INTRADEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE … correspondence june 12, 2015 ... training evaluation ... personnel complaint material available to

INTRADEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE

June 12, 201514.2

TO: The Honorable Board of Police Commissioners

FROM: Chief of Police

SUBJECT: COMPLAINT PROCESS AUDIT (AD No. 14-028)

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

1. It is recommended that the Board of Police Commissioners REVIEW and APPROVE theattached Complaint Process Audit.

2. It is recommended that the Board of Police Commissioners REVIEW and APPROVE theattached Executive Summary thereto.

DISCUSSION

Audit Division conducted the Complaint Process Audit to evaluate compliance of theDepartment's policies and procedures.

If additional information regarding this audit is required, please contact Arif Alikhan, Director,Office of Constitutional Policing and Policy, at (213) 486-8730.

Respectfully,

CHARLIE BECKChief of Police

Attachment

LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT

COMPLAINT PROCESS AUDIT

(AD No. 14-028)

Conducted byAUDIT DIVISION

CHARLIE BECKChief of Police

June 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

COMPLAINT PROCESS AUDITPACE No.

iEXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PURPOSE 1

PRIOR AUDIT 1

STATUS ON RECOMMENDATIONS 1

METHODOLOGY 2

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 2

DETAILED FINDINGS 3

SELECTION PACKAGE - TEAMS EVALUATIONOBJECTIVE No. 1(a)

REPORT3

SELECTION PACKAGE - TRAINING EVALUATIONOBJECTIVE No. 1(b)

AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM II REPORT5

PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS BUREAU SUSTAINEDOBJECTIVE No. 1(c)

COMPLAINTS AND/OR ADVERSE JUDICIAL FINDINGS6

PERSONNEL COMPLAINT MATERIAL AVAILABLE TOOBJECTIVE No. 2(a)

THE PUBLIC7

24-HOUR TOLL FREE TELEPHONE COMPLAINTOBJECTIVE No. 2(b)

HOTLINE/SYSTEM MONITORING8

ASSESSMENT OF COMPLAINT HOTLINEOBJECTIVE No. 2 (c)

RECORDINGS9

OBJECTIVE No. 2(d) ASSESSMENT OF EMAIL COMPLAINTS INTAKE 10

OBJECTIVE No. 2(e) ASSESSMENT OF FAX COMPLAINTS INTAKE 10

OBJECTIVE No. 3 TIMELINESS OF IAG REVIEW OF THE FACE SHEET 11

TIMELINESS OF THE COMPLETION OFOBJECTIVE No. 4

INVESTIGATIONS12

PROPER ASSIGNMENT OF COMPLAINTOBJECTIVE No. 5

INVESTIGATIONS TO IAG AND CHAIN OF COMMAND13

RECOMMENDATIONS 15

ACTIONS TAKEN/MANAGEMENT'S RESPONSE 15

ADDENDUM - RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT PROCESS AUDIT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYCOMPLAINT PROCESS AUDIT

Conducted byAudit Division

Fourth Quarter, Fiscal Year 2013/14

PURPOSE

In accordance with the Los Angeles Police Department (Department) Annual Audit Plan forfiscal year 2013/14, Audit Division conducted a Complaint Process Audit to evaluate compliancewith Department policies and procedures.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

This audit encompassed a total of five objectives, with 11 areas tested. It was evident theDepartment met the standard with the overall assessments for Objective No. 2, pertaining to thepublic having accessibility to make complaints. The Department also did well with ObjectiveNo. 3, regarding Internal Affairs Group's (IAG's) timeliness in reviewing complaint face sheets,and Objective Nos. 4 and 5, timely completion of the investigations, and proper assignment ofthe complaint investigation.

In regard to the overall assessment for Objective No. 1, pertaining to the selection ofProfessional Standards Bureau (PSB) personnel, there seems to be a misunderstanding over therequirement for Training and Evaluation Management System Reports (TERs), Form 01.78.04,to be completed for PSB positions, rather than the Transfer Action Item (TAI), Form 01.78.20.

The Department considers the IAG position to be a sensitive position, akin to those within GangEnforcement Details, Narcotics Enforcement Details, Field Training Officer, etc. The TERrequires additional steps during the selection process that are not required by the TAI, which isutilized for all the other positions.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. It is recommended that LAPD Online Section and IAG reevaluate the implementation of thecommendation/complaint intake link on LAPDOnline.org, allowing for online submissionsof commendations and complaints.

2. Given the sensitive nature of the Special Operations Division (SOD) assignment, it isrecommended that Policies and Procedures Division consult with appropriate Departmentcommand staff, and consider the inclusion of SOD personnel under the requirement to have aTER completed during the selection process.

