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 93 We reported in our combined fourth and fifth quarterly report that OPD was not complying with the requirements of this task. We found that too few personnel files contained current performance appraisals and that the quality of the performance appraisals was deficient as well. In October 2005, OIG initiated an audit of the Department’s performance appraisals and also found that OPD’s actual practice did not comply with Task 44. OIG’s audit found that current performance appraisals did not contain sufficient documentation of the criteria required by the Settlement Agreement. OIG further reported that OPD could not demonstrate that managers and supervisors were held accountable for writing poor quality performance appraisals. Consistent with the IMT’s recommendations made as a result of its 2004 audit, OIG made several recommendations for improving the Department’s compliance with this task. During the eighth reporting period, the IMT conducted a second audit of OPD’s actual practice compliance with this task. We found that OPD had made some progress in completing the appraisals in a timely fashion, but was not yet in compliance with the Settlement Agreement’s deadlines. However, OPD had made significant improvements in the content of performance appraisals completed. Based on our review, over 96% of performance appraisals completed contained the required content. This was in stark contrast to our previous audit in which we found that inclusion of required information was sporadic and more often than not missing than present. We also found that 96% of the appraisals reviewed included the required signatures from supervisors, managers, and commanders. In our previous audit, we found that signatures were largely illegible and/or missing from the appraisals. A complete discussion of our audit findings is included in our eighth status report. 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. During the thirteenth reporting period, OPD continued to report the status of completed and delinquent performance appraisals at management meetings. OIG completed an assessment of Task 44 during the current reporting period. OIG found that OPD has continued to make progress in its performance appraisal system but is not yet in compliance with all of the NSA’s performance appraisal requirements. Based on OIG’s assessment, OPD is not yet in compliance with the requirement that the appraisals of members with substantial collateral duties include consultation with other supervisors or managers. OIG also found that OPD is not in compliance with the requirement that the appraisals of members supervised by two or more individuals due to a transfer are completed by the appropriate supervisor or with the requirement that the performance appraisals of certain commanders document that their subordinates work to enhance the quality of community contacts. Following OIG’s audit, OPD updated its performance appraisal forms and provided supervisors and managers with refresher training on completing performance appraisals. During the current reporting period, we conducted another actual practice assessment of Task 44. We found that OPD is in compliance with all of Task 44 except the requirement that the performance appraisals of Area Captains document that their subordinates worked to enhance community policing, and that they are held accountable for whether they did. OPD is not in compliance with this requirement because no appraisals for Area Captains were completed. OPD is in compliance with the remainder of this task.