What were the findings of the Minneapolis Civil Unrest After‑Action Review and which operational failures did it identify?
Executive summary
The protests-policing">Minneapolis 2020 Civil Unrest After‑Action Review concluded that the city’s response to the protests following George Floyd’s murder was plagued by disorganized command, fractured communications, and failures to use established emergency plans—producing confusion, inconsistent public messaging, and operational gaps that left residents and first responders feeling abandoned [1] [2] [3]. Independent and state reviewers amplified those conclusions, labeling the overall municipal response chaotic and, in some assessments, an “abject failure,” while cataloging dozens of findings and recommendations for improvement [4] [5] [6].
1. What the after‑action review examined and who produced it
The city-commissioned after‑action review was produced by an external firm that examined body‑worn camera footage, event logs, CAD incident data, Emergency Operations Center reports, and community listening sessions to evaluate Minneapolis’s response from late May to early June 2020; the engagement included interviews and two listening sessions with about 85 participants to capture community perspectives [7] [1]. The Hillard Heintze report presented roughly 25 key findings to the City Council and was accompanied by a separate improvement planning presentation summarizing those findings [5] [8].
2. Core findings: a broken command-and-control picture
A central finding was that the city did not effectively use its Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) and failed to establish coherent incident command and operational objectives in the crucial first days, meaning commanders and field officers lacked unified guidance on incident command, rules of engagement and priorities [2] [8] [3]. The result was ad hoc, locality‑specific decisions rather than a coordinated, citywide strategy until outside state and federal partners intervened [2] [3].
3. Communications failures—inside city government and to the public
The review documented pervasive communications breakdowns among mayoral staff, emergency management, police and fire departments, and the public: inconsistent messaging, ineffective internal information flows, and confusion about who was directing operations all undermined an integrated response and eroded public confidence [1] [2] [3]. Multiple outlets and the report itself emphasized that poor intra‑agency communication left residents feeling abandoned and hindered coordinated deployment of resources [2] [3].
4. Operational shortcomings: arrests, resources, and mutual aid
Practically, MPD lacked plans for mass arrest processing and did not apply core incident command principles or prior training from large‑scale incidents, leading to inconsistent rules of engagement among patrol officers and failures in planning and logistics for sustained civil disturbances [2] [8]. The review also flagged delays and confusion in requesting and integrating National Guard and state assistance, plus challenges in multi‑agency command center (MACC) roles and responsibilities that further complicated the response [2] [4].
5. Recommendations, remediation, and progress reported
The after‑action products produced a slate of recommendations—reported variously as 25 key findings with a set of recommendations and as a 27‑recommendation after‑action plan—with city documents and press coverage noting dozens of suggested reforms and an ongoing improvement plan; subsequent tracking reported that many recommendations had been completed or were in progress [5] [6] [1]. The Department of Justice’s COPS Office has also released assessments in similar contexts highlighting the need for coordinated political, tactical and operational responses—echoing themes in the city’s report [9].
6. External reviews, critiques and political context
State and congressional reviews arrived at harsher verdicts in some quarters: a state external review called aspects of Minneapolis’s response “an abject failure,” and other legislative examinations faulted elected leadership, resource decisions and the timeliness of state action—revealing a politically charged layer to operational critiques and competing narratives about responsibility [4] [10]. News outlets summarized the independent review as finding “widespread chaos,” underscoring both operational lessons and the heated political aftermath [3].
Conclusion: accountable lessons, unfinished work
The after‑action review and follow‑up materials collectively portray a city that failed to translate plans and training into an integrated response during an unprecedented period of protest, with specific operational failures in incident command, communications, arrest processing, and intergovernmental coordination; the city has adopted many recommendations but accountability and full remediation remain part of an ongoing public and political debate [1] [6] [5]. Reporting here is limited to the documents and reviews cited; additional primary materials beyond these sources were not examined for this summary.