compliance report of the -...

COMPLIANCEREPORTofthe

COMPLIANCEOFFICERANDCOMMUNITYLIAISON

PreparedBy:

ROSENBAUM&ASSOCIATES,LLP

FortheCityofPortland,Oregon

ThirdandFourthQuarters:

JulythroughDecember,2016

Exhibit B Pg. 1 of 124

Case 3:12-cv-02265-SI Document 155-2 Filed 08/24/17 of 124

TableofContentsINTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….1

EXECUTIVESUMMARY.................................................................................................................................4

III.USEOFFORCE.........................................................................................................................................9

IV.TRAINING..............................................................................................................................................25

V.COMMUNITY-BASEDMENTALHEALTHSERVICES................................................................................41

VI.CRISISINTERVENTION..........................................................................................................................44

VII.EMPLOYEEINFORMATIONSYSTEM....................................................................................................67

VIII.OFFICERACCOUNTABILITY.................................................................................................................71

IX.COMMUNITYENGAGEMENTANDCREATIONOFCOMMUNITYOVERSIGHTADVISORYBOARD......92

X.AGREEMENTIMPLEMENTATIONANDENFORCEMENT......................................................................101

LISTOFABBREVIATIONS..........................................................................................................................111

LISTOFPERSONNEL.................................................................................................................................113

APPENDIXA.............................................................................................................................................114

APPENDIXB.............................................................................................................................................115



1

INTRODUCTIONThis is the Compliance Assessment Report of the ComplianceOfficer and Community

Liaison (COCL) for the third and fourth quarters of 2016, as required by the SettlementAgreement(Agreement)betweentheCityofPortland(City)andtheUnitedStatesDepartmentofJustice(DOJ).COCLComplianceAssessmentReportsarerequiredbyPar.162oftheAgreementand “shall specify: (a) the methodology and monitoring activities employed; (b) the COCL’sassessmentofcomplianceforeachparagraph;and(c)theCOCL’srecommendationsregardingnecessarystepstoachievecompliance,aswarranted”(Par.162).Eachoftheserequirementsisincludedinourassessmentsandisclearlylabeledassuch.

Thisreportiswrittentobereadablebyallstakeholders.Wheneverpossible,weusedtheexactlanguagefromtheSettlementAgreement.However,whentheprovisionsoftheAgreementarelengthyorcomplex,wehaveprovidedasummaryofthatlanguage.Inthesesituations,thereaderwill be referred to theAgreement for thedetails of theprovision.Asweprovideourassessment of each substantive paragraph within the Agreement, we urge the reader torememberthatcomplyingwithoneparagraphcansometimesbedependentoncomplyingwithoneormoreadditionalparagraphs.

ThisreportcoversprogressbytheCityofPortland(hereafterreferredtoas“theCity”)andthePortlandPoliceBureau(hereafterreferredtoas“thePPB”)duringthethirdandfourthquartersof2016.Incertaincases,welearnedofdevelopmentsthatoccurredinthefirstquarterof2017.Inordertomaintainchronologicalconsistency,however,werefrainfromcommentingtoomuchondevelopmentsinsubsequentquartersotherthanstatingthattheywillbecoveredinournextreport.

Report Card. This report includes a “Report Card” on the implementation of theAgreement which provides an assessment of each paragraph in the Agreement. For eachparagraphwheresufficientinformationisavailabletorenderadecision,theReportCardprovidesan overall judgment on a 4-point scale, ranging from “Non-compliance” to “SubstantialCompliance.” PPB and the City have continued to make significant progress towards theimplementationoftheAgreement.However,inmanyareas,moreworkisnecessarytofulfilltherequirementsoftheAgreement.WewillcontinuetoworkwithPPBandtheCityastheymoveforward,providingconsultation,analysis,technicalassistance,andassessment.

Whenreviewingthespecificparagraphs,weutilizeafour-tieredsystemofevaluation:

- SubstantialCompliance:TheCity/PPBhassatisfiedtherequirementoftheprovisioninacomprehensivefashionandwithahighlevelofintegrity.

- PartialCompliance:TheCity/PPBhasmadesignificantprogresstowardsthesatisfactionoftheprovision’srequirements,thoughadditionalworkisneeded.

- Non-Compliance but Initial Steps Taken: The City/PPB has begun the necessary stepstowardcompliance,thoughsignificantprogressislacking.



2

- Non-Compliance: The City/PPB has not made any meaningful progress towards thesatisfactionoftheprovision’srequirements.

