21st-quarterly-report.pdf

Twenty-First Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police Department May 4, 2015 Page 67 In accordance with this Task requirement, we reviewed PAS processes for the system’s use in placement of officers on special assignment, transfer of officers, and commendations. An important function of PAS is to regularly provide supervisors with relevant information on officers. To consider that function, we again reviewed reports of regular quarterly PAS command reviews of officers by supervisors. We again found appropriate use of the system and no significant issues. The PAS process is initiated through comprehensive risk assessment reviews when thresholds are met. For the period covered in this report, we examined 20 reviews that were completed, and 19 additional reviews that were in process earlier and returned to the PAS Unit during the period. We also examined Command Reviews in five command areas. For the reporting period ending December 31, 2014, OPD completed a total of 35 PAS reviews which were processed up the chain of command and through the PAS panel. There were 21 in the previous reporting period. The number of reviews for the quarter showed significant increases over recent quarters and returned to the of earlier time periods. Reviews are included in the table below only after they are signed off through the level of the PAS Review Panel. Examination of the reviews as completed by the PAS Unit shows them to be thorough and complete. The reviews include examination of all identified risk-related activity consistent with the policy. The table also shows that 17 officers exceeded thresholds for review during this quarter and that 59 reviews were listed as pending at the end of the quarter. This, again, will mean a substantial workload for the coming reporting period. We will monitor the progress in this area. The table below tracks the review process and shows that supervisors recommended that no action be taken in 29, or 83%, of the 35 reviews for the current reporting period. The table also shows that Commanders and the Deputy Chief disagreed with two lower-level recommendations and supported monitoring. The PAS Review Panel also reversed two cases. The overall situation regarding the level of reviews and related action continues as it was described in recent reporting periods: The system shows moderately high levels of “no action” required on initial review but also shows the willingness and capacity to reverse those decisions up the chain of command. The new procedures have reduced the work required of supervisors by reducing the large number of false positive cases confronted by first line supervisors. However, the procedures have not necessarily reduced the number of officers exceeding thresholds and not recommended for monitoring or intervention by PAS reviewers. When assessed for the review period, 15 officers were in monitoring (five tolled as unavailable) and nine in intervention (two tolled). This means that, for this quarter, approximately 3% of all officers (totaling 745) are on some risk management-related status, monitoring, or intervention. When the percentage using patrol officers as the base (that is, 453) is considered, it increases to over 5.5% of officers. These numbers are lower than expected under a system intended to continuously lower risk over time. We will continue to monitor these levels and to scrutinize the process to assure that appropriate standards are maintained.