Since the Explorer program was shut down in 2017, there has been no structured, hands-on way for Louisville teens to learn about law enforcement before adulthood. This proposal outlines how to rebuild that path — with safeguards built in from day one, not added after the fact.
LMPD's Explorer program — the department's mentoring track for teens interested in law enforcement careers — was shut down in March 2017 after a lawsuit alleged that two officers had sexually abused a teenage participant. More lawsuits followed. Eventually at least seven people came forward, naming two former officers as primary abusers, with a third officer separately charged with abusing a participant. Then-Lieutenant Curtis Flaherty, who ran the Explorer program, was also named in the lawsuits over allegations that he helped conceal the abuse.
The structural failure behind it is worth understanding on its own: Flaherty simultaneously oversaw both the youth program and the department's Public Integrity Unit. That meant the person running the program was also positioned to control whether complaints about it ever surfaced. One of the officers was investigated in 2013–2014 over alleged misconduct with a female participant; when he resigned in 2014, the investigation was closed without ever determining whether there were other victims.
None of that is in dispute, and this proposal doesn't ask anyone to look past it. But it's also true that every teenager who might want this experience today had absolutely nothing to do with what happened in 2017 and before — and right now, they're the ones paying for it, with a complete absence of any structured way to explore this career path before they're old enough to just apply for the job.
The failure in 2017 wasn't that a youth program existed. It was that one person controlled both the program and the oversight of it, that there was no independent way for a participant to be heard, and that the department's instinct afterward was to conceal records instead of release them. Those are specific, fixable structural problems — not permanent reasons this kind of program can never exist safely again.
Other youth-serving organizations have faced their own versions of this exact crisis and rebuilt with real structural fixes instead of shutting down for good — separating leadership from oversight, banning one-on-one contact, requiring background checks that get renewed, not just run once. This proposal borrows directly from that playbook, translated into what's realistic for how a patrol shift actually works. The gap is real, it's avoidable, and closing it responsibly is possible with today's standards — cameras that are now a mature, long-established part of routine duty rather than a recent rollout, background check systems that didn't exist the same way in 2017, and an oversight structure that doesn't repeat Flaherty's conflict of interest.
Concretely, that means: no single person holds both program leadership and complaint oversight; no unsupervised one-on-one contact between an officer and a participant, ever, on or off duty; background checks that renew on a fixed schedule rather than running once at intake; body-worn cameras following standard department activation policy for any direct interaction — not continuous recording, but the same activation rules as any other duty shift, now a mature and routine part of the job rather than the newly-rolled-out technology it still was in 2017; and an independent reporting channel outside the program's own chain of command, so a complaint doesn't have to go through the person it might be about.
Everything below in one scroll. Every page in the full site expands on one piece of this.
Ages 14–19 currently have zero structured, hands-on way to explore a law enforcement career in Louisville — the Explorer program that used to fill that role was shut down in 2017 after a serious abuse scandal. This proposal rebuilds it with real oversight fixes aimed directly at what failed then: split leadership from oversight, no one-on-one contact, standard body-worn camera policy applied to every interaction, and an independent reporting channel. It's proposed as a phased pilot with a built-in six-month review point, not an open-ended commitment.
Nothing exists for ages 14–19.
Full program, ride-alongs included.
Lower-risk alternative, no ride-alongs at first.
After background check + minimum tenure, either track.
Rough costs fall into instructor time, range costs, issued field gear, and background checks — sized to fit within or alongside the existing Citizens Academy budget line, not a request for a large new standalone budget. A six-month pilot with a formal review point comes before any commitment beyond that.
| 2017 Failure | This Proposal's Fix |
|---|---|
| Program leader also ran the Public Integrity Unit | Leadership organizationally separate from oversight, plus direct Chief's Office review |
| No independent way for a participant to report concerns | Independent, non-officer reporting channel |
| Unsupervised, undocumented one-on-one contact | Standard body-worn camera policy applied to every interaction + rotation-based pairing, no one-on-one contact |
| Records concealed, released only after legal compulsion | Annual public report, published proactively every year |
| A 2013–14 complaint closed with no real follow-up | Background checks refreshed periodically, not a one-time check |
| No formal review point — the program just existed until it collapsed | Built-in 6-month review with explicit continue/adjust/end criteria |
| No policy for Explorer-to-Explorer conduct issues | A real Explorer conduct & discipline policy with escalation steps |
| No check from outside the department | Metro Council / Public Safety Committee briefed on a set cadence |
A full breakdown of the current program landscape by age, and how it compares to what's available to adults.