ACTIONS TAKEN/MANAGEMENT'S RESPONSE

A copy of the audit report was provided to the Commanding Officer, Professional StandardsBureau, and the Assistant to the Director, Office of Operations, both whom were in generalagreement with the findings.

COMPLAINT PROCESS AUDITConducted byAudit Division

Fourth Quarter, Fiscal Year 2013/14

PURPOSE

In accordance with the Los Angeles Police Department (Department) Audit and Inspection Planfor fiscal year (FY) 2013/14, Audit Division (AD) conducted a Complaint Process Audit toevaluate compliance with Department policies and procedures.

Audit Division conducted this audit under the guidance of generally accepted governmentauditing standards, specifically pertaining to performing the audit to obtain sufficient,appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for the findings and conclusions based on theaudit objectives. Audit Division has determined that the evidence obtained provides a reasonablebasis for the findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

PRIOR AUDIT

The most recent audit, Complaint [Form], Form [01.1.28.00]1.28, Investigations Audit — Phase I,was conducted in the second quarter, FY 2011/12.

Results from the prior audit indicated the Department met the standards for all objectives except"Timeliness of the Completion of Investigation" objective. There was one recommendation forPolicies and Procedures Division (PPD) to consider whether Department policy should beamended to require documentation of the date the complaint investigation is completed by theinvestigator to ensure consistency, and to allow evaluation of the Department's 150-day goal.

STATUS ON RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations were made in the last audit:

I. It is recommended the Department follow up on the recommendations made previously inOIG's review of Complaint [Form], Form [01.28.00] 1.28, Investigations Phase I, dated04/02/2009, and LAID' s Complaint, Form 1.28, Investigations Audit — Phase I (#09-003)dated 03/18/2010; both of which pertain to resolving the interpretation of completion datesfor investigations.

Note: The following was the recommendation from the Office of the Inspector General's (OIG's)review of Complaint Form, Form 01.28.00, Investigations Phase I, April 2, 2009, which stated,"The OIG recommends that the Department and the OIG come to an agreement as to whatspecifically the complaint investigation completion date should represent, and work together tostandardize procedures to ensure that the appropriate investigation completion date isconsistently entered into the Complaint Management System."

The following was the recommendation from IAID's Complaint [Form], Form [01.28.00] 1.28,Investigations Audit Phase I (#09-003), March 18, 2010, which stated, "It is recommended thatPlanning and Research Division consider whether Department policy shall be amended torequire documentation of the date that the complaint investigation is completed by theinvestigator to ensure consistency and to allow evaluation of the Department's 150-day goal."

Complaint Process AuditPage 2 of 15

Status on Recommendation No. 1: Implemented. The recommendation was implemented withthe publication of Administrative Order No. 8, May 22, 2012, and included in DepartmentManual Section 3/824.

METHODOLOGY

The period and population utilized for the audit varied for accurate testing of each objective.Refer to each objective for the specific period and population.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

This audit encompassed a total of five objectives, with 11 areas tested. It was evident theDepartment met the standard with the overall assessments for Objective No. 2, pertaining to thepublic having accessibility to make complaints. The Department also did well with ObjectiveNo. 3, regarding Internal Affairs Group's (IAG's) timeliness in reviewing complaint face sheets,and Objective Nos. 4 and 5, timely completion of the investigations, and proper assignment ofthe complaint investigation.

In regard to the overall assessment for Objective No. 1, pertaining to the selection ofProfessional Standards Bureau (PSB) personnel, there seems to be a misunderstanding over therequirement for Teams Evaluation Reports (TERs), Form 01.78.04, to be completed for PSBpositions, rather than the Transfer Action Item (TAD, Form 01.78.20.

The Department considers the IAG position to be a sensitive position, akin to those within GangEnforcement Details, Narcotics Enforcement Details, Field Training Officer, etc. The TERrequires additional steps during the selection process that are not required by the TAI, which isutilized for all the other positions. Table No. 1 summarizes the Department's standards byobjective and provides a comparison to the FY 2011/12 audit.

This section intentionally left blank


Table No. 1— Summary of Audit Findings and Comparison to Prior Year's Audit

OBJECTIVENo.

