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 79 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 practices 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 last 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 with regard to timeliness of appraisals, but was not yet in compliance with the Settlement Agreement. In our first audit, we found that 64% of the files reviewed contained current performance appraisals. During the second review, we found that 73% of the files reviewed contained a current performance appraisal. OPD made impressive improvements in the content of performance appraisals completed. Task 44 requires OPD’s performance appraisals to include sufficient documentation and consideration of the following six elements: 1) nature and progress of complaints and investigations; 2) uses of force; 3) sick and injured leave; 4) arrests for certain narcotics offenses; 5) Penal Code Section 69, 148, and/or 243 (b)(c) arrests; and 6) vehicle accidents. Based on our review, we found OPD in compliance with this requirement. The Department’s average compliance rate across all six categories was 96.6%. This is in stark contrast to our first audit where inclusion of the required content was sporadic and more often than not missing than present. We also found that ninety- six percent of the appraisals reviewed included required signatures from supervisors, managers, and commanders. This is a marked departure from our last review where signatures were largely illegible and/or simply absent from the appraisals. Pursuant to Task 44, when appropriate, supervisors and commanders must be accountable for identifying and acting upon patterns by their subordinates involving uses of force, sick leave, line-of-duty injuries, narcotics offenses, and on-duty vehicle accidents. Accordingly, the performance appraisals of supervisors and commanders must include an assessment of how/whether they identify and act upon any such patterns. OPD was not yet in compliance with this requirement because four out of 24 supervisory and commander appraisals reviewed did not include the required assessment. A fuller discussion of our audit is included in our eighth status report. We observed marked progress on this task between our first and second audits. In our last report, we attributed some of this progress to the Department’s attention to performance appraisals at MAP meetings and to its advisement to personnel that it would hold individuals accountable for not completing appraisals as required. It remains to be seen whether or how quickly the Department will continue to improve in this area. This is