ninth-report.pdf

Independent Monitoring Team Ninth Status Report of the Independent Monitor Delphine Allen, et al., v. City of Oakland, et al. May 13, 2006, to November 30, 2006 Page 17 1. IAD Staffing and Resources (Task 1; S.A. III.A.) a. Settlement Agreement Requirements • By August 13, 2004, OPD must revise certain policies and procedures related to IAD investigations and create an IAD procedural manual for conducting complaint investigations. (This requirement applies to Tasks 1–16 and is reiterated in Task 10.) • By August 13, 2004, OPD must train all personnel to ensure they have received, understand and comply with new and revised Departmental policies and procedures. (This requirement applies to Tasks 1–16 and is reiterated in Task 10.) • By August 13, 2004, the IAD procedural manual must address: assignment and rotation of officers; training and qualifications of members and other personnel in IAD; appropriate background checks of IAD personnel; and confidentiality of IAD information. b. Status of Compliance and Assessment The revised compliance deadline for this task was in August 2004. During the last two reporting periods, OPD completed the policies incorporating this Settlement Agreement task and trained its personnel on these policies. The policies are General Order M-3, Complaints Against Departmental Personnel or Procedures; the Internal Investigation Procedure Manual (Training Bulletin Index Numbers V-T.1 and V-T.2); the Internal Affairs Policy and Procedure Manual (including Policies 05-01 through 05-04); and the Departmental Discipline Policy (Training Bulletin Index Number V-T). During this reporting period, the IMT audited OPD’s actual practice compliance with this task. OPD is in conditional compliance with Task 1, pending completion of scheduled training courses for several members. Task 1.1 requires OPD to assign staff to IAD in accordance with the selection criteria set forth in the IAD Manual. These criteria include interviewing candidates; reviewing their backgrounds including their complaint histories and performance appraisals; reviewing their abilities to write reports and conduct investigations; and interviewing their current supervisors. IAD did a good job complying with these criteria except it did not review the report-writing and investigative ability or interview current supervisors for the majority of the candidates. IAD commanders acknowledged that they had not focused on assessing the report-writing or investigative ability of prospective intake officers. However, given the increasing amount of investigative work expected of intake officers, these are important areas to explore for all new sworn staff. According to