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 84 During the tenth reporting period, the compliance standards for this task were modified to include a more subjective pass/fail assessment. OPD published a revised version of General Order D-17 on August 20, 2008. The IMT has verified that OPD has trained 95% or more of relevant personnel on this policy. The IMT did not conduct a formal assessment of PAS until the twelfth reporting period to allow sufficient time for the system to be up and running. This assessment determined that OPD was not yet in compliance with all requirements of this task. We found that while much of the system’s data accurately reflected information from other OPD data sources, as detailed in our 120-page audit report provided to the Parties, there were several critical areas in which IPAS data was incomplete, inaccurate, and/or organized in an unwieldy manner. Supervisors and managers are becoming more adept at using the IPAS system and increasingly rely upon it when performing a range of supervisory duties, including evaluating personnel performance. OPD is also using the system to identify members and employees in need of intervention or greater supervisory monitoring. OPD is in compliance with the majority of Task 41’s requirements. OPD, however, is not yet in compliance with Task 41. Due to data problems, it has not been identifying all members as required by the NSA or timely documenting intervention strategies that occur. The results of intervention and supervisory monitoring have been somewhat mixed. Some members and employees have exhibited improved behavior while others have not. It will be critical for OPD to build upon successful strategies and implement new ones where warranted. We found that OPD commanders and managers have a generally positive view of IPAS and are using it for a variety of purposes including preparing performance appraisals and general supervision. OPD, however, currently is underutilizing the system for assessing and managing at-risk behavior. Because IPAS is a new system, there is an understandable learning curve. Additional training for supervisors and commanders in how to identify potential at-risk behavior along with some system adjustments will assist OPD to take greater advantage of this powerful tool that is now at its disposal. During our audit, we shared our observations, concerns, and recommendations regarding the system with OPD. OPD has responded energetically and constructively, showing a desire to resolve identified deficiencies. This is due in large part to the skill and dedication of OPD’s PAS coordinator. The PAS Coordinator has continued to demonstrate exceptional organization, leadership, and a firm commitment to ensuring that the PAS system functions effectively and consistently as a risk-management tool for OPD. Our audit report lists a series of recommendations aimed at assisting OPD to achieve full compliance with Tasks 40 and 41 while improving the functionality and usability of the system. A full discussion of our audit findings is included in our twelfth status report. During the current reporting period, the IMT met again with the PAS Administration Unit and the PAS Activity Review Panel. We continued to be impressed by their thoughtfulness and commitment to the PAS program.