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 21 b. Status of Compliance and Assessment The compliance deadline for Task 3 occurred in June 2005. During the seventh and eighth reporting periods, OPD completed and trained relevant personnel on the Internal Affairs Policy and Procedure Manual, which incorporates Task 3. On January 25, 2007, the Department published Internal Affairs Policy & Procedure 07-01, Integrity Testing. The IMT has confirmed that the Department has trained at least 95% of relevant personnel on this revised policy. During the ninth reporting period, the IMT audited OPD’s actual practice compliance with this task. Although OPD was not yet in full compliance with Task 3, the IMT was impressed by the commitment of IAD staff and by its decision to conduct particular tests for the express purpose of detecting retaliatory conduct. In conducting its integrity tests, IAD identified a number of resource deficiencies that prevented it from developing successful integrity testing. Based on our review of the tests conducted, we agreed with IAD’s assessments. During the tenth reporting period, OPD worked to address some of the resource constraints. As a result of its efforts, IAD was able to obtain some of its own surveillance equipment and has worked with Department and City sources to identify funding for covert vehicles, telephone equipment, and other needs as they may arise. Our audit included additional recommendations aimed at improving OPD’s integrity testing. These recommendations included: completing criteria for identifying members/employees who are the subject of repeated allegations of misconduct; improving the documentation and review process associated with integrity tests; and providing additional training to staff conducting integrity tests. A complete discussion of our audit findings is included in our ninth status report. During the tenth reporting period, the compliance standards for this task were lowered from 95% to 90% and modified to include a more subjective pass/fail assessment. During the tenth reporting period, OPD proposed additional criteria for identifying members/employees who are the subject of repeated allegations. During the eleventh reporting period, the IMT worked closely with IAD to finalize these criteria. OPD created a working definition of “repeated allegations of misconduct” and developed a protocol for reviewing complaint histories of officers who reach a threshold of complaints of certain types. During the twelfth reporting period, using the recently developed protocol, OPD created reports identifying officers who may be appropriate subjects for integrity testing. The IMT reviewed OPD’s reports and provided OPD with technical assistance regarding ways to adjust its review criteria to help make the process more effective. During the current reporting period, the IMT conducted an assessment of whether OPD is conducting integrity tests of officers who have been deemed appropriate for testing and whether OPD is otherwise complying with the requirements of Task 3. We found that while OPD has developed standards and criteria for identifying individuals who are the subject of repeated allegations of misconduct, it has not conducted any integrity tests on such individuals. Thus, while OPD has done some integrity tests, it has not conducted any focused on individuals who are the subject of repeated allegations of misconduct.