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 46 The IMT conducted an actual practice review of Task 20 in September 2004. A complete discussion of our audit findings is included in our combined fourth and fifth quarterly report. That review showed that OPD had not reached actual practice compliance with Task 20 and remained out of compliance in part because of its continuing use of uncertified acting sergeants (who may not be adequately trained to supervise patrol squads). During the tenth reporting period, OPD began the acting sergeant selection and training process and reported that with assignment of several additional sergeants to patrol it soon should be able to meet the requirements of this task. In addition, OPD reported that pending completion of the acting sergeant selection and training process, it was trying to limit the use of acting sergeants and when they are used to assign only experienced officers, including using Field Training Officers when possible. During the tenth reporting period, all of the compliance standards for this task were lowered from 95% to 85% or 90% or modified to include a more subjective pass/fail assessment. During the eleventh reporting period, we conducted an abbreviated but dispositive compliance assessment of Task 20. Our review of the data quickly revealed that OPD did not adequately document the actual supervision of its units on a daily basis, particularly its specialized units such as Crime Reduction Teams and other tactical units. We had questions whether these units and patrol units were supervised by their primary supervisors during a sufficient percentage of shifts to be in compliance, and there was insufficient documentation to demonstrate an adequate percentage of shifts were supervised by a primary sergeant as required by this task. Additionally, there was also little evidence of documentation of backfill and special operations supervision. We informed OPD that we would continue our data analysis if requested, but that our initial review of the data had already made clear that OPD was not in compliance with Task 20. Moreover, we were unwilling to stop the audit without a finding, as we had already done this twice for this task. OPD agreed that we should not expend further resources analyzing the data and requested that we meet to further explain our findings. We met with OIG to explain our findings and discuss with them steps for improving compliance. OIG began to oversee implementation of changes in patrol and OPD’s tactical units. During the thirteenth reporting report, an anonymous complaint to IAD stated that the PSO squads were routinely over the 1:8 span of control, impacting the ability to provide adequate supervision to officers. We reviewed the projected schedules for the time period December 13, 2008, through May 1, 2009. These schedules confirmed that, in direct violation of the NSA, OPD had not assigned sufficient sergeants to assure the required 1:8 span of control ratio for at least three PSO squads during all or part of this time period. The IMT also interviewed PSO sergeants regarding their supervisory responsibilities. The Court admonished OPD about committing an intentional violation of the Settlement Agreement. OPD has since promoted additional sergeants to help ensure that officers receive adequate supervision. During the current reporting period the IMT completed a comprehensive actual practice assessment of OPD’s compliance with Task 20. While OPD is not yet in compliance with this task, the progress OPD has made during the past several years is substantial. In general,