Common use of CRITICAL RESPONSE TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT REVIEW Clause in Contracts

CRITICAL RESPONSE TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT REVIEW. ‌ Police Accountability—Findings and National Implications of an Assessment of the San Diego Police Department Supervision and leadership As discussed in this report, police leaders are ultimately responsible for ensuring that effective policy, training, and supervision are in place to prevent officer misconduct. Perhaps the most important lesson learned from this assessment is that the failure of the department’s leaders to adequately address smaller problems led to much larger issues—especially in the area of first-line supervision. Years of budget cuts caused staffing shortages in all areas of the department, especially for first-line patrol supervisors. Many of the misconduct cases reviewed demonstrated a lack of adequate first-line supervision in the department. At least one of the officers under review moved his shift time around every few months, presumably to avoid supervisors observing patterns of questionable behavior. A few veterans with the department who could have bid any shift (because of their seniority) specifically sought shift times when supervisors are extremely busy and have less time to check in with their subordinates. In many of the reviewed cases, officers were acting inappropriately but not criminally. In these instances, supervisors were not engaged with the behaviors and actions of their subordinates. Had there been regular dialogue and interaction in the field, these supervisors may have been able to intervene before these behaviors escalated to misconduct. Accountability The case review process also uncovered some challenges with the department’s accountability systems. A few of the individuals whose misconduct cases were reviewed exhibited signs of personal distress prior to their offenses. Some of these individuals should have been identified by the SDPD’s early identification and interven- tion system (EIIS) program and should have experienced some type of supervisory intervention. In addition, there was inconsistency in the discipline that was administered in the reviewed cases. Some em- ployees were given little more than a written reprimand for troubling behaviors, while others were suspended without pay for an extended period of time for similar offenses.20 Recruiting and hiring While many of these cases might have been prevented with stronger supervision and more consistent and accurate accountability systems, others might have been prevented at the hiring phase. There were a handful of employees who demonstrated problematic behavior even prior to their employment with the SDPD. With more robust controls in the recruiting and hiring system, these individuals might not have been selected for employ- ment with the department. Key stakeholder interviews and focus groups PERF conducted four on-site visits, meeting with members of the police department, the American Civil Liber- ties Union (ACLU) of San Diego and Imperial Counties, and the Citizens’ Review Board (CRB) on Police Practices to gain insight into the misconduct issues the department had been experiencing. The purpose of these inter- views was to understand the history and organizational culture of the SDPD and to guide the assessment team in ensuring that PERF’s recommendations reflect the vision and goals for the police department that San Diego and its leaders are striving for.

CRITICAL RESPONSE TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT REVIEW. ‌ Police Accountability—Findings and National Implications of an Assessment of the San Diego Police Department Supervision At a May 10, 2011 press conference following the arrest of Officer Xxxxxxxx, then Chief of Police Xxxxxxx Xxxx- xxxxx addressed several cases of officer misconduct and leadership As discussed apologized on behalf of the SDPD, saying: “I want to personally apologize to every citizen of the city of San Diego, as this behavior is not expected nor condoned by me or anyone in this reportthe San Diego Police Department.” Lansdowne said the “unprecedented number of cases against officers has tarnished the police department’s image” and that it would take years to rebuild a strong relationship with the public. Chief Lansdowne then announced a proactive seven-point plan to prevent recurrences of such incidents. The seven-point plan was designed to increase officer accountability and prevent future cases of misconduct in the SDPD.11 The seven-point plan addressed the following areas: ƒ Increase staffing in the internal affairs unit. ƒ Conduct supervisor training in the areas of ethics, police leaders are ultimately responsible leadership, and the early intervention and identification system (EIIS). ƒ Establish a 24/7 anonymous confidential complaint hotline.12 ƒ Review the department’s discipline manual. ƒ Review the department’s use of force training and tactics. ƒ Add a wellness assessment to the annual evaluation process. ƒ Conduct a series of meetings to discuss the chief’s plan and to make clear his expectations for ensuring all members of the department. Several key areas that effective policythe seven-point plan addressed—accountability, supervision, officer training, and supervision are in place commu- nity engagement—were specifically intended to prevent prevent, identify and address potential officer misconduct. Perhaps These functions are also important to establishing a culture of integrity, which is the most important lesson learned from this assessment is foundation of an effective police department. Officers should be held to the highest standards, and that requires proper training as well as clear pol- icies and directives that are reinforced through proper supervision and constructive, timely, fair, and firm discipline. The chief’s seven points sought to establish a framework to begin working toward that end. Over the next 18 months, the SDPD provided updates on the implementation of the seven-point plan to the San Diego City Council. By February 2013, the council was informed that the failure SDPD had fully implemented the seven-point plan with a series of the department’s leaders to adequately address smaller problems led to much larger issues—especially in the area of first-line supervision. Years of budget cuts caused staffing shortages in all areas of the departmentstaff meetings, especially for first-line patrol supervisors. Many of the misconduct cases reviewed demonstrated a lack of adequate first-line supervision in the department. At least one of the officers under review moved his shift time around every few months, presumably to avoid supervisors observing patterns of questionable behavior. A few veterans with the department who could have bid any shift (because of their seniority) specifically sought shift times when supervisors are extremely busy and have less time to check in with their subordinates. In many of the reviewed cases, officers were acting inappropriately but not criminally. In these instances, supervisors were not engaged with the behaviors and actions of their subordinates. Had there been regular dialogue and interaction in the field, these supervisors may have been able to intervene before these behaviors escalated to misconduct. Accountability The case review process also uncovered some challenges with the department’s accountability systems. A few of the individuals whose misconduct cases were reviewed exhibited signs of personal distress prior to their offenses. Some of these individuals should have been identified by the SDPD’s early identification and interven- tion system (EIIS) program and should have experienced some type of supervisory intervention. In addition, there was inconsistency in the discipline that was administered in the reviewed cases. Some em- ployees were given little more than a written reprimand for troubling behaviors, while others were suspended without pay for an extended period of time for similar offenses.20 Recruiting and hiring While many of these cases might have been prevented with stronger supervision and more consistent and accurate accountability systems, others might have been prevented at the hiring phase. There were a handful of employees who demonstrated problematic behavior even prior to their employment with the SDPD. With more robust controls in the recruiting and hiring system, these individuals might not have been selected for employ- ment with the department. Key stakeholder interviews and focus groups PERF conducted four on-site visits, meeting with members of the police department, the American Civil Liber- ties Union (ACLU) of San Diego and Imperial Countiestraining sessions, and the Citizens’ Review Board (CRB) on Police Practices to gain insight into the misconduct issues the department had been experiencing. The purpose of these inter- views was to understand the history and organizational culture of the SDPD and to guide the assessment team in ensuring that PERF’s recommendations reflect the vision and goals for the police department that San Diego and its leaders are striving forpolicy reviews.

