develop
strong and consistent policies that provide guidance
Commentary to their personnel as to the appropriate use of body-
Agencies shall utilize proven strategies or develop worn cameras. Policies need to address, at a minimum,
their own strategies that are focused on community activation and deactivation, auditing, storage, retention,
engagement. Strategies may address any or all of the public records and the release of video related to victims,
following or other related areas: youth programs, especially child victims, injured victims, victims of sexual
educating the community on police policy and assault, and other privacy concerns. It is recognized that
procedures, understanding the communities agencies audio and video data is valuable recorded evidence that
serve, sharing, receiving and providing information may provide a means of accountability for both officers and
to the public, jointly identifying areas of concern, and the public. It is also recognized that audio and video data
communicating, when appropriate, significant changes in may not be an accurate reflection of all that is involved
agency operations. with an incident. Audio and video data cannot reflect the
human and cognitive conditions associated with officer
The intent of this standard is to establish agency and public contact. Additionally, audio and video shall not
accountability for the community involvement function supersede the principles established by Graham vs. Connor.
in writing. The function should be developed and
operated to effectively meet the needs of the agency, with Policy statement for the State of Ohio standard for Law
consideration of the department size and budget, as well Enforcement Telecommunicators
as the community it serves.
Purpose:
Policy statement for the State of Ohio standard for Law Enforcement call taking and dispatching are critical
Body-Worn Cameras elements to ensuring a proper and safe response to report-
ed incidents affecting public safety. Ensuring proper train-
Purpose: ing and performance by telecommunicators performing
Law enforcement agencies and the community will benefit these functions is essential.
from clear guidelines involving the use of body-worn
cameras and related privacy issues.
Standard: Standard:
Law Enforcement agencies must ensure a training Agencies shall establish a written policy governing biased-
program and policy directives exist to allow for based profiling that includes the following provisions:
telecommunicators to be proficient in: • A prohibition against biased-based profiling in traffic
• Obtaining complete and accurate information from contacts, field contacts, and in asset seizure and
callers requesting law enforcement assistance. forfeiture efforts.
• Accurately classifying and prioritizing requests for • Training all agency enforcement personnel in biased-
assistance. based profiling issues and the relevant legal aspects.
• Obtaining and accurately relaying information which • Corrective measures if biased-based profiling occurs.
may affect responder and/or citizen safety. • The collection of data on all self-initiated traffic
contacts to include, at a minimum, the race and
Commentary: gender of the driver of the vehicle stopped. For
This standard and the training applies only to those Law agencies that employ fewer than 35 sworn full time
Enforcement Agencies that operate a telecommunications police officers, the collection of data does not have to
center or performs that function. occur until the year 2020.
Training shall meet and support minimum standards as • A documented annual administrative review of
established by legislation for 911 call centers and public- agency practices, data collected, and citizens’
safety answering points (PSAPs). concerns. This review shall be made available to the
Acceptable training may include: public.
• Class room or equivalent;
• Utilization of nationally recognized dispatcher Commentary:
training; and/or Criminal profiling, in itself, can be a useful tool to assist
• Training developed by individual agencies to meet law enforcement officers in carrying out their duties.
the specific needs of their communities. Officers shall not consider race/ethnicity to establish
reasonable suspicion or probable cause, except that officers
Unlike Group 1 standards, which require the adoption may take into account the reported race/ethnicity of a
of each standard in order to be certified, Group 2 potential suspect(s) based on trustworthy, locally relevant
certification is based upon the adoption of applicable information that links a person or persons of a specific
standards. For instance, an agency must adopt the race/ethnicity to a particular unlawful incident(s).
community engagement standard, but may not utilize
body-worn cameras or employ telecommunicators. Law enforcement agencies should prohibit the use of any
However, that agency would be certified in Group 2 since bias-based profiling in its enforcement programs, as it
they adopted the applicable standard for their agency. If may lead to violations of the constitutional rights of the
at a later time they were to begin to utilize body-worn citizens we serve, undermine legitimate law enforcement
cameras or employ telecommunicators, they would need efforts, and may lead to claims of civil rights violations.
to meet those standards in order to be certified in Group 2. Additionally, bias-based profiling alienates citizens, fosters
distrust of law enforcement by the community, and may
The last two standards (six and seven) are referred to as result in media scrutiny, legislative action, and judicial
Group 3 standards. intervention.
Policy statement for the State of Ohio standard Within Group 3, the bias-free policing standard requires
Investigation of Employee Misconduct collection of data on all self-initiated traffic contacts.
