Status Substantial compliance. Analysis We agree with the Compliance Officer’s most recent assessment that the City has completed the necessary steps to come into substantial compliance with Paragraph 81. See Remaining Issues Report, p. 6. We previously reported that PPB had acquired LMS and filled the LMS administrator position, but was working to develop full training records of all members. ECF 158-1. During this monitoring period, we interviewed the administrator and reviewed the LMS data provided. PPB had added training records and was, at that time, working on providing direct access for supervisors to their subordinates’ training records for review. Since that interview, PPB provided for supervisors’ direct access to LMS. Supervisory personnel reviews, as we discuss with respect to EIS in our evaluation of Paragraph 116, have now reached substantial compliance. Separately, the Compliance Officer audited current LMS data. In its most recent review, the Compliance Officer found PPB had resolved a data migration issue and was able to use LMS to record all trainings. See Remaining Issues Report, p. 22. PPB members have to report training provided outside of the organization to the Training Division to ensure its recordation in LMS. This is an acceptable means of gathering these data given that the individual members, rather than the LMS administrator, are aware of the outside trainings that they attend. As the Compliance Officer noted, LMS does not contain exam results and class evaluations. We have reviewed class-evaluation data PPB provided in connection with Paragraph 80. PPB has kept these data in an organized and usable fashion as Paragraph 81 requires. Accordingly, our direct observations and the Compliance Officer’s independent audits support that PPB substantially complies with Paragraph 81. Technical Assistance In order to make sure all sworn members receive credit in their personnel evaluations for outside training, PPB should give explicit, bureau-wide direction that members must report their records of all trainings outside of those tracked at the Training Division. PPB’s second quarter data showed a small group of officers had not yet completed state-mandated maintenance training. PPB should use the LMS data to assure that officers who return from leave promptly complete mandatory training.
Status Substantial compliance. Analysis PPB’s alternative approach to crisis response consists of ECIT officers who volunteer for assignment, and the current roster of approximately 118 operational ECIT members exceeds the initial goal of 60-80 volunteer, qualified officers. Some ECIT members report there are insufficient ECIT officers in some patrol areas during some shifts, requiring ECIT officers to travel long distances to respond to calls. However, COCL reports that recent data from the Mental Health Template shows a substantial improvement in the number of ECIT calls that are serviced by ECIT officers, compared to data previously obtained from the Mental Health Mask (although this difference may be at least partially explained by differences in the data collection methods). Because ECIT is comprised of volunteer officers, enrollment has exceeded the initial goal by a significant number, and indicators from the Mental Health Template show that ECIT officers respond to over 70% of calls flagged ECIT, PPB has substantially complied with Paragraph 100 at this time. DOJ will continue to assess compliance in light of outcome measurements PPB is developing. Technical Assistance To ensure the number of team members is driven by demand for ECIT services, PPB should conduct ongoing assessments of whether it has trained sufficient a number of ECIT officers. PPB should continue to train sufficient volunteer members to maintain adequate staffing. 101. No officers may participate in C-I Team if they have been subject to disciplinary action based upon use of force or mistreatment of people with mental illness within the three years preceding the start of C-I Team service, or during C-I Team service. PPB, with the advice of the XXXX Advisory Committee, shall define criteria for qualification, selection, and ongoing participation of officers in the C-I Team. Status Partial Compliance Analysis PPB has implemented a system to ensure the ongoing eligibility of ECIT officers that involves EIS flags or internal investigations being forwarded to the BHU Lieutenant. BHU solicits feedback from supervisors on all applicants for the ECIT program, as well as information on complaints against the applicants. PPB does not provide for automatic removal from the ECIT program for officers who are subject to disciplinary action based on a sustained allegation of force or misconduct against a person with mental illness, as explicitly required by this Paragraph. Technical Assistance PPB must fully implement SOP 3.3 ...
Status Substantial compliance ongoing obligation Analysis WPD’s policy includes requirements that WPD employees notify the Chief within 24 hours of the receipt of complaints involving allegations of excessive force and with 72 hours for all other allegations. In practice, complaint forms reveal that the assigned internal affairs investigator receives most complaints, without need for a referral to internal affairs. Accordingly, WPD is in compliance with the requirement that internal affairs receive all complaints within 72 hours. WPD’s assigned internal affairs investigator has instituted a tracking system that is a significant improvement over historical practices of prior WPD administrations. This system includes assignment of unique “IA” numbers to each complaint and a cross reference in the associated incident, arrest, or use-of-force report number stemming from the action that gave rise to the complaint. WPD’s records indicate that WPD has tracked all complaints received since the entry of the Settlement Agreement. WPD’s policy requiring the tracking of complaints by case number, date, complainant, nature of complaint, assigned investigator, subject officer, disposition and notice also support WPD’s compliance with this provision of the Settlement Agreement. Policy 07-001, Sec. V.B.9. Technical Assistance WPD would benefit from making its policy clear that the WPD supervisor advised of a complaint must ensure that he or she provides all the complaint material to internal affairs as quickly as practicable, but in no even longer than 72 hours.
