The Chicago Police Department on Tuesday released a packet of 2025 reports that the agency says document progress on reforms tied to the federal consent decree. The materials include an IMR‑13 status report, the department’s 2025 annual use‑of‑force report, a community policing summary, a 2025 annual report and a hate‑crime report.
In a post on X, the department linked to the documents and described them as detailing “the work we have done over the past year to strengthen public safety and community partnerships through our reform efforts.” The independent monitor’s IMR‑13, which covers July 1 through Dec. 31, 2025, provides the formal reporting period for the status account and is filed as a public court document. WTTW lists the report period and related materials.
The Chicago Police Department today released multiple annual reports detailing the work we have done over the past year to strengthen public safety and community partnerships through our reform efforts. You can read through these reports here: https://t.co/w1ZNN7zP6e https://t.co/8coqOOhlP0
— Chicago Police (@Chicago_Police) June 30, 2026
What the reports show and what the monitor finds
The department framed the packet as evidence that training, accountability and community‑policing changes are taking hold across CPD, and it linked to each report in its social post. The independent monitor’s IMR‑13, however, offers a more granular accounting for the July through December 2025 period: it reports at least Preliminary compliance with about 97% of the original monitorable paragraphs, Secondary compliance with about 72% of paragraphs, and Full compliance with roughly 26% of paragraphs. WTTW summarized the monitor’s filing, and the full Independent Monitoring Report 13 is available as a public court filing in IMR‑13.
Why the math matters
Part of the apparent disconnect is methodological. CPD materials emphasize completed training modules and the subset of consent‑decree items the department classifies as “monitorable,” while the Independent Monitoring Team uses a three‑tier compliance system (Preliminary, Secondary, Full) tied to policy, training rollout and sustained practice. That difference in counting helps explain why CPD presents a generally positive topline while the monitoring team highlights specific paragraphs and areas that still need work. The Independent Monitoring Team site and public filings explain the monitoring approach and how the team assesses compliance across dozens of paragraphs.
Legal context
Both CPD’s status reports and the monitoring team’s filings feed into the federal consent‑decree docket and inform the judge, the Illinois Attorney General and other oversight bodies reviewing whether reforms are being implemented. The IMR‑13 reports include attachments with city comments and Office of the Attorney General input, showing the back‑and‑forth that shapes final compliance assessments and any potential requests to modify the decree. IMR‑13
For Chicago readers, the practical takeaway is straightforward: CPD has publicly posted a set of reports that the department says show progress, while independent monitors and outside news outlets parse the same documents and reach a more nuanced conclusion about how far the department still has to go. Community groups, oversight bodies and City Hall are likely to be examining the data and training records closely in the weeks ahead as the next monitoring period takes shape.