DESCRIPTION OF AUDIT OBJECTIVE

2010/11PERCENTAGEMEETING THESTANDARD

2013/14PERCENTAGEMEETING THESTANDARD

1(a) Selection Package - TEAMS Evaluation Report 0/18 (0%) 0/25 (0%)

1(b)Selection Package - Training Evaluation And ManagementSystem II Report

6/18 (33%) 0/23 (0%)'

1(c) Sustained Complaints and/or Adverse Judicial Findings Withheld2 0/1 (0%)

2(a) Personnel Complaint Material Available to the Public 293/294 (99%) 293/294 (99%)

2(b)24-Hour Toll Free Telephone Complaint Hotline/SystemMonitoring

12/12 (100%) 14/14 (100% )

2(c) Assessment of Complaint Hotline Recordings 7/7 (100%) 2/2 (100%)

2(d) Assessment of Email Complaint Intake 7/7 (100%) N/A3

2(e) Assessment of Fax Complaint Intake 7/7 (100%) 7/7 (100%)

3 Timeliness of IAG Review of the Face Sheet 45/51 (88%)PerformanceAssessment

4 Timeliness of the Completion of the InvestigationsStandards Not

MetMet theStandard

5Proper Assignment of Complaint Investigations to IAG andChain of Command

51/51 (100%) 52/52 (100%)

DETAILED FINDINGS

Objective No. 1(a) Selection Package - TEAMS Evaluation Report

Criteria

Department Manual Section 3/762.80, Commanding Officer's Duties — Transfers, states, "Forlateral transfers, a TAI, created by TEAMS II, must be completed, or a TER i f a TAI is notgenerated. A TER is required when selecting sworn personnel for assignments to ProfessionalStandards Bureau (PSB), Force Investigation Division (FID), Field Training Officer (FTO),Gang Enforcement Detail (GED), Community Law Enforcement and Recovery (CLEAR)Program, Narcotics Enforcement Detail (NED) or NARC Major Enforcement Section, Gang andNarcotics Division (GND).4

'Twenty-three of the 25 TEAMS II reports were available for review; therefore, the population for this objective wasreduced to 23.2None of the 18 investigators in the sample had sustained complaints or adverse judicial findings that requiredconsideration or documentation; therefore an assessment was not conducted.3Currently, the Department does not have a process/procedure for the public to submit complaints via theDepartment website, lapdonline.org. Therefore, this objective was not assessed.4Professional Standards Bureau consists of IAG, FID, and Special Operations Division (SOD). Assignments toSOD are not required to have a TER completed (see Recommendation No. 2).


File Maintenance. Each commanding officer must maintain an Area/divisional TER file of allTERs and/or hard copy TAIs completed for transfers and loans. The file must contain theoriginal TER and/or hard copy TAI for each incoming transfer or loan with the officer 's TEAMSII report attached"

Department Manual Section 3/763.69, Selections for Limited Tour Assignment to InternalAffairs Group - states, "Managers shall utilize existing Departmental databases, informationand documents to assess eligibility for a limited tour assignment to IAG. A Loan/Transferpackage, including a TEAMS II Evaluation Report, shall be prepared for all selected candidatesindicating that the following documents were reviewed as part of a comprehensive backgroundcheck:

• Interview Evaluation/Questions;• JAG Loan Rating;• TEAMS II report (promotion/paygrade advancement only);• Any pending or sustained complaint investigations, via a CITS report;• Complaint Index; and,• Adverse judicial findings."

"Disqualification — Loan and Limited Tour Assignment. In most cases, sworn employees whohave a sustained complaint in any of the following categories shall be disqualified fromconsideration for an JAG position:

• Excessive use of force;• False arrest or charge;• Improper search or seizure;• Sexual harassment;• Discrimination; or,• Dishonesty.

The Commanding Officer, IAG, may decide to select or retain a sworn employee with a sustainedcomplaint in one or more of these categories. However, that decision must be justified on aTEAMS II Evaluation Report and retained in the interview/selection package. Additionally, theconsideration of any adverse judicial finding or discipline against a sworn employee for any ofthe above categories shall also be documented in the TEAMS II Evaluation Report form."

Population and Audit Procedures

A personnel roster of investigators assigned to JAG from April 21, 2013, throughMarch 22, 2014, was obtained from IAG. The 25 IAG investigators included Sergeants II andDetectives II that were identified as having been selected to IAG during the audit period.

The 25 IAG selection packages were reviewed to determine whether it contained a TER, perabove Department Manual Section 3/763.69. Additionally, the IAG TER/TAI file was reviewedfor the same 25 IAG selection TERs, per Department Manual Section 3/762.80. If the selectionpackage and the TER/TAI file contained the TER, the Department met the standards for thisobjective.


Findings

None (0%) of the 25 IAG selection packages or the TER/TAI files contained the IAG selectionTERs, and therefore did not meet the standards for this objective. It was found that the TER/TAIfiles contained TAIs for 23 of the 25 selections.' Although TAIs contain some of the criticalinquiries as those in the TER, two of the TAIs were missing documentation that justified theinvestigators selection into IAG.


