Partial Compliance. Compliance has been achieved on most of the key components of the provision, but substantial work remains.
Partial Compliance. Partial fulfillment of the Secured Obligations does not result in corresponding release of the Disposed Assets (as defined below) within the scope hereof.
Partial Compliance. Partial fulfillment of the Secured Obligations does not result in corresponding release of the Credit Rights (as defined below) within the scope hereof.
Partial Compliance. 1. The SME looks forward to receiving information about DHHRs use of CANs related information including DHHRs planned inclusion of baseline data in the January 2023 semi- annual report. The SME understands that the State’s use of CANS data is in its nascent stages. The SME anticipates that the CANS data will facilitate DHHR demonstrating compliance with Paragraph 35 , as well as applications to other Agreement requirements noted elsewhere in this report.
Partial Compliance. The term “partial compliance” shall mean that the State has achieved less than substantial compliance with all of the components of a rated paragraph of the agreement, but has made some progress toward substantial compliance on most of the key components of the rated paragraph. A partial compliance rating encompasses a wide range of performance by the State. Specifically, a partial compliance rating can signify that that the State is nearly in substantial compliance, or it can mean that the State is only slightly above a non-compliance rating.
Partial Compliance indicates that compliance has been achieved on some of the components of the relevant provision of the Agreement, but significant work remains.
Partial Compliance. Analysis PPB provided all officers training on newly enacted policies concerning topics covered in Paragraph 84(a). However, PPB’s force investigations, employee evaluations, and accountability systems now are in flux. Once permanent policies are approved and in place, PPB will need to implement supervisory training consistent with Paragraph 84(b). PPB has not yet conducted this needed comprehensive supervisor retraining. The Fall 2017 in-service training represents the best measure of compliance with Paragraph 84(a), given that this is the first comprehensive training since PPB enacted its revised force and force reporting policy, Directive 1010.00, which dovetails with the previously enacted Directive 850.20 - Police Response to Mental Health Crisis and Directive 630.50 - Emergency Medical Aid. XXX agrees with COCL that many of PPB’s talented administrators and instructors worked to improve the Fall 2017 in-service training. See 2017 COCL Rep. at 63. PPB was responsive to DOJ and XXXX’s technical assistance to improve the content of the training, survey, and examinations. Id.
Partial Compliance. 2020 Status Beginning Compliance Assessment EPSO developed policies and conducted training that addressed the requirements of this provisions. EPSO should ensure that the most recent versions of the policies are updated on EPSO’s website and distributed to EPSO personnel. Next Steps EPSO should finalize its updated policies, and DOJ will conduct further audits of documented law enforcement activity to assess compliance with these Agreement provisions.
Partial Compliance. 2020 Status Beginning Compliance Assessment Nothing in the materials that we have reviewed (including samples of incident reports and body-worn camera footage from October 2020, February 2021, and June 2021) indicates that officers have arrested people on quality of life offenses for purposes of questioning or interrogating on other offenses. Next Steps EPSO supervisors must review all quality of life arrests and explanations where the officer failed to seek prior approval. During the next reporting period, DOJ will (1) monitor implementation of the EPSO’s Vehicle Stops, Field Interviews, Investigative Stops, Voluntary Contacts, and Quality of Life policies; and (2) audit documentation of law enforcement activity to assess compliance with these Agreement provisions.
Partial Compliance. 2020 Status Beginning Compliance Assessment DOJ reviewed a sample of body-worn camera videos and incident reports from October 2020, February 2021, and June 2021, confirming continued improvement in compliance with this provision. In the majority of cases that we reviewed, EPSO provided video footage reflecting body-worn camera use by each officer on the scene of the incident, and the cameras appeared to have been turned on and off at appropriate times and in accordance with EPSO policy. In some cases that we reviewed, however, there were incidents for which footage was not provided or was not provided for all personnel on the scene. We also reviewed some incidents for which some body-worn camera footage was provided, but it did not appear that cameras were activated at appropriate times in accordance with policy. Furthermore, we remain concerned that supervisors failed to routinely audit these videos to ensure that officers were complying with the constitution and EPSO policy. If supervisors had been auditing body-worn camera video, they might have discovered the instances of misconduct that we mentioned above and prevented unconstitutional conduct, and the deleterious effect on community trust, that occurred. Next Steps We will continue to audit body-worm camera footage and ensure that first-line supervisors audit officers’ activities on a consistent basis.