However, law enforcement agencies that employ fewer
Purpose: than 35 sworn full-time police officers are not required to
Law enforcement agencies and the public at large will start collecting the data until the end of this year. Thus,
benefit from the establishment, enhancement, and the for this report, agencies with fewer than 35 sworn full
promotion of a genuine and comprehensive employee time police officers would be certified in Group 3 as long
misconduct investigation process, to include both as they adopt the investigation of employee misconduct
administrative and citizen complaints. standard.
AGENCIES RECERTIFIED
CERTIFICATION PROCESS This year, more agencies have achieved final certification
in all three groups of standards. However, despite this
To ensure agencies were adopting and implementing the progress, there are fewer agencies that are considered in
standards created by the Collaborative, OCJS created a process due to the use of a more restrictive definition of in
law enforcement certification process. The certification process. As a result, agencies that have not demonstrated
process has the distinct goal of building a rigorous review substantial progress towards certification will no longer
process with legitimacy in the eyes of both the public and be considered in process. While many agencies have
law enforcement. recently indicated they still plan to adopt the Collaborative
standards, if they have not demonstrated progress, they are
The certification process was developed by criminal justice not considered in process.
professionals with extensive expertise and experience
in accreditation. The certification process has three RECERTIFICATION PROCESS
components. The process begins when an agency submits
an application and documentation supporting its efforts to Each agency must recertify its collaborative standards on
adopt and implement the collaborative standards. When a revolving cycle of every three to four years. Agencies
an agency has completed this initial step, it is deemed in that were originally certified in 2016 must resubmit their
process. Group 1 documentation for review and demonstrate
that they have continued to adopt and implement the
Once an agency completes that initial step, their agency standards during another on-site assessment to receive
application and supporting documentation is then recertification. If an agency due for recertification does
passed on to a reviewer to determine if the agency’s not recertify, they will be deemed non-certified. Agencies
documentation supports their assertion that they have that have resubmitted their documentation, but are
implemented the collaborative standards. This part of awaiting their on-site assessment, will be considered in
the process may result in multiple contacts between process for recertification. As of the publishing of this
the reviewer and the agency seeking certification as the report, 153 law enforcement agencies have obtained
reviewer seeks additional information or clarification. recertification in Group 1 standards.
Once the reviewer is satisfied the documentation is
sufficient to demonstrate the agency has adopted and ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
implemented the standards, that agency is deemed to be
provisionally certified. This report and process could not have been completed
without the strong support and partnership of both
The final step in the process is an on-site assessment of an the Buckeye State Sheriffs’ Association (BSSA) and the
agency by a criminal justice professional, either a former Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police (OACP). Both
or current law enforcement officer or accreditation expert, organizations have encouraged their members to
and a final review by the executive director of OCJS. participate in the process, provided valuable input to
Prior to conducting the on-site review, the assessor will the development of standards, and provided assessors
review all documentation submitted by the agency and and peer support for the certification process. Each
the entire certification file. Once this review is completed, organization has also assisted with our comprehensive
the assessor will go to the agency and review additional outreach effort to contact agencies about the certification
documentation and interview agency staff. Once the process.
assessor completes their on-site review, they will write a
report documenting their visit and findings. The report is
then forwarded to the executive director of OCJS for final
review. Once the executive director is satisfied the agency
has implemented the standards, the agency is deemed to
be final certified.
h
O
labor
Col
io
at
i In order to strengthen the bond between communities and police, the Ohio Collaborative
Community-Police Advisory Board developed standards for state and local law enforcement
h
ve
O
departments regarding:
rd
Co m mu
Bo a
ty
• The recruiting, hiring and screening of potential law enforcement officer candidates;
i
s
o
-P
ol ic e A d vi
Co m mu
• The implementation of community engagement;
• The appropriate use of body worn cameras;
• The essential training for law enforcement telecommunicators;
• The collection of data to demonstrate bias free policing; and
• The investigation of employee misconduct.
438
LAW ENFORCEMENT
n
AGENCIES
ty
19
CERTIFIED
i
-P
LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCIES
ol ic e A
153
IN THE CERTIFICATION PROCESS
LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCIES
74
RECERTIFIED
OF OHIOANS
COVERED
BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
78
CERTIFIED OR IN THE CERTIFICATION PROCESS
PERCENT OF COUNTY COVERED
0-25 26-51
52-77 78-100
LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS
BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
CERTIFIED OR IN THE CERTIFICATION PROCESS http://www.ocjs.ohio.gov/ohiocollaborative updated 04/07/20
28,550 0 5 0
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
106,331 44 10 7
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
53,139 94 5 2
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
101,497 4 10 3
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
64,757 94 10 5
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
Note: The Athens County Sheriff’s Office and the Athens Police Department share the same building and are within
walking distance of the Ohio University Police Department.