Status Substantial compliance ongoing obligation Analysis To WPD’s credit, since the implementation of the Settlement Agreement, WPD has actively pursued the imposition of discipline wherein WPD believes it is possessed of just cause for such discipline. At this time, we did not find any concerns regarding WPD’s decisions to impose discipline when WPD sustained findings of alleged misconduct and to defend that discipline in arbitration. WPD has memorialized the possible punishments for violations of WPD policy, as well as the progressive discipline process. Policy 07-001, Section V.C.17-18. Technical Assistance There are pending investigations of allegations of officer misconduct. If proven true by a preponderance of evidence, WPD will be possessed of just cause to impose discipline. We will continue to assess the efficacy of WPD’s disciplinary process as the pending investigations are completed.
Status Substantial compliance. Discussion A SHP consultant previously developed a suicide prevention curriculum entitled “Suicide Training: Inside the Bars.” The PowerPoint curriculum, 72 slides in length, contained the following topics: Why are we doing this? Constitutional responsibility to address suicide What the research says – What experience says Myths – Barriers to prevention & how to change it Causal factors: environment, events, individual stressors, mental illness/SA Suicide requires intent, means and opportunity Components to good prevention Overview of WCD and SHP policy Details of policy Management options – in house, out of house QPR and Debriefing The curriculum was quite good and consistent with the required training topics within this Agreement. The Independent Consultant received verification that correctional and health care staff were trained on the suicide prevention curriculum on November 19 and November 26, 2013, resulting in approximately 95% of required staff trained. As such, this provision is moved to Substantial Compliance. Recommendations None Evidentiary Basis Verification of training by RCDF Administrator. Provision A.2.b Ensure that all correctional, medical, and mental health staff are trained on the suicide screening instrument.
Status Substantial compliance. Discussion As found during previous on-site assessments, the Independent Consultant reviewed incident reports on the use of the Restraint Chair in 38 cases in 2012, and 4 cases in 2013. The reports indicated that restrained inmates were observed by correctional officers at 15 minute intervals and seen by nursing staff at least every two hours. This provision remains in Substantial Compliance. Recommendations None Evidentiary Basis Evidentiary Basis
Status Substantial compliance. Discussion The RCDF Intake Screening form administered by booking officers was revised to include inquiry regarding “4) recent significant loss, such as the death of a family member or close friend; 5) history of suicidal behavior by family members and close friends” (see above). In addition, an “Arresting Officer’s Questionnaire” was created to solicit information regarding a detainee’s mental status and potential for suicide risk upon admission into the RCDF. Further, booking officers are said to now utilize the “alert screen” of RCDF’s jail management system “XJail” software to determine if the newly admitted detainee was on suicide precautions during a prior RCDF confinement. Finally, a critical issue to the appropriate screening of incoming detainees to identify the risk of suicide is the ability to provide reasonable privacy and confidentiality during the intake screening process. (Inmates cannot be expected to affirmatively respond to sensitive medical and mental health inquiries if reasonable privacy is not provided.) As a result of the 1st Monitoring Report findings, the RCDF Administrator reconfigured the booking area so that the intake screening process is now conducted away from the booking counter and located next to the fingerprint machine on the back wall. Such a change better ensures confidentiality and privacy. The Independent Consultant observed the intake process during this on-site assessment and verified that all of the above changes were made. As such, this provision is moved to Substantial Compliance. Recommendations None Evidentiary Basis Observation of Intake Process RCDF Intake Screening Form Arresting Officer’s Questionnaire XJail-jail management system software Provision A.1.b Ensure that all prisoners are screened by Qualified Medical Staff upon arrival to RCDF, but no later than within 24 hours, to identify the prisoner’s risk for suicide or self-injurious behavior. If a prisoner will be discharged in less than 24 hours, Qualified Medical Staff should perform a screening prior to the prisoner’s release. Status Substantial Compliance Discussion According to SHP officials, a previous deficiency of health care staff not routinely completing the Suicide Prevention Screening Guidelines form on all new detainees has been corrected. Currently, each new detainee is required to be screened by either a nurse or QMHP within 24 hours of admission. The Independent Consultant reviewed medical charts of newly admitted inmates in April 2014 a...
Status Substantial compliance. Discussion The QMHP was hired in October 2013 and a recent review of medical charts indicated assessments were conducted following any of the above listed triggering events. Recommendations None
Status Substantial compliance. Discussion With the hiring of a QMHP in October 2013, the RCDF now has an “interdisciplinary team” comprised of the Medical Team Administrator (MTA), RCDF Administrator, and Security Captain that meets on a minimum weekly basis to discuss inmates on suicide precaution, as well as other inmates requiring special handling. As such, this provision is moved to Substantial Compliance. Recommendations None Evidentiary Basis Review of medical charts. Provision A.1.h Ensure adequate and timely treatment for prisoners, whose assessments reveal mental illness and/or suicidal ideation, including timely and appropriate referrals for specialty care and visits with QMHPs, as clinically appropriate.
Status Substantial compliance. Discussion With the hiring of a QMHP in October 2013, the QMHP and psychiatrist are now able to communicate and collaborate on individual cases, as well as provide correctional personnel with appropriate information as needed. As such, this provision is moved to Substantial Compliance. Recommendations None Evidentiary Basis Review of medical charts. Interviews with the QMHP, psychiatrist, and correctional personnel. Provision A.1.m Ensure that only a QMHP may promote, demote, or terminate a prisoner’s suicide precaution level or status. LPNs and correctional officers may only modify suicide precautions or remove prisoners from suicide watch upon the documented order of a QMHP.
