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 90 During the ninth reporting period, the IMT intended to audit Task 43; however, OPD reported that it was not yet complying with the requirements of Task 43. OIG conducted an assessment of the Training Division during the ninth reporting period and found that OPD was not complying with the instructor selection, in-service training, or promotional training requirements. Consistent with the IMT’s review, OIG found poor record-keeping, including documentation and tracking of training. OIG made a series of recommendations to address these deficiencies and the Department retained a law enforcement training expert to assist it in modernizing and enhancing its training programs. The IMT met with the Department’s expert and shared our observations of the Training Division, including the inconsistent and unreliable methods in which training is documented. For example, unless the training being provided was required by the NSA, OPD was not routinely documenting or tracking the training. This made it virtually impossible to ensure, or even document, that all relevant staff have received training that may be critical for their positions, or to hold them accountable when they do not perform as required by the training. During the tenth reporting period, many of the compliance standards for this task were lowered from 95% to 90% or modified to include a more subjective pass/fail assessment. The IMT completed an audit of this task during the eleventh reporting period. We found that OPD was in compliance with most of Task 43, including requirements that: 1) OPD implement a training plan that includes elements required by the Settlement Agreement; 2) OPD training include additional emphasis on ethics and professionalism, critical thinking and problem-solving, conflict resolution, and relationships with the community; 3) OPD consult with at least four other large law-enforcement agencies that have excellent reputations for professionalism regarding the areas listed above in number two; 4) OPD training expand professionalism in all aspects of training (recruit academy, in-service training, and field training) using realistic scenario-based training exercises; 5) sergeants and commanders receive 40-hours in-service supervisory and leadership training before (for sergeants) or within six months of (for commanders) promotion; 6) all members receive 40 hours of training every 18 months; 7) sergeants receive at least 20 hours of supervisory training every 18 months; and 8) commanders receive at least 20 hours of commander training every 18 months. At that time, we found that OPD was not in compliance with three important requirements: 1) that OPD’s training plan ensures that certain OPD officers and employees are adequately trained for their positions and trained to use the most contemporary developments in policing; 2) that OPD’s training plan establishes criteria and methods for selecting, training, evaluating, and maintaining records for OPD training instructors; and 3) that the complaint history of every in-service or Academy training instructor is reviewed prior to appointment and the instructor appointed only if the individual is shown to be supportive of the philosophy and values of OPD and to have not had a sustained Class I offense within the two years prior to appointment. A more complete discussion of our findings is included in our eleventh status report.