Internal Affairs Group personnel responsible for the completion of TERs for new hires wereunaware that a TER was to be completed. This lack of knowledge resulted in none of theselection packages meeting the standard. The Department has deemed positions at IAG criticalenough to require a TER to be completed; not having one completed inhibits the properdocumentation to demonstrate the IAG Commanding Officer had a complete review of theselection being made. Upon being notified of the findings, PSB indicated they implemented aSelection/Loan Checklist that will ensure the proper completion of the TERs. Additionally, PSBcreated the required TERs for the respective selection packages.

Objective No. 1(b) Selection Package — Training Evaluation and Management System IIReport

Criteria

Department Manual Section 3/762.80, Commanding Officer's Duties — Transfers, states, "Whenan officer transfers or is loaned into a new command, the commanding officer must ensure thatthe watch commander or officer in charge reviews the officer 's TEAMS II report within tencalendar days from publication of the transfer order or notification of the loan and completes theTransfer Action Item (TAI) or Teams Evaluation Report (TER), Form 01.78.04."

Department Manual Section 3/763.68, Selection for Loans to Internal Affairs Group, states, "ALoan/Transfer package must be prepared to assess the eligibility of all selected candidates.As part of this package, a TEAMS II Evaluation Report must be completed to indicate that thefollowing documents were reviewed as part of a comprehensive background check:

• Current TEAMS II report (promotion/paygrade advancement TEAMS II report only);• Transfer Applicant Data Sheet, Form 15.88.00;• Standards Based Assessment — Lieutenants and Below, Form 01.87.00 (two most recent);• Complaint Index, Form 1.80;• Any pending or sustained complaint investigations, via a Complaint Information

Tracking System (CITS) report;• Any other investigations being conducted by IAG; and,• Adverse judicial findings."

'The TAI is used to evaluate sworn personnel transferring into a new command.



The population used for Objective No. 1(a) was also used for this objective. Each of the 23available TEAMS II reports, attached to the TAIs, were reviewed to determine whether theywere the proper version of the TEAMS II report, promotion/paygrade advancement version, andwas dated within the ten calendar days from the publication date of the transfer order.

TEAMS II reports that were dated within the ten calendar days of the publication of the transferorder met the standards for this objective.

Findings

None (0%) of the 23 IAG selections' TEAMS II reports met the standards for this objective.Each of the TEAMS II reports was the "Final Selection Process/Transfer Process" version andwas not dated within the ten calendar days of the date of the transfer order.

As with Objective No. 1(a), because the TERs were not completed, the direct effect was that thewrong TEAMS II report versions were attached, and were not within the required time period.Upon being notified of the findings, PSB indicated they implemented a Selection/Loan Checklistthat will ensure the proper completion of the TERs, which should prompt the correct TEAMS IIreport version to be included within the required time frame.

Objective No. 1(c) Professional Standards Bureau Sustained Complaints and/or AdverseJudicial Findings

Criteria

Department Manual Section 3/763.69 - states, "In most cases, sworn employees who have asustained complaint in any of the following categories shall be disqualified from considerationfor an IAG position:

• Excessive use of force;• False arrest or charge;• Improper search and seizure,.• Sexual harassment;• Discrimination; or,• Dishonesty

The Commanding Officer, IAG, may decide to select or retain a sworn employee with a sustainedcomplaint in one or more of these categories. However, that decision must be justified on aTEAMS II Evaluation Report and retained in the interview/selection package. Additionally, theconsideration of any adverse judicial finding or discipline against a sworn employee for any ofthe above categories shall also be documented in the TEAMS II Evaluation Report form."


The population used for Objective No. 1(b) was also used for this objective. Each IAGselections' TEAMS II report was examined to determine if the IAG investigator had an adverse


judicial finding(s), or a sustained disciplinary action(s) for excessive force, false arrest or charge,improper search or seizure, sexual harassment, discrimination, or dishonesty (or any elementsrelating to the aforementioned) that would have required documentation in a TER.6

One of the 25 selected candidates (Detective II) had a sustained complaint for false arrest (falseimprisonment, CF No. 96-1465), which was reviewed for this objective. As stated above inDepartment Manual Section 3/763.69, the Commanding Officer, IAG, must justify the reason forthe selection on a TER. Within the confines of this audit a completed TAI also met the standardfor this objective.

Findings

The one (0%) TER/TAT did not meet the standard for this objective. The TAI did not containdocumentation with indication that the commanding officer justified the selection, or consideredthe sustained complaint.

As the case with Objective Nos. 1(a) and 1(b), had the TERs been completed during the selectionprocess, it may have prompted the reviewer to key in on this requirement.