- Not Yet Assessed: The COCL team has not had the opportunity to fully assess therequirementsoftheprovisionandelectstowithholdassessmentofcomplianceuntilamorethoroughreviewhasoccurred.



*SeeIndividualComplianceResults:Thislabelindicatesthatnotallparagraphsinthissectionreceivedthesamereportcardgrade(theresultsweremixed)andtherefore,asinglecompliancelabelisnotappropriate.Intheseinstances,weurgethereadertorefertothespecificparagraphassessment.Forothersections,mixedresultsoccurred,butonegradeisappropriateforthevastmajorityofparagraphsreviewed.

SettlementAgreementSection COCLAssessmentofComplianceIII.USEOFFORCE PartialComplianceA.UseofForcePolicy PartialComplianceB.ComplianceAuditsRelatedtoUseofForce PartialComplianceIV.TRAINING SeeIndividualComplianceResults*V.COMMUNITY-BASEDMENTALHEALTHSERVICES SubstantialComplianceVI.CRISISINTERVENTION SeeIndividualComplianceResults*A.AddictionsandBehavioralHealthUnitand

AdvisoryCommittee SubstantialCompliance

B.ContinuationofC-IProgram PartialComplianceC.Establishing“MemphisModel”CrisisInterventionTeam SeeIndividualComplianceResults*

D.MobileCrisisPreventionTeam SeeIndividualComplianceResults*E.ServiceCoordinationTeam SubstantialComplianceF.BOEC SeeIndividualComplianceResults*VII.EMPLOYEEINFORMATIONSYSTEM PartialComplianceVIII.OFFICERACCOUNTABILITY PartialComplianceA.InvestigationTimeframe PartialComplianceB.OnScenePublicSafetyStatementsandInterviews PartialCompliance

C.ConductofIAInvestigations PartialComplianceD.CRCAppeals SubstantialComplianceE.Discipline PartialComplianceF.CommunicationwithComplainantandTransparency PartialCompliance

IX.COMMUNITYENGAGEMENTANDCREATIONOFCOMMUNITYOVERSIGHTADVISORYBOARD SeeIndividualComplianceResults*

X.AGREEMENTIMPLEMENTATIONANDENFORCEMENT PartialCompliance

A.ComplianceOfficer/CommunityLiaison NotApplicableB.PPBComplianceCoordinator SubstantialComplianceC.AccesstoPeopleandDocuments PartialComplianceD.ReviewofPoliciesandInvestigations SubstantialComplianceE.CityReportsandRecords PartialComplianceF.Enforcement PartialCompliance



4

EXECUTIVESUMMARYIn the thirdand fourthquarterof2016, theCity and thePortlandPoliceBureau (PPB)madeoverall progress toward satisfying the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. In thisexecutivesummary,wesummarizetheprogresstodateforeachoftheeight(8)majorsectionsoftheAgreementandidentifyworkthatremainstobedonebytheCityandPPB.Thereadershouldnotassume,however,thatthissummarycoversallchangesrequiredintheSettlementAgreementandtherefore,shouldrefertothefullreportforadditionaldetailsandexplanationsofourassessments.

III.UseofForce

Inthethirdandfourthquarterof2016,PPBtooksubstantialstepstowardfinalizingarevisedversionofDirective1010.00(UseofForce).Aspartoftherevisions,Directive1010.00combinesprevious PPB directives 940.00 (After Action Reports), 1020.00 (Firearms), 1025.00 (PoliceOperationsatTSA-GovernedAirportFacilities),1030.00(BatonUse),1035.00(BallisticShields),1040.00(AerosolRestraints),1050.00(LessLethalWeaponsandMunitions),1051.00(ElectronicControlWeapon System), and 1090.00 (SpecialWeapons Use). Rather than retain separatepolicies for all potential forceoptions, PPB combined them into a singledirective alongwithsupervisorresponsibilitiesfollowingaforceevent.Therevised1010.00includescommentsandrecommendations from awide variety of sources, including PPB, DOJ, City Personnel, COAB,community members, and COCL. Although a final version was not approved by the U.S.DepartmentofJustice(DOJ)inthethirdandfourthquarter,webelievetheproposedrevisionsof1010.00areanimprovementoverpastpolicies.

