21st-quarterly-report.pdf

Twenty-First Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police Department May 4, 2015 Page 54 investigative encounter.” Officers must also complete a SDF “for consensual encounters (contacts) where the member talks with a person to confirm or dispel a suspicion that the person may be involved in criminal activity, although the person is free to leave.” Data from the electronic Field Based Reporting system is automatically sent to the Department’s Forensic Logic Quicksearch program, which allows Department personnel to search for and query officers’ stop data. During our quarterly and technical assistance site visits, members of our Team meet with OPD personnel to follow the Department’s progress with data collection and analysis, and with the development of operational and intervention options. OPD organizes the data into tables and graphs depicting – both globally and by district – the breakdown of stops, the reasons for the stops, and any resulting action taken; including searches, the results of searches and arrests, and other actions. The Department, after collecting stop data between July 1, 2013 and June 30, 2014, prepared and issued to the public the second Stop Data Annual Report (on September 15, 2014). As noted previously, the Department continues to work with Professor Jennifer Eberhardt of Stanford University, who was contracted in June 2014 to administer a stop data analysis report. During our most recent site visit, we observed two training sessions presented by Dr. Eberhardt for supervisors and commanders. The sessions focused on presenting research known to Dr. Eberhardt specific to the biases of citizen as it relates to race – specifically African Americans. The programs were well received and appeared to be a precursor to future training once Dr. Eberhardt completes her analysis. Nevertheless, the data contained in the report that the Department has already issued provides the basis upon which OPD can further explore and/or identify areas where there may be disparities in the treatment of identified population groups. As time passes and the database grows, its predictive value will also increase. The data should provide the basis for determining training and intervention options; and, in accordance with the requirements of the December 12, 2012 Court Order, the development of strategies to “address, resolve and reduce…incidents of racial profiling or biased-based policing.” We are encouraged by the progress made during recent reporting periods. OPD has developed a data collection process that appears to be reliable and accurate. Yet while the Department periodically verifies the accuracy of its data with internal audits, we have, to date, found these audits insufficient; they have not identified issues relating to the search recovery rate nor the large percentage of stops involving individuals on probation or parole. OPD is at a critical juncture where any indicators of disparate treatment among populations groups must be addressed in order to determine whether there is a constitutionally valid basis for the disparity or there is a need for corrective intervention. Recognizing that this is easier said than done, we stand ready to assist the Department wherever possible. OPD is in partial compliance with Task 34.3.1.