fourteenth-report.pdf

Independent Monitoring Team Fourteenth Status Report of the Independent Monitor Delphine Allen, et al., v. City of Oakland, et al. July 31, 2009 to January 13, 2010 Page 19 Against Departmental Personnel or Procedures, the Internal Affairs Policy and Procedure Manual and the Departmental Discipline Policy. As discussed above, during the eleventh reporting period, OPD revised these policies and procedures. During the ninth reporting period, the IMT audited OPD’s actual practice compliance with this task. Our assessment determined that while OPD had made significant improvements in conducting timely internal investigations, it was not yet in compliance with its own timeliness requirements. During the tenth reporting period, the compliance standards for this task were lowered from 95% to 85% and the IMT revised its methodology for assessing investigation timeliness. In order to be considered timely, at least 85% of Class I misconduct investigations and at least 85% of Class II misconduct investigations must be completed within 180 days. Class I investigations are those involving allegations of serious misconduct, including excessive force, false arrest, and lying. Class II investigations are those involving allegations of less serious misconduct, including rudeness, performance of duty, and tardiness. The compliance requirement for this task was also substantively modified by the Parties’ agreement that an investigation of misconduct should be considered “timely” even if it takes longer than 180 days to complete, provided that the IAD commander approves the extension beyond 180 days and the IMT agrees. Extensions beyond 180 days are rarely acceptable or necessary. During the twelfth reporting period, we audited OPD’s actual practice using these new compliance standards and requirements. We found that OPD was not yet in compliance with timeliness standards for Class I investigations, but had a high rate of compliance with timeliness standards for its Class II investigations. For Class I investigations, OPD’s compliance level was 79%, and for Class II investigations, OPD’s compliance level was 92%. We found that IAD and OPD command staff were regularly monitoring compliance with the timeliness standards. We also found that, as required by the NSA, IAD staffing is adjusted to maintain timeliness standards if IAD experiences an unusual proliferation of cases and/or workload. During the thirteenth reporting period, the IMT conducted another audit of the timeliness of OPD’s misconduct investigations. We found that OPD was in compliance with the timeliness requirements of Task 2 for both Class I and Class II investigations. During the current reporting period, the IMT once again audited OPD’s misconduct investigation timeliness. We found that OPD had sustained its timeliness requirement for both Class I and Class II investigations. The compliance level for Class I investigations was 90% and for Class II investigations was 96%. This sustained significant improvement in the timeliness of IAD investigations means that, on average, both officers and civilians live with the specter of an open IAD case for over two weeks less now than they did one year ago. This improved timeliness, along with our findings that OPD has improved other aspects of its investigations, such as quickly contacting complainants, almost certainly also indicates that investigations are being initiated more quickly, allowing for better investigations and sending a message of responsiveness to the community. OPD, including the supervisors who conduct division-level investigations as well as IAD investigators, deserve credit for better serving their own officers and the community in this way.