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 47 supervision is closer, more consistent, and supervisors are better trained to perform what many consider to be the most difficult job in any law enforcement agency. We no longer see squads of 16-20 officers routinely supervised by only one supervisor (or, more often, a rotating cadre of supervisors). The agency, its officers, and the community benefit from more guidance for officers, especially in an agency like OPD which has a large percentage of newer officers. Our review found that OPD now ensures that sergeants, including PSO sergeants, are assigned no more than eight officers, with few exceptions. We found further that backfill, loan, and transfer decisions are made far more thoughtfully, and with proper criteria in mind, than in previous years, and are generally better documented. The span of control for special operations is also generally reasonable, although we did note problems in this area. OPD’s main challenge remaining in providing appropriate consistency of supervision is ensuring that sufficient numbers of Sergeants are assigned and maintained to ensure that squads are able to retain the same supervisor over a long period of time, without excessive backfill- supervision or supervision by assigned, but uncertified, acting sergeants. This consistency of supervision was evident in most squads, but in some, especially squads working unpopular times or areas of the city, officers were supervised by a series of supervisors over weeks or months. In other instances, acting sergeants who had not completed OPD’s own process for ensuring they are certified to act as supervisors, were assigned to supervise squads for extended periods of time. Overall, we found that of 1,925 squads reviewed, 75% were reviewed by their primary supervisors and 25% were reviewed by either uncertified acting supervisors or backfill supervisors (e.g., supervisors working overtime or covering two squads). OPD is not in compliance with Task 20. This task will be actively monitored under the MOU. The Monitor will conduct the required audits, reviews or studies to assess whether OPD is complying with the substantive task requirements. (MOU, paragraph 10.) 4. Members’, Employees’ and Supervisors’ Performance Reviews (Task 21; S.A. IV.D.) a. Settlement Agreement Requirements • By July 7, 2004, every OPD commander/manager must meet at least twice per year with each of his/her subordinates to coach them regarding their strengths and weaknesses. • By July 7, 2004, supervisors must meet individually with members/employees in certain units at least twice per month for informal performance reviews. b. Status of Compliance and Assessment The compliance deadline for this task occurred in July 2004. As previously reported, OPD developed and published a compliant policy incorporating this provision, General Order B- 6, Performance Appraisals, well ahead of this deadline. During the sixth reporting period, OPD provided the IMT with sufficiently reliable training data to enable us to confirm that OPD had