45,949 54 8 4
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
70,400 36 11 1
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
44,846 67 11 1
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
368,130 73 14 8
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
28,836 88 2 1
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
40,097 95 4 3
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
138,333 44 10 1
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
197,363 75 12 10
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
42,040 80 6 2
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
107,841 1 17 1
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
36,901 6 2 1
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
43,784 30 5 2
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
1,280,122 51 67 44
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
1,280,122 51 67 44
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
52,959 89 6 3
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
39,037 91 3 2
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
174,214 76 8 4
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
77,079 90 10 8
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
Note: The Erie County Sheriff’s Office and the Perkins Township Police Department are within walking distance of
each other.
146,156 27 8 1
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
29,030 51 2 1
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
1,163,414 97 32 24
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
42,698 74 6 3
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
30,934 13 4 2
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
Note: University of Rio Grande Police Department has 0% population coverage since universities are not assigned
population coverage.
93,389 59 9 3
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
161,573 91 11 8
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
NOTE: The Greene County Sheriff’s Office and the Xenia Police Department are within walking distance of each other.
40,087 93 4 2
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
802,374 97 41 36
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
802,374 97 41 36
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
74,782 98 4 3
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
Note: The Hancock County Sheriff’s Office and the Findlay Police Department are within walking distance of each
other.
32,058 68 4 2
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
15,864 71 4 1
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
28,215 93 4 2
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
43,589 81 7 2
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
Note: The Highland County Sheriff’s office and the Hillsboro Police Department are in close proximity to one another.
29,380 98 3 2
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
Note: The Hocking County Sheriff’s Office and the Logan Police Department are within walking distance of each
other.
42,366 99 4 2
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
59,626 53 9 3
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
33,225 58 4 1
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
69,709 26 21 1
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
60,921 72 5 3
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
230,041 92 20 15
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
62,450 61 9 1
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
166,492 82 14 6
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
45,858 89 6 4
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
301,356 97 15 11
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
441,815 77 17 8
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
43,435 34 4 2
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
238,823 80 22 13
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
66,501 100 2 2
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
172,332 98 12 10
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
23,770 74 6 1
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
40,814 61 6 3
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
102,506 100 7 7
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
Note: The Miami County Sheriff’s Office and Miami County Parks District are in close proximity of each other.
14,642 0 2 0
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
535,153 95 28 23
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
15,054 0 2 0
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
34,827 83 3 1
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
86,074 94 7 4
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
14,645 0 1 0
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
41,428 68 12 6
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
19,614 0 6 0
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
36,058 83 9 3
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
Note: The Perry County Sheriff’s Office and the New Lexington Police Department are within walking distance of each
other.
55,698 85 6 2
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
28,709 77 3 1
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
161,419 46 13 8
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
42,270 85 7 3
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
34,499 56 10 1
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
124,475 100 7 7
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
78,064 100 2 2
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
NOTE: The Ross County Sheriff’s Office and the Chillicothe Police Department share the same building
60,944 85 5 3
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
79,499 28 4 3
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
56,745 57 6 2
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
49,423 44 8 2
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
375,586 86 21 11
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
541,781 95 28 21
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
Note: The Summit County Sheriff’s Office, Akron Police Department, University of Akron Police Department,
and Summa Health System Protective Services are all in close proximity of each other.
210,312 49 23 12
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
92,582 4 14 2
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
52,300 96 3 2
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
Note: The Union County Sheriff’s Office and the Marysville Police Department are in close proximity of each other.
28,744 56 4 1
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
13,435 0 4 0
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
212,693 84 12 10
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
61,778 96 6 3
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
Note: The Washington County Sheriff’s Office and the Marietta Police Department are within walking distance of
each other.
114,520 91 14 7
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
Note: The Wayne County Sheriff’s Office and MEDWAY Drug Enforcement Agency are in close proximity of each other.
37,642 11 9 2
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
125,488 52 18 8
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
22,615 100 3 3
Population % Population Covered by # Law Enforcement # Law Enforcement
(2010) Law Enforcement Agencies Agencies in County Agencies in any
in any Phase of Certification Phase of Certification
Note: The Wyandot County Sheriff’s Office and the Upper Sandusky Police Department are within walking distance
of each other.