CRITICAL RESPONSE TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT REVIEW. ‌ Police Accountability—Findings and National Implications of an Assessment of the San Diego Police Department Supervision It is also important to note that even as PERF heard critical comments at its public hearings about SDPD officers, it also heard a number of community members say that most SDPD officers are dedicated and leadership As discussed that there are many good working relationships between police and community members on problem-oriented policing and volunteer projects. This review found that there was not one single problem that enabled the instances of misconduct to occur. In- stead, these incidents occurred as the result of a number of issues left unaddressed by department leaders that indirectly contributed to misconduct—in this reportparticular, police leaders are ultimately responsible for ensuring that a lack of effective policy, training, and supervision are in place to prevent officer misconduct. Perhaps the most important lesson learned from this assessment is that the failure of the department’s leaders to adequately address smaller problems led to much larger issues—especially in the area of first-line supervision. Years These issues resulted in a series of budget cuts caused staffing shortages in all areas significant and ongoing incidents of misconduct by a handful of officers. Police department leaders must recognize the department, especially for first-line patrol supervisors. Many of the misconduct cases reviewed demonstrated a lack importance of adequate first-line supervision in the department. At least one of the officers under review moved his shift time around every few months, presumably to avoid supervisors observing patterns of questionable behavior. A few veterans with field and ensure that effective systems are in place in the department who could have bid any shift (because of their seniority) specifically sought shift times to prevent and detect officer misconduct. This must be a priority even when supervisors resources are extremely busy stretched thin. The solution to misconduct issues lies in a comprehensive approach in which various SDPD systems and have less time policies are revised with an eye toward improving supervision and preventing misconduct, and in working to check in with their subordinatesensure that the overall SDPD culture sends the message that misconduct will not be tolerated. In many of the reviewed cases, officers were acting inappropriately but National implications Officer misconduct is not criminally. In these instances, supervisors were not engaged with the behaviors and actions of their subordinates. Had there been regular dialogue and interaction an issue only in the field, these supervisors may SDPD; it is a challenge for departments across the nation. Police departments in cities and towns of all sizes have been able to intervene before these behaviors escalated to misconduct. Accountability The case review process also uncovered some challenges with the department’s accountability systems. A few of the individuals whose experienced criminal misconduct cases were reviewed exhibited signs of personal distress prior to their offenses. Some of these individuals should have been identified by the SDPD’s early identification and interven- tion system (EIIS) program and should have experienced some type of supervisory intervention. In addition, there was inconsistency in the discipline that was administered in the reviewed cases. Some em- ployees were given little more than a written reprimand for troubling behaviors, while others were suspended without pay for an extended period of time for similar offenses.20 Recruiting and hiring While many of these cases might have been prevented with stronger supervision and more consistent and accurate accountability systems, others might have been prevented at the hiring phase. There were a handful of employees who demonstrated problematic behavior even prior to their employment with the SDPD. With more robust controls in the recruiting and hiring system, these individuals might not have been selected for employ- ment with the department. Key stakeholder interviews and focus groups PERF conducted four on-site visits, meeting with members of the police department, the American Civil Liber- ties Union (ACLU) of San Diego and Imperial Counties, and the Citizens’ Review Board (CRB) on Police Practices to gain insight into the misconduct issues the department had been experiencingdecades. The purpose pur- pose of these inter- views this study was to understand the history identify how policies and organizational culture of practices may be changed to improve policing and account- ability in the SDPD and to guide help the assessment team department rebuild community trust. While the recommendations provided in ensuring that this report are specific to the policies and procedures of the SDPD, it was also PERF’s recommendations reflect goal to ensure that the vision outcomes and goals for the police department that San Diego and its leaders lessons learned from this study are striving forapplicable to law enforcement agencies nationwide.