Status Substantial compliance. Analysis The Compliance Officer found that PPB is in substantial compliance with Paragraph 80. See Sections IV and VII Report, p. 17. COCL carefully outlines the steps PPB has taken—and we, too, have observed—to do so. Id. We agree with the Compliance Officer’s assessment. In 2018, the Training Division provided an extensive, separate analysis of data concerning ECIT training. See Evaluation Report: 2018 Enhanced Crisis Intervention Training, Training usefulness, on-the-job applications, and reinforcing training objectives, February 2019. The Training Division assessed survey data showing broad officer support for the 2018 ECIT training. The survey data also showed a dramatic increase in the proportion of officers who strongly agree that their supervisors are very supportive of the ECIT program, reaching 64.3% in 2018, compared to only 14.3% in 2015: The Training Division analyzed the survey results of the police vehicle operator training and supervisory in-service training, as well. These analyses were helpful in understanding attendees’ impressions of training and its application to their jobs, though the analyses did not reach as far as the ECIT’s analysis of post-training on- the-job assessment. In all three training analyses, Training Division applied a feedback model to shape future training. This feedback loop was the intended purpose of Paragraph 80. PPB’s utilization of feedback shows PPB’s internalization of the remedy. We reviewed surveys of Advanced Academy attendees, as well. Attendees were overwhelmingly positive in response to the content of most classes. Though most respondents agreed on the positive aspects of keeping the selected course in the curriculum, a handful of attendees chose options like “redundant” and “slightly disagree,” indicating that the survey tools could be used for critical assessment and not merely PPB self-validation. We directly observed PPB training and evaluations since our last report. PPB provided training materials to the Compliance Officer and DOJ in advance of training. Where either identified issues, PPB worked through those issues and honed its materials. As Paragraph 80 requires, PPB’s training included competency-based evaluations, namely: knowledge checks (i.e., quizzes on directives), in-class responsive quizzes (using clickers to respond to questions presented to the group); knowledge tests (examinations via links PPB sent to each student’s Bureau-issued iPhone); demonstrated skills and oral examination ...
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. Analysis We agree with the Compliance Officer1 that the City has now come into substantial compliance with Section III. See Compliance and Outcome Assessment Report, Quarterly Report: All Sections with Remaining Compliance Issues, Draft Report, April 2, 2019 (Remaining Issues Report), p. 14, available at xxxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx/reports/2019/04/02/compliance-and-outcome- assessment-remaining-sections. We previously reported that PPB had made significant progress towards compliance with Section III through wholesale revision of its force policies that: set clear guidelines for when and how officers may use force; establish how immediate supervisors investigate force; and direct how chain-of-command supervisors review the work of officers under their command. ECF 158-1. PPB also had begun training to those new policies. Id. At the time of our last report, however, that progress was so recent that implementation had not yet demonstrated substantial compliance. Id. This has changed. As described in our analysis for each paragraph below, PPB has demonstrated implementation of the force provisions in a substantially compliant manner.
Status Substantial compliance. Analysis We agree with the Compliance Officer’s most recent assessment of Paragraph 67(a) and (d) that the City is now in Substantial Compliance. See Remaining Issues Report, p. 16. The Compliance Officer had already found that PPB reached substantial compliance with the other provisions of Paragraph 67. See Section III Report, pp. 6, 13. We agree. We previously found that PPB’s Directive 1010.00 incorporates all of Paragraph 67(a)’s mandates. ECF 158-1 (citing Dir. 1010.00 – Use of Force, Procedure section Par. 1.1 (“Members shall use disengagement and de-escalation techniques, when time and circumstances reasonably permit”); id.
Status Substantial compliance. Analysis The Compliance Officer found PPB in compliance with Paragraph 71 in its July 2018 review. See Section III Report, p. 21. We agree and had previously found substantial compliance, too. PPB continues to maintain substantial compliance with Paragraph 71. For patrol level staffing, PPB’s current ratios are 4.8 in Central Precinct (including Behavioral Health Unit (BHU)), 4.7 in East Precinct, and 4.2 in North Precinct.
Status Substantial compliance. Analysis The Compliance Officer found PPB in compliance with Paragraph 72 in its July 2018 review. See Section III Report, p. 21. We agree. As we previously reported, PPB’s revised Directive 1010.00 designates the After Action Report form as the checklist to ensure supervisors carry out force investigation responsibilities. ECF 158-1 (citing Dir. 1010.00 – Use of Force, Par. 13.2, available at xxxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx/police/article/647779). In the force incidents we reviewed, described above, PPB electronically employed these force reporting forms, including the checklists incorporated into the forms.
