21st-quarterly-report.pdf

Twenty-First Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police Department May 4, 2015 Page 66 The Department is also in the process of developing IPAS2, which is a new data system for use in the risk management process. Work has proceeded over this reporting period and, although there were organization problems associated with one vendor, those have been resolved. During our most recent site visit, the Department held a project overview meeting of IPAS2 stakeholders. The major vendor Microsoft Corporation provided the overview. Although the agenda was quite limited, it did seem clear that the technological aspects of the project are on target. Microsoft presented a plan highlighting four expected stages in the process, although no content for these stages was on the presentation slide or in its description. The vendor expects an 11-month time period to completion. When compared with the work on the technology, the Monitoring Team is less sanguine about developments around the expected use and value of the new system for Department management. That is to say, the attention to technological concerns is not matched by the corresponding attention to the potential value of the system for risk reduction in the Department. Repeating here what we noted in the last report: An important step in this process will be to formulate key questions so that they may be captured in reports through the new system. Such reports might include a Department analysis of officers repeatedly meeting thresholds, and identification of high productive officers who do not regularly exceed risk thresholds, as well as analyses of low performing officers. There should be a process for systematically considering the questions the risk management process should be answering and for designing the appropriate reports for the new system. That will allow the Department to take advantage of the capabilities of the new system for accomplishing things the last generation database could not. The examples above are suggested only as illustrations. A broad set of question should be formulated at this time. In fact, during the discussion at the IPAS2 stakeholders meeting, several attendees offered additional examples in this area. It would be desirable to have a systematic process in place to address these matters of use. That process would run parallel to the technology developments on the project. During the stakeholders’ meeting, the Department noted its plans to form a separate committee to address the critical issues regarding use of the system. The makeup of this committee, its process, and its products will be of interest to the Monitor. The Department’s commitment in this area, as well as the City’s, reflects recognition of the importance of the risk management process as outlined in the NSA. As development and implementation moves forward, it would be useful to look beyond the processes associated with the earlier system and toward broader questions as to how IPAS2 can more effectively support the management of the Department. As in previous reports, we have continued our examination of the stages of the PAS process consistent with this Task. We examined the threshold analyses that were performed for the period of October 1, through December 31, 2014. This included a review of peer-based threshold analyses completed by the PAS Administration Unit and the identification of officers meeting the single-event threshold.