Thereportingof forcebythe Inspectorcontinuedtoshowimprovementduringthethirdandfourthquarter,thoughprogressisstillneededinsomeareas.Forexample,althoughthequarterlyforcesummaryreportshavebecomemoreefficient,theystilldonotidentifytrendsthatwouldassist in crafting training and determining officer/group/environmental differences in forceevents.WebelievetheexpansionoftheForceAuditin2017(whatcanbereferredtoas“PhaseII”)willhelpfacilitatetheidentificationoftrendsandhowtheymaybestbeaddressed.Inthefourthquarterof2016,wediscussedimplementingPhaseIIoftheForceAuditwithPPB,whichinvolvesmoving some of PPB’s auditing attention away from the question of whether forcereportsarebeingcompletedfullyandaccuratelytothequestionofwhetherforcedecisionswerejustifiedandwithinpolicyandlaw.Asofthisreport,PPBperformsPhaseIevaluationonALLuseofforceevents.WhenmovingtoPhaseII,wehaveagreedwithPPBthatastratifiedsamplingmethodology(20%offorceevents)forbothPhaseIandPhaseIIisadequatetobeconfidentinthe results. However, PPBwill still engage inPhase I reviewwith the20% sample. Phase IIincludesmeasurestosystematicallyassessthereasonablenessofforceeventsandwillidentifyimplicationsfortrainingandpolicy.Furtherconsultationwillbeconductedinthefirstquarterof2017,includingthejointreviewofcasestoensurereliabilityofthereviewprocess.



5

IV.Training

Inthethirdandfourthquarterof2016,PPBimplementedanumberofchangesthatwereresponsivetorecommendationswehavemadeinthepast.Forinstance,PPBexpandedtheirevaluativemeasuresfortraining, includingsomecompetency-basedevaluations.Wemaintainthat furtherevaluationmethodsareneededtoensurethatofficersaredemonstratingcompetenceinspecificareasoftrainingandthuswe have provided PPBwith guidance on additional evaluation strategies.We believe that theNeedsAssessmentcreatedbyPPBisresponsivetotheSettlementAgreement,thoughurgethemtorevisetheformattoremovethesiloedstructure.TheNeedsAssessmentshouldalsobeenhancedtoincludeaplanofactionforeachidentifiedtrainingneed.

Weobservedthe2016In-ServiceandSupervisorIn-Serviceandwereimpressedwiththeoverallstructureand delivery of the trainings. One aspect of training which we found particularly encouraging was ascenario-basedexercisetoreinforcetheideathatnotallcommunitymembersposeadangertoofficers.PPBalsoprovidedafour-hourblockofEquitytrainingthatallowedofficerstoheartheperspectivesofcommunitymemberswhobelongtogroupsthathaveexperiencedhistorictensionswiththepolice.Theseaspects of training are certainly consistent with the concepts of respectful policing and communityengagementthatwehaveemphasizedinthepast,althoughwecontinuetorecommendmoredirectandintegratedcoverageofproceduraljusticeandrelatedconcepts.WealsonotedaconsistentemphasisonPPB’suseofforcepolicyandtheGrahamstandard.Thisemphasiswasrefreshingasitdemonstratedtoofficersthenumerousconsiderationsthatshouldbetakenintoaccountpriortousingforce.

Wenotedseveraloccasionsduringthetrainingwherethemessagewascommunicated,eitherimplicitlyorexplicitly,thatthechangestotrainingandpolicywererequiredbytheDepartmentofJusticeortheSettlementAgreement.WemaintainthatthismessagingdoesadisservicetotheBureaubecausepolicy,trainingandorganizationalchangesarelesslikelytotakerootwhenattributedtoanoutsidesource.PPBshould reinforce that changesarebeingmadebecause theBureauwants tohold itself to thehigheststandards.

Finally,weurgePPBtoobtainaLearningManagementSystem(LMS)asexpedientlyaspossible.AnLMSwillallowPPBtobetterdocumenttrainingprovidedandreceived,aswellasallowPPBtoseeareaswheretraininghassucceededormayneedtoberevised.PPBmadeprogressinsecuringanewLMSinthethirdandfourthquarterof2016,thoughithasyettobeimplemented.

V.Community-BasedMentalHealthServices

Thequalityof community-basedmentalhealth services is notwithin the controlof theCity andPPB.However,PPBandtheCityhaveshownadesire toproactivelyparticipate inenhancingmentalhealthserviceswithin thecityofPortland,MultnomahCounty,andtheStateofOregon.Workingwithothercommunitygroupsandorganