CINCINNATI — In 2001, Cincinnati erupted.
The fatal shooting of 19-year-old Timothy Thomas on April 7, 2001, became a turning point for a city already grappling with tensions between police and the community.
Thomas was the 15th Black man killed by police since 1995.
As we look back on the nights of rioting that followed the shooting, we're also looking back on the bridge built within the next year: the Collaborative Agreement.
"After the rioting stopped, then everybody was left to pick up the pieces of, where do we go from here?" said then-Fraternal Order of Police President Keith Fangman.
U.S. District Court Judge Susan Dlott, who had been on the bench for only five years, found herself at the center of the unprecedented situation.
Dlott said the riots caused then-Mayor Charlie Luken to call in the Department of Justice to do an examination on the use of excessive force by the Cincinnati Police Department.
"I had really no idea what I was doing," Dlott said, "Other than I knew we had to come to a resolution."
Dlott said she set a deadline in her mind. She wanted to find a solution by the first anniversary of Thomas' death.
"We negotiated for a whole year from the time of the shooting," Dlott said. "I wanted to make sure that we got something done within that year."
WATCH: How the Collaborative Agreement came to be in the year following the riots
The process of creating an unprecedented agreement
From April 2001 through April 2002, around 3,500 Cincinnatians — including representatives from the city, the Cincinnati Police Department, the Black United Front and others — would come together to give input on how to better the community.
"There were a lot of strong personalities in the case, a tremendous number of strong personalities," Dlott said. "I knew that I was the only one that could get them to do anything. No matter whether they wanted to do it or not, that was the power of the court."
What came out of those talks would shape the future of Cincinnati. Rev. Damon Lynch III, head of the Black United Front, said it took cooperation.
"It ended up we understood cooperation was better. So that's why it's called a collaborative agreement, where everybody signed the document — the city, the FOP, the Black United Front, the community," Lynch said.
Lynch said the result was "one of the only agreements like this in the country." He said it's been shared around the country as well.
The Collaborative Agreement outlined several changes.
It altered police pursuit protocol and ushered in Tasers for police officers and body-worn cameras, aiming to improve transparency anytime an officer fired a weapon. The agreement also led to training for responses to people with mental health problems and revised policies on the use of police dogs, beanbags and chemical sprays.
Dlott said the Collaborative Agreement and the Memo of Agreement with the Department of Justice, which conducted its own investigation into the Thomas shooting, were signed at 2 a.m. on April 12, 2002.
Immediate changes and long-term impact
Dlott said she saw the transformation of the agreement firsthand, though it wasn't immediate.
"There was just a whole new attitude, but it took a while. It didn't happen when they signed the agreement in 2002, and I'm not even sure it happened by 2005," Dlott said.
The agreement was extended for an additional three years as the changes took shape.
One of the most significant shifts was in police transparency.
"When there was a shooting, the police department will hold a press conference and say, 'This is what we know. These are the facts that we know as of right now. It's an ongoing investigation.' And that has helped tremendously over the past 25 years," Fangman said.
Dlott said the numbers help to show how the agreement changed things around Cincinnati.
"When I came on the bench, I always had 10 excessive force cases from the police department at all times. I haven't had an excessive force case from the Cincinnati Police Department since 2002," Dlott said.
The city's reputation transformed as well, Dlott said.
"The impression of Cincinnati around the country has changed tremendously," Dlott said. "We went from the riots in 2001 to hosting the NAACP national convention in 2008."
Dlott said police officers themselves also embraced the changes.
"It really did change the way they police, and I think they all liked it better," Dlott said. "They were more effective. The public was more receptive to them. They felt like they were better able to do their jobs. They had new tools they had never used before. And the public was much more accepting of them."
A differing viewpoint
Not everyone sees the Collaborative Agreement as the story Dlott described.
Peter Bronson, former opinion editor of the Cincinnati Enquirer, told us about a different perspective.
"You're going to probably talk to a lot of people who are going to defend the Collaborative Agreement and say that it was the answer and that it did all these wonderful things," Bronson said, "I'm going to say otherwise because probably not very many people will."
Bronson said the agreement was "hailed as this historic panacea" to bring peace and unity.
"I just never bought it," Bronson said. "The Collaborative Agreement claims a lot of what was happening already and was going to happen."
Bronson said he sees the Collaborative Agreement as less of a solution and more as a cover.
"It gave the police a way to get off the hook from having the feds in their back pocket everywhere they went and looking over their shoulder and meddling and interfering with all of the policing they were trying to do," Bronson said. "I think everybody was looking for an escape hatch. The Collaborative Agreement provided that cover of saying everybody can declare victory and leave and let's all settle down and chill."
Bronson compared the agreement to international diplomacy.
"It's sort of like the United Nations. It sounds great on paper, but it never delivers, and I don't think the Collaborative Agreement ever delivered anything that would address root causes," Bronson said.
Bronson also said that since 2001, the crime rate has gone up in the city of Cincinnati.
"We have much, much higher crime rates now than we did back then. CPD today, especially in uniform patrol, is much more of a reactive agency reacting to crime, as opposed to a proactive agency trying to stop crime before it occurs," Bronson said. "And I think that, unfortunately, that was a negative byproduct of the collaborative."
Bronson said he doesn't see the Collaborative Agreement as a failure, but doesn't think it was a complete success either.
"Was it as successful as people claim? I'm not buying it. I think the things that were most effective, as we look back, that actually saved the city, the Collaborative Agreement would be way down on the list," Bronson said.
A legacy of complexity
"The Collaborative Agreement was transformational," Lynch said. "It was necessary. It was and is relevant. It has lasted for a quarter of a century."
Lynch said he's still setting realistic expectations.
"It is not the Holy Grail, it is not the word of God, it's not the Bible, but it's a good document that helped move Cincinnati forward," Lynch said.
You can read more of our coverage on the 25th anniversary of the 2001 riots here.
This story was reported on-air by a journalist and has been converted to this platform with the assistance of AI. Our editorial team verifies all reporting on all platforms for fairness and accuracy.