Objective No. 2(a) Personnel Complaint Material Available to the Public

Criteria

Department Manual Section 3/811.20, Community Reporting of a Complaint or EmployeeMisconduct, states, "Commanding officers shall ensure that a supply of Complaint of EmployeeMisconduct forms (Forms 01.81.06, 1.81.7, 01.81.08, 01.81.09, 01.81.13, 01.81.14 and 01.81.15)with postage-paid, preaddressed business reply envelopes marked "ATTN: Internal AffairsGroup," and Personnel Complaint Information pamphlets, Forms 1.81.3, 01.81.10, 01.81.17,01.81.18, and 01.81.19, are maintained at a location accessible to the public 24 hours per day atall Area Stations, Police Administration Building, and any other police facility accessible to thepublic."

Department Manual Section 3/812, Community Complaint and Commendation Poster, states,"The following entities have responsibility for ensuring that Community Complaint andCommendation Posters, Form 01.81.28, are on display to the public throughout the Departmentand City Council field offices:Area commanding officers shall ensure posters are displayed at their facilities where they arevisible to the public and provide posters to all City Council field offices within their Areas.""All bureau and group commanding officers whose commands are accessible to the public shallensure that the posters are displayed."

6As indicated in Objective No.1(a), none of the investigators had a TER in the selection package to review or in the1AG TER file. Therefore, the TAI was used in lieu of the TER for the 23 lAG selections, as it contained the samecritical inquiries as those within the TER.7TAIs also require a review of the employee's complaint history. Any sustained complaint regarding the identifiedcomplaint categories requires documentation of a review and analysis, see Form 01.78.20.



Audit Division made unannounced visits to all 21 geographical Areas. The visits wereconducted to determine whether complaint materials were made available to the public. Thecomplaint materials were located in the lobbies of each station.

Materials not displayed were requested from front desk personnel. If personnel provided thematerials upon request, the standards were met for this objective.

The following is a list of complaint materials that are required to be at the front desk of eachgeographic Area:

1. Community Complaint and Commendation Poster, Form No. 01.81.28;

2. Complaint Information Pamphlet, Form No. 01.81.03 (English/Spanish);

3. Complaint Information Pamphlet, Form No. 01.81.10 (Chinese/Korean);

4. Complaint Information Pamphlet, Form No. 01.81.17 (Tagalog);

5. Complaint Information Pamphlet, Form No. 01.81.18 (Japanese);

6. Complaint Information Pamphlet, Form No. 01.81.19 (Vietnamese);

7. Complaint of Employee Misconduct, Form No. 01.81.06 (English);

8. Complaint of Employee Misconduct, Form No. 01.81.07 (Spanish);

9. Complaint of Employee Misconduct, Form No. 01.81.08 (Tagalog);

10 Complaint of Employee Misconduct, Form No. 01.81.09 (Japanese);

11 Complaint of Employee Misconduct, Form No. 01.81.13 (Vietnamese);

12 Complaint of Employee Misconduct, Form No. 01.81.14 (Korean);

13 Complaint of Employee Misconduct, Form No. 01.81.15 (Chinese); and,

14. Professional Standards Bureau Return Address Business Reply Envelope.

There were a total of 294 complaint materials required for the 21 geographical Areas.

Findings

Two hundred ninety-three (99%) of the 294 required complaint materials met the standards forthis objective.

The one missing complaint material was the Community Complaint and Commendation Poster atDevonshire Community Police Station.8

Objective No. 2(b) 24-Hour Toll Free Telephone Complaint Hotline/System Monitoring

Criteria

Intradepartmental Correspondence, Form 15.02.00, June 8, 2007, Methodology for the 24-HourToll-Free Telephone Complaint Hotline Staffed at Internal Affairs Group, Complaint

8Devonshire Area was notified of the missing item and was in the process of submitting a requisition to have itsupplied.


Classification Unit (CCU), states, "The Primary IAG 24-hour recorded complaint telephone lineis staffed and answered by the Police Officer II (POs II) assigned to the CCU The POs II staffthe recorded telephone line Monday through Friday from 0700 hours — 1900 hours, excludingweekends and holidays."


The Department currently operates a 24-hour toll-free telephone complaint hotline that is staffedduring normal business hours by IAG personnel. During non-business hours, the ComplaintHotline is transferred to a Voiceprint System.

Audit Division monitored the Complaint Hotline for Deployment Period No. 4, 2014. Sevendates were randomly selected: April 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 26 and 27. Two calls were made atvarious times during business and non-business hours on each of the selected days.

If the call was answered by IAG personnel or forwarded to the Voiceprint System (and IAGpersonnel returned the call), it met the standards for this objective.

Findings

Each (100%) of the 14 calls met the standards for this objective.

Objective No. 2(c) Assessment of Complaint Hotline Recordings

Criteria

Intradepartmental Correspondence, April 24, 2007, Internal Affairs Group 24-Hour RecordedComplaint Line Protocols, states, "The Primary IAG 24-hour recorded complaint line will beanswered by Police Officers II assigned to the CCU When a member of the public desires toinitiate a personnel complaint, he/she shall be transferred to a CCU Supervisor, and thetelephone call will automatically be recorded on one of the secondary lines connected to theVoiceprint System."