No LMPD youth program has existed since the Explorer program closed.
The age range most likely to be forming career interests has no field-focused on-ramp — only a classroom-only college track starting at 18.
An 11-week evening program for college-age students, capped at 35 participants — classroom only, no field component.
A 12-week program open to anyone who lives or works in Metro Louisville.
| Program | Citizens Police Academy | College Citizens Academy | Proposed Youth Academy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Minimum age | 21 (in practice) | College-age (18–20) | 14 |
| Length | 12 weeks | 11 weeks | Ongoing, ride-alongs open at month 2 |
| Format | Thursday evenings, rotating LMPD facilities | Weekly evening sessions | Weekly sessions + range + scenario days |
| Ride-alongs | Available on request | Not standard | Available after 2-month minimum |
| Capacity | ~30 per session | 35 per session | Pilot cohort, scaled after review |
Fourteen to nineteen is exactly the window when most people either form or rule out a career interest — it's the same age range served by JROTC, fire Explorer programs, EMT explorer tracks in other cities, and countless trade-focused high school programs. Louisville teens interested in medicine, the military, or the fire service all have structured, hands-on options at this age. Teens interested in law enforcement currently have none.
That gap also has a cost beyond individual opportunity. A youth program is one of the more effective tools a department has for building trust with the next generation of residents in the communities it patrols. It's also a recruitment pipeline: an Explorer who spends several years in a structured program before turning 21 is a pre-vetted, already-trained future applicant — worth factoring in for a department managing its own staffing levels.
In late December 2025, a federal judge dismissed the proposed DOJ consent decree with LMPD after the Justice Department moved to abandon it earlier that year. The judge's ruling put it directly: responsibility for leading LMPD's reform "must remain with the city's elected representatives and the people they serve." That's a genuinely contested local issue — the FOP opposed the consent decree, while some community advocates wanted it kept — and this proposal doesn't take a side on that debate.
What it does mean practically: city and department leadership have now said, on the record, that reform in Louisville is a locally-led responsibility — not something imposed from Washington. A transparent, locally-designed youth program with real oversight built in is exactly the kind of initiative that fits the reform posture city leaders have already committed to owning themselves.
Specifically: sponsorship to advance this to a formal pilot proposal — command staff backing to take it through Chief's Office review, budget-office costing, and Metro Council coordination. This is not a request to approve a final budget or launch date today, and it is not a request for a permanent, unreviewable commitment; the six-month built-in review point below still applies once a pilot is running.
LMPD retains full operational control and decision-making authority over this program, start to finish. No outside organization runs any part of it, staffs it, or has a vote in how it's run — the department's own command staff, instructors, and existing Citizens Academy infrastructure would run the whole thing. The Metro Council briefing referenced in the oversight structure below is a transparency check, not shared control: LMPD decides, Metro Council is kept informed. This document is a proposal for LMPD's consideration, not a plan the author expects any ongoing role in beyond this pitch.
A modern version of the Explorer program, with structural safeguards designed around exactly what failed in 2017 — not bolted on afterward. Runs year-round with ongoing enrollment, matching how Explorer-style programs typically operate elsewhere, rather than a fixed-length course.
Same educational core as the adult Citizens Academy, scaled for high schoolers. A pilot LMPD can approve with minimal new risk, run as a defined 4–6 month cycle rather than a year-round commitment.
No single person would control both the program and the review of it — the exact structural failure that let 2017 happen. As proposed, oversight would run through several separate layers:
Direct, periodic review of program status, incident logs, and any filed reports — not delegated away entirely.
A member of command staff (e.g. an Assistant Chief) with direct reporting responsibility for the program, organizationally separate from Professional Standards / Public Integrity.
Runs day-to-day scheduling, curriculum, and instructor assignment. Reports to the command staff liaison, not the other way around.
A non-officer contact for teens or parents to raise concerns, routed outside the program's own staff entirely.
Briefed on a set cadence, providing a check from outside the department entirely.
The administrative path from sponsorship to Cohort 1 — a different, earlier timeline than the program rollout below.
Command liaison appointed → Legal/Risk review → Community Affairs/Training review → FOP consultation → proposed policies revised.
Finalize curriculum → select participating personnel → establish reporting procedures → finalize consent documents → confirm facilities → establish application process.
Officer training → parent orientation materials → recruitment/outreach → applications → participant screening → cohort selection.
Then: Cohort 1 begins, and the month-by-month rollout below takes over.
A phased path, not an all-at-once ask.
Every Explorer starts here regardless of track. UOF policy, scenario roleplay, equipment familiarization — no ride-alongs yet.
Minimum 2 months in the program, plus background check consent on file, before an Explorer is eligible for the ride-along rotation. This opens general eligibility — specific gear like handcuffs still requires its own item-by-item proficiency sign-off before an Explorer is authorized to carry it, per the Equipment page.
Ride-alongs run alongside ongoing classroom and scenario modules for the rest of the program — not a one-time capstone.
Rotating through LMPD's actual units and divisions, with real hands-on exposure — not a classroom-only experience.
What's issued, what's explicitly excluded, and the real-world department policy it's based on now has its own dedicated page.
Modeled directly on documented, currently-operating Explorer program policy — not invented from scratch.
Every item below is drawn from real, currently-operating police department Explorer programs — not guessed at. The line drawn around what's excluded is the same line those programs draw: issued equipment supports the role, supervision controls how it's used, and nothing here grants independent enforcement authority.
Drawn from the same real department policies, not a separate, stricter standard invented for this proposal:
| Excluded | Why |
|---|---|
| Firearms | Never issued or carried, on or off ride-along — universal across every Explorer program reviewed for this proposal |
| Independent arrest or enforcement authority | Explorers may assist when directed but may not complete an arrest, guard or search a suspect, or act on their own initiative |
| Tasers, chemical repellents, saps | Excluded from issued equipment across established Explorer programs |
| Operating the police radio independently | Explorers may monitor and assist under direct supervision only |
Rotating through every part of the county — not centered in one neighborhood.
LMPD patrols Jefferson County through eight numbered divisions. Rotating Explorers through all eight — rather than centering the program in one area — means teens from every part of the county get the same hands-on access, and the program builds community trust broadly instead of in just one neighborhood.
Division boundaries shown are an illustrative reference overlay, not official LMPD boundary data — official beat and division maps are maintained through LMPD's MapIt system.
Real neighborhoods, so the rotation reads as concrete rather than abstract:
Downtown-adjacent, including Portland, Russell, and Phoenix Hill.
Shawnee, Chickasaw, and Park DuValle.
Iroquois Park, Pleasure Ridge Park, Valley Station, and Fairdale.
Smoketown, Churchill Downs, the Fairgrounds, South Louisville, and Old Louisville.
The Highlands, Clifton, and Cherokee & Seneca Parks.
Audubon Park, Newburg, the airport, and the GE Appliance Park area.
Okolona, Fern Creek, Fords, and the Jefferson Mall area.
The county's eastern reaches, including the Jeffersontown and LaGrange Road corridor.
Each division breaks further into beats — smaller zones assigned to individual officers. The specific beat lines are LMPD's own operational data, maintained through the department's Research & Development Unit and its public MapIt tool, and aren't reproduced here — but the concept is straightforward:
An Explorer rotating through, say, the Fourth Division over several weeks isn't seeing one static area — they're seeing however many beats that division is broken into, each with its own officer and its own character, from Old Louisville's density to South Louisville's residential streets. Rotating across all eight divisions over the course of the program means exposure to dozens of distinct beats, not just one.
Every safeguard below maps to something specific that failed in 2017 — not generic caution.
Everything above covers what happens if an officer does something wrong. This covers the reverse — what happens if an Explorer does.
Code of conduct, in plain terms: The code requires no drugs or alcohol before or during any session, consistent attendance and punctuality, equipment used only as authorized, respectful treatment of instructors and other Explorers, and direct compliance with a supervising officer's instructions during ride-alongs and events.
