19th-quarterly-report.pdf

Nineteenth Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police Department October 30, 2014 Page 18 During the last reporting period, we found OPD in compliance with this subtask. During the current reporting period, of the 91 DIL entries, 24 complaints were taken by supervisors in the field; three complaints were received by IAD directly; and in the remaining 64 cases, complainants called 911 to express their dissatisfaction. In these latter cases, IAD or field supervisors were notified, except when the complaints were against Communications personnel (these were handled by a Communications supervisor) or were clearly service complaints (e.g., slow response time with no specific officer complained of). We noted 36 such service complaints. Twenty-two of these were for delayed response to calls for service. Five others involved dissatisfaction with OPD policies and procedures. During this reporting period, OPD remains in compliance with Task 5.1. Task 5.2 requires that if there is a delay of greater than three hours in supervisory response, the reason for the delay be documented (compliance standard: 85%). OPD has added a checkbox to the DIL to record such delays. In addition to reviewing this section of the logs, we also checked the times of complaint receipt and supervisor contact with the complainant (or attempted contact where the complainant was unavailable – see Task 5.3). We identified two cases in which there appeared to be greater than a three-hour delay in contacting the complainant. In one case, the complainant was unable to speak to a sergeant due to her medical condition, despite the fact that the sergeant responded to the hospital to interview her. The other complaint was received via email, and the supervisor did not receive the complaint until he returned to work from his scheduled days off. Since the reason for the delay was explained in the log entry, OPD remains in compliance with Task 5.2. Task 5.3 requires that where a complainant refuses to travel to a supervisor, or wait for one, personnel make all reasonable attempts to obtain specific information to assist in investigating the complaint (compliance standard: 90%). Of the 91 records in our dataset, we identified three instances in which the complainant “refused” interaction with a supervisor. All were received in Communications, and in each case, the complainants did not answer the callback telephone numbers provided during their initial calls. In one of these cases, a supervisor also attempted to contact the complainant in person, without success. OPD is in compliance with Task 5.3. Task 5.4 requires that specific information be documented on a complaint form and submitted to the immediate supervisor or, in his/her absence, the appropriate Area Commander (compliance standard: 85%). To achieve compliance with this subtask, the DIL should contain the identification of personnel; witnesses or identifying information, if known (the log should state “unknown” if not known); the date, time, and location of the incident; and the time of contact or attempt to contact the complainant by a supervisor. During the last reporting period, OPD had a 100% compliance rate with this subtask. During this reporting period, all of the logs we reviewed contained the required information (“unknown” was checked in 15 records). OPD has a 100% compliance rate during this reporting period, and is in compliance with Task 5.4. Task 5.5 requires that the supervisor or Area Commander notify Communications and forward