Three dates in March 2014 (11, 14 and 19) were randomly selected to review IAG's VoiceprintSystem recordings to determine if complaints were initiated when callers reported misconduct.Audit Division reviewed all calls on the specified dates and obtained copies of the VoiceprintComplaint Intake Log and copies of any corresponding Complaint Forms pertaining to the datesidentified for comparison.

Internal Affairs Group's Voiceprint System indicated 25 calls were received on the selecteddates, of which two of the calls made allegations of misconduct against Department employees.

If misconduct was reported during a recorded call and a complaint was initiated, it met thestandard for this objective.


Findings

Both (100%) of the calls met standards for this objective.'

Objective No. 2(d) Assessment of Email Complaint Intake

Criteria

Department Manual Section 3/810.05, Complaints — Conditions of Acceptance, states,"Complaints shall be accepted from any source: written, verbal, in person or telephonic (orTTY), by mail, facsimile transmission, or electronic means, or anonymously; at the PoliceAdministration Building; any bureau, Area station or substation."


Currently, the Department has no centralized method for receiving complaints by emailtherefore, this objective was not testable.

In 2003, the LAPD website, LAPDOnline.org, contained a commendation/complaint link thatallowed the public to submit commendations and complaints online. In early 2007, the intakelink, for unknown reasons, was displaying error messages and was no longer being maintained.The link was subsequently removed with the approval of an IAG Officer-in-Charge (OIC).

Discussions between LAPD Online Section, OIG, and IAG involved creating an emailcommendation/complaint intake link that would be the responsibility of IAG. Internal AffairsGroup was receptive to the electronic Complaint Management System intake process. However,to this date, LAPDOnline.org does not have an email commendation/complaint intake link forsubmitting complaints online.

Findings

Not assessed.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that LAPD Online Section and IAG reevaluate the implementation of thecommendation/complaint intake link on LAPDOnline.org, allowing for online submissions ofcommendations and complaints.

Objective No. 2(e) Assessment of Fax Complaints Intake

Department Manual Section 3/810.05, Complaints — Conditions of Acceptance, states,"Complaints shall be accepted from any source: written, verbal, in person or telephonic (orTTY), by mail, facsimile transmission, or electronic means, or anonymously; at the PoliceAdministration Building; any bureau, Area station or substation."

9The two complaints initiated were: CF Nos. 14-00065 and 14-00675.



The same randomized dates used in Objective No. 2(b) were used for this objective. Faxes weresent once per day. Audit Division faxed IAG and requested that JAG acknowledge receipt of thefax. Faxes for which IAG acknowledged, met the standard for the objective.

Findings

Each (100%) of the seven faxes to IAG met the standards for this objective.

Objective No. 3 Timeliness of IAG Review of the Face Sheet — Performance Information

Criteria

Department Manual Section 3/816.05, Internal Affairs Group's Responsibilities, states, "InternalAffairs Group shall promptly review every complaint, Form 01.28.00, determine whether thecomplaint will be investigated by IAG or by the employee's command, and promptly notify andforward the complaint to the affected entities for appropriate action."


Audit Division obtained a population of 316 complaint investigations that were closed inFebruary 2014 and randomly selected a statistically valid sample of 52 complaintinvestigations.' The 52 complaint investigations consisted of 34 that were conducted by thechain of command (COC) and 18 that were conducted by IAG. The complaint investigationswere reviewed along with a data run of pertinent dates that was generated by JAG.

The date the complaint was received by IAG, via the Complaint Management System, wascompared with the JAG classification date. This objective was conducted as a performanceassessment as Department policy indicates that JAG "shall promptly review and determinewhether the complaint will be investigated by JAG or the employee's command..." The policydoes not define "promptly," therefore this objective was tested as a performance assessmentonly.

Audit Division has in prior audits defined "promptly" as within ten working days. InternalAffairs Group has incorporated a self-imposed timeframe of ten days to review and classify theComplaint Form once it is received.

This objective reviewed the information and provided a breakdown using the ten workdayparameter from the time IAG receives the Complaint Form.

10The sample size was obtained by using the one-tail test with a 95 percent confidence level with an error rate of fivepercent.


Findings

Table No. 2 — IAG Face Sheets Reviewed and Classified

Number of Work Days to Review and ClassifyTotal Cases

1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20

Complaints 42 9 0 1 52

Objective No. 4 Timeliness of the Completion of Investigations

Criteria

Department Manual Section 3/824, Completion of Complaint Investigation, states, "It is the goalof the Department to complete most complaint investigations within five months of the ComplaintForm being received by Internal Affairs Group (JAG). Notwithstanding that goal, all effortsshould be undertaken to ensure the entire complaint process is completed within the limitationsestablished by state law and the City Charter."


This objective reviewed 50 of the 52 sample complaint investigations."

Audit Division reviewed the investigations for completion within five months. The five-monthwindow began on the date the complaint was reported to an uninvolved supervisor and wasconsidered completed when the investigation was approved by the OIC.

Note: If over 50 percent of all complaint investigations were completed within five months, theDepartment met the standard for this objective.

Findings

Twenty-Six (52%) of the 50 investigations met the standard for this objective. The remaining 24investigations exceeded the five-month completion date ranging from ten to 203 days late.'There was no documentation that existed to explain the extended amount of time to investigatethe complaint. Table No. 3 provides a breakdown of the completion rates for IAG and COCinvestigations. Table No. 4 provides a breakdown of the above number of days that theinvestigation was not investigated within five months.

"Tolling is a legal doctrine which allows for the pausing or delaying of the running of the period set forth by astatute. Two investigations (one COC and one TAG) were tolled and a determination for the completion of thecomplaint investigations could not be made, and therefore were removed from this objective.

12None of the complaints fell out of statute for their respective nature of allegation.


Table No. 3 — Investigations Completed Within Five Months

Investigating EntityComplaint Sample

Size

No.Investigated within five

months

No.Not Investigated within

five months

IAG 20 4 (20%) 16 (80%)

COC 30 22 (73%) 8 (27%)

Total Cases 50 26 (52%) 24 (48%)

Table No. 4 — Investigations Completed Beyond Five Months

InvestigatingEntity

Days Late Not Investigated in fivemonths1-50 51-100 101-150 151-200 201-250

IAG 3 3 3 7 0 16 (67%)

COC 1 2 4 0 1 8 (33%)

Total Cases 4 5 7 7 1 24 (100%)

Department policy states that the Department's goal is to complete most complaint investigationswithin five months. Audit Division defined "most" as greater than 50 percent. Internal AffairsGroup concurred with AD's findings and further explained that during the audit period, itexperienced a shortage of investigators with an approximate vacancy rate of 30 percent. Withrespect to COC investigations, there was no indication as to what contributed to the extendeddelay in investigating their complaints.

Objective No. 5 Proper Assignment of Complaint Investigations to IAG and Chain OfCommand

Criteria

Department Infoweb — Organization — Organization Information — Professional StandardsBureau, Internal Affairs Group — Functions, states, "Internal Affairs Group-InvestigativeResponsibility. When fully staffed IAG is responsible for investigating the following complaints:• All civil suits or claims for damages involving on-duty conduct by Department

employees,.• All civil suits or claims for damages involving off-duty conduct that allege physical

violence, threats of physical violence or domestic violence by an employee;• An employee who has been arrested or criminally charged with a felony or high grade

misdemeanor;• Any unauthorized use of force (if not documented in NCUOF);• Discrimination based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, national origin, sexual

orientation, or disability, including improper ethnic remarks and gender bias; Unlawfulsearch;

• Unlawful seizure (including false imprisonment and false arrest);• Dishonesty;• Improper behavior involving narcotics or drugs;• Sexual misconduct;• Domestic violence;• Theft;


• Acts of retaliation or retribution against an employee or the public;• Incidents in which a member of the public is charged by an officer with interfering,

resisting arrest (California Penal Code Section 148), assault on an officer, or disorderlyconduct, and the prosecutor's office notifies the Department either that it is dismissingthe charge based upon officer credibility, or a judge dismissed the charge based uponofficer credibility.

• Additionally, IAG will investigate all incidents in which the Department receives writtennotification from a prosecuting agency in a criminal case when there has been:

• An order suppressing evidence because of any constitutional violation involving potentialmisconduct by an employee;

• A judicial finding of employee misconduct made in the course of a judicial proceeding,.and,

• A request by a federal or state judge, magistrate, or prosecutor that a misconductinvestigation be initiated against an employee, pursuant to information developed duringa judicial proceeding before a judge or magistrate, or during the course of an officialproceeding in which that judge or prosecutor has been involved."

Department Manual Section 3/837.20 Investigation Responsibility — General, states,"Investigative responsibility for the Department's unified investigation shall be as follows:

• Low-grade misdemeanor-the employee's Area/division of assignment;

Exception: When a low -grade misdemeanor results from a traffic collision, the criminalinvestigation shall be completed by a traffic supervisor, bureau of occurrence.• High -grade misdemeanor or felony-at the direction of the Commanding Officer, Internal

Affairs Group;

Note: High -grade misdemeanors include:

• Petty theft;• Dangerous Weapons' Control Law;• Traffic manslaughter;• Indecent exposure;• Child molesting;• Contributing,.• Lewd conduct;• Lewd loitering;• All misdemeanor sex crimes; and,• Misdemeanor narcotic/drug offenses. All other misdemeanor crimes are low -grade."


The sample of 52 complaint investigations used in Objective No. 3 was also used for thisobjective. Nineteen complaint investigations were assigned to IAG and 33 complaintinvestigations were assigned to COC. If the complaint investigations were properly assigned toIAG and COC, it met the standards for this objective.


Findings

Each (100%) of 52 complaint investigations met the standards for this objective.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. It is recommended that LAPD Online Section and IAG reevaluate the implementation of thecommendation/complaint intake link on LAPDOnline.org, allowing for online submissionsof commendations and complaints.

2. Given the sensitive nature of the SOD assignment, it is recommended that PPD consult withappropriate Department command staff, and consider the inclusion of SOD personnel underthe requirement to have a TER completed during the selection process.


The audit report was provided to the Commanding Officer, Professional Standards Bureau, andthe Assistant to the Director, Office of Operations, both whom were in general agreement withthe findings.

INTRADEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCEADDENDUM

November 13, 20141.13

TO: Commanding Officer, Internal Audits and Inspections Division

FROM: Commanding Officer, Professional Standards Bureau

SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT PROCESS AUDIT, FOURTH QUARTER, FISCALYEAR 2013/2014

A review of the Complaint Process Audit, Fourth Quarter, Fiscal Year 2013/2014, has revealed theneed to respond to two Objectives contained in the audit. The two areas requiring a response areObjective No. 1(a) — Selection Package — TEAMS Evaluation Report (TER), as well as ObjectiveNo. 4 — Timeliness of the Completion of Investigations.

Delineated below are the systems that have been established to ensure full compliance with therequirement to complete a TER for those selected for positions in Internal Affairs Group (IAG).Additionally, it is important to provide an explanation regarding completion of investigations withinthe five month goal when reviewing the results of the Audit that was conducted. There is nodisagreement with the results that were obtained by the Audit; however, with the greater emphasisthat has been placed on this objective by the current command at Professional Standards Bureau(PSB), significant improvement has been achieved in this area in investigations completed by JAG.

Objective No. 1(a) — Selection Package — TEAMS Evaluation Report

As part of the change of command that occurred in May 2013, the Commanding Officer (C/O), PSB,assumed the selections of IAG personnel. The completion of selection/transfer documents waspreviously handled by an officer assigned to LAG. The Audit sampling occurred during thistransition and as a result, the TER's were not completed for newly selected personnel. Prior toreceiving additional training, PSB personnel believed that the Transfer Action Item (TAI) satisfiedthe TER requirement.

Once PSB became aware of the Audit findings, additional training occurred and PSB implemented aSelection/Loan Checklist that will ensure proper completion of TER's and TAI's for all selections ofpersonnel. This checklist has been utilized for all subsequent IAG personnel selections. It isanticipated that additional audits will reveal full compliance in completion of TER's. Additionally,the C/O, PSB, now ensures that several audits of selection packages are completed to ensure that allrequired documentation are contained in the selection packages.

Commanding Officer, Internal Audits and Inspections DivisionPage 2

Objective No. 4 — Timeliness of the Completion of Investigations

The Audit sampled a very small number of completed investigations. Since assuming command ofPSB in May 2013, there have been vast improvements in many areas, specifically, in the timelinessand quality of IAG investigations. A new reporting format was introduced which has led to anexpedition completion of investigations.

Currently, the percentage of all cases investigated by PSB that are completed within the five monthcompliance goal is as follows:

Administrative Investigation Division

2013 YTD Five Month Goal Compliance: 15.4%2104 YTD Five Month Goal Compliance: 79.2% (583 of 736 total cases)

Criminal Investigation Division

2013 YTD Five Month Goal Compliance: 37.0%2104 YTD Five Month Goal Compliance: 57.9% (237 of 409 total cases)

Combined this represents an overall compliance rate of 68.5% for all investigations completed bylAG within the five month goal, as compared to 26.2% compliance rate from the previous YTD.This figure represents a significant improvement from the results obtained (20%) as a result of theAudit and the sampling of twenty cases that were used. Of the twenty cases examined, all but one ofthe cases was reported prior to May 2013. The one case that was reported after May 2013, met thestandard for compliance.

If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact Lieutenant Wayne Lightfoot,PSB, at 213-473-8892.

DEBRA J. MCCARTHY, Deputy ChiefCommanding OfficerProfessional Standards Bureau

INTRADEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE … correspondence june 12, 2015 ... training evaluation ... personnel complaint material available to

Documents