Peer conduct specifically: The rank structure on the Hierarchy page creates a mentorship relationship between an Explorer Sergeant and newer Explorers — not authority to discipline them. Bullying or misuse of that relationship is treated as seriously as any other conduct violation, and the same independent reporting channel used for concerns about officers is equally available for a concern about another Explorer.
A number of established Explorer programs use an internal rank structure for leadership development. This proposal includes one — scoped carefully so it never becomes a substitute for adult supervision.
This is entirely a peer-recognition and leadership-development system. It carries no authority over the public, no enforcement role, and no exception to any supervision rule elsewhere in this proposal — an Explorer Sergeant still can't be paired one-on-one with an officer, still needs the same rotation-based scheduling, still follows every safeguard on the Policies page exactly like a first-month Explorer. What rank changes is responsibility toward other Explorers, not authority over anyone else.
Bottom to top — this sits entirely below and separate from the adult oversight structure on the Proposal page.
Mentors newer Explorers directly — answering logistics questions, helping probationary Explorers get oriented, assisting instructors during scenario drills. Earned through time in program plus instructor sign-off, not automatic promotion.
Full program member. Ride-along eligible once the 2-month minimum and background check are complete, per the Policies page. Specific gear, like handcuffs, still requires its own proficiency sign-off before it's carried.
Every Explorer starts here. First 2 months: classroom, scenario, and equipment modules only — no ride-alongs, matching the eligibility timeline on the Logistics page exactly.
Real leadership development — planning a scenario day, mentoring a nervous first-month Explorer, representing the group's questions to the program coordinator — without ever touching the actual chain of authority that governs safety. The adult oversight structure on the Proposal page (Chief's Office, command liaison, program coordinator) is where real decisions and real accountability live. This is where Explorers learn to lead each other.
Schedule, application process, staffing, budget, and the built-in review point — so this reads as executable, not conceptual.
Months 0–2 (before ride-along eligibility):
| Day | Activity | Format |
|---|---|---|
| Tuesday | Classroom module (rotating: patrol ops, UOF policy, investigations, traffic) | Evening, 2 hrs |
| Thursday | Scenario roleplay or force-on-force simulator training | Evening, 2 hrs |
| 1st Saturday | Range day (firearms familiarization) or specialty unit demo | Morning, 3 hrs |
Month 2 onward, once ride-along eligibility opens:
| Day | Activity | Format |
|---|---|---|
| Tuesday | Classroom module continues on rotation | Evening, 2 hrs |
| Thursday | Scenario training continues on rotation | Evening, 2 hrs |
| Rotating Sat. | Ride-along (scheduled by rotation) or range/demo day | Shift-length, per division |
Program coordinator: This would be a part-time or reassigned role, housed within the existing Community Affairs / Citizens Academy team rather than a new hire from scratch.
Instructors: These would be volunteer officers, background-screened specifically for work with minors and drawn from patrol, range staff, and specialty units already doing similar demonstrations for the adult Citizens Academy. A short "train the trainer" component is built in — being a good officer and being a good instructor for teenagers aren't automatically the same skill, so instructors get specific guidance before they're paired with a cohort.
What the screening actually checks: Criminal history, any sustained Public Integrity Unit findings, and prior terminations or resignations connected to misconduct with minors — the kind of documented, adjudicated outcomes that are the actual basis for excluding someone. An open or pending complaint isn't automatically disqualifying on its own: officers face complaints as a routine part of the job, most are never substantiated, and treating every complaint as guilt-by-accusation would both be unfair to officers and give the screening process the wrong signal to weigh. The distinction the screening is built around is sustained findings and adjudicated outcomes, not the mere existence of a complaint. A pattern of multiple complaints, or any complaint involving a minor specifically, is reviewed directly by the command staff liaison rather than screened out by a simple keyword match.
Instructor incentive: Officers who complete a term as an instructor receive a letter of commendation placed in their personnel file — a low-cost, low-friction way to make volunteering worth something concrete, without requiring Chief-level sign-off on every instance.
Command liaison: An existing member of command staff takes this on as part of their portfolio — not a new position, but a formally assigned responsibility.
FOP consultation: Since this involves officers taking on voluntary extra-duty instruction time and new liability exposure, the River City FOP lodge is looped in as part of the rollout, not after the fact, since this is the kind of thing a union reasonably expects a say in before it's finalized, not something to spring on them.
Insurance & liability: The program would fall under Louisville Metro's existing liability coverage for civilian participation in Citizens Academy activities — including range time and ride-alongs — extended to minors under a signed parent/guardian waiver, the same basic mechanism already used for other city-sponsored youth activities.
This isn't only an ask of officers' time — there's a real benefit on their side too:
Rough cost categories, meant as a starting point for LMPD's own budget office to refine — timed to Metro's regular budget cycle rather than proposed as a mid-year ask:
| Category | Notes |
|---|---|
| Instructor time | Stipend or overtime for volunteer officer instructors, evenings and Saturdays |
| Range costs | Ammunition and range time, shared with existing Citizens Academy range sessions |
| Issued field gear | Uniforms, duty belts, radios, handcuffs, and trauma kits per Explorer — see the Equipment page for the full list |
| Simulator equipment | Force-on-force / sim-gun training gear for the scenario modules — inert, training-only, separate from issued field gear |
| Background checks | Per-Explorer and per-instructor screening fees |
| Materials | Printed curriculum and waivers |
Possible funding sources include a reallocation within the existing Citizens Academy budget line, a Metro Council community program allocation submitted during the regular budget cycle, the Louisville Metro Police Foundation (saferlouisville.org) — the only organization authorized to raise private donations on LMPD's behalf, with programs, equipment, and training as one of its three core focus areas — or a federal community policing grant (the DOJ's COPS Office funds this kind of youth engagement activity in other departments, though on a competitive basis).
Every line above is a real, bounded cost that LMPD's own budget office can size precisely. But doing nothing isn't free either — it's just a cost that doesn't show up on a line item. Every year this gap stays open is a year LMPD isn't building a recruitment pipeline, a year the department misses a low-cost way to build trust with teenagers across every division, and a year Louisville teens interested in this career look elsewhere — to another city's program, another public-safety branch, or nowhere at all. That's not a hypothetical cost. It's the cost this proposal is trying to close.
Real conflicts for a real teenager — this isn't a scheduling afterthought:
The program is proposed with a formal review point after the first full cohort completes — roughly six months in. At that point, the command liaison presents a report to the Chief's Office and Metro Council with explicit criteria: completion rate, any conduct incidents, and Explorer/parent feedback. The program can be continued, adjusted, or ended at that point. Nothing about this proposal asks for a permanent, unreviewable commitment — and what that means for an individual Explorer if the program doesn't continue is covered on the FAQ page.
Every year, the program would publish basic statistics — enrollment numbers, completion rate, ride-along participation, and incident/complaint counts, even when that count is zero — through LMPD's public website. This is a direct answer to the 2017 history: a standing commitment to release information about the program routinely, rather than only after a records request compels it, as happened in 2017.
Including exactly what happens if something does go wrong.
You shouldn't have to take it on trust — that's the point of the oversight structure. No single person controls both the program and the review of it, the way Flaherty did. There's a Chief's Office review layer, a command staff liaison separate from the Public Integrity Unit, an independent reporting channel, and an annual public report. Trust is built through structure, not asked for up front.
Given the 2017 history, this is addressed directly:
The 2017 lawsuits point to a specific gap, not the existence of a youth program itself: contact between an officer and a participant that wasn't supervised, wasn't documented, and had no independent channel to raise concerns. Every safeguard in this proposal — split oversight, no one-on-one contact, standard body-worn camera policy applied to every interaction, rotation-based pairing, an independent reporting channel — is designed to close exactly that gap. A program built this way isn't a smaller version of the same risk; it's structurally a different situation.
There's also a documentation point worth naming directly: standard-policy body-worn camera recording and logging doesn't just deter misconduct — it protects the department in the much more common scenario where nothing happened and a claim is made anyway. Undocumented programs are exposed both ways. Well-documented ones have a real defense on record.
Practically, this also isn't a new category of risk for Metro's insurance and legal exposure. LMPD already carries liability coverage for civilian ride-alongs and range participation through the adult Citizens Academy — this extends the same coverage to a younger age band with more safeguards layered on than the adult version has, not fewer.
None of this is a substitute for Metro's own Law Department actually assessing the exposure — that review should happen before anything launches. But "we might get sued" isn't an argument against building better safeguards; if anything, it's the strongest argument for them.
The curriculum is deliberately similar — that's not a coincidence, it's the point. What's different is everything around it: who supervises it, how complaints get heard, and what gets published publicly every year. The name changing signals a fresh start; the oversight structure changing is what actually matters.
Any time, no penalty, no explanation required. An optional exit survey helps the program improve, but participation in it is never mandatory.
The program operates under Louisville Metro's existing liability framework for civilian participation in Citizens Academy activities, extended to minors through a signed parent/guardian waiver — the same basic coverage mechanism already in place for other city-sponsored youth activities, not something built from scratch.
There's already precedent: LMPD's adult Citizens Police Academy includes a supervised firearms familiarization course. This proposal extends the same certified-instructor, range-supervised model, with a separate signed parental consent specific to that module.
Depends on what it is. A sustained finding, a new criminal charge, or anything involving a minor specifically triggers immediate reassignment while it's reviewed by the command staff liaison — not left pending or handled informally. An unsubstantiated or still-open complaint, on its own, doesn't automatically pull someone from the program; officers face complaints routinely and most don't hold up, so treating any complaint as an automatic removal would be both unfair to officers and a poor screening standard. The line is substantiated findings versus the mere existence of an accusation — not every red flag looks the same, and this proposal doesn't treat them as if they do.
Ride-alongs and specialty modules can expose Explorers to hard scenes — a bad crash, an active call. Rather than inventing something new, this routes through LMPD's existing Chaplain Corps and Peer Support Team — the same resources already used department-wide for exactly this — with a short debrief offered after any ride-along involving a serious incident, and parents notified. This isn't optional or left to the Explorer to bring up on their own.
That's on the program, never on them. Specifically: no penalty and no negative mark of any kind — ending a pilot is a decision about the program's future, not a judgment on any individual. Certifications earned don't disappear — CPR/AED and BLS credentials come from Louisville Metro EMS and the American Heart Association, not LMPD, so they remain valid regardless of what happens to the program itself. Every Explorer receives a formal record of what they completed, not just a verbal "thanks." And if the program is ever relaunched later, past Explorers get first opportunity to return, rather than starting over in a new applicant pool.
What actually happens if a concern is raised, step by step:
LMPD isn't alone in having to rebuild trust in a youth program after a crisis. The Explorer program's own national parent organization, Learning for Life, now operates under a "two-deep leadership, no one-on-one contact" standard adopted after its own history of abuse cases — two vetted adult leaders (not parents; two background-checked officers or instructors) required at any activity, and no private one-on-one contact between an adult leader and a youth member, digital or otherwise. This proposal's classroom and facility safeguards are built on that same model, adapted for what's actually realistic inside a patrol car.
What each number actually measures:
This is an outline of what a parent/guardian consent and waiver packet should include — not a finished legal document. It would need to be drafted and reviewed by LMPD's own legal counsel before use.
Program contacts, partner organizations, and official links relevant to this proposal.
Direct contact for questions about this proposal, before it's formally assigned to a department point of contact.
Roles this program would need — described by function, since specific people haven't been assigned yet:
Primary point of contact for day-to-day operations, scheduling, and family communication — likely housed within the existing Community Affairs / Citizens Academy team rather than a new hire.
Formal oversight responsibility, kept organizationally separate from day-to-day program staff — that separation is a direct, structural answer to the 2017 conflict-of-interest failure.
Handles public inquiries, media, and coordination with Metro Council and partner agencies as the program moves through review.
Not claimed endorsements — just the institutions this proposal already builds in as partners, worth naming so this doesn't read as a lone ask:
Official sources referenced throughout this proposal:
Council districts, meeting schedules, and the Public Safety Committee.
Interactive map of all 26 council districts and their representatives.
The only organization authorized to raise private donations on LMPD's behalf — programs, equipment, and training are among its core focus areas.
Factual claims throughout this proposal, and where they come from — so anything here can be independently verified rather than taken on faith:
A small number of claims — LMPD's current overall budget figure and the December 2025 dismissal of the proposed DOJ consent decree — are drawn from public reporting at the time this proposal was prepared but aren't linked here with a single confirmed source; LMPD's own records office can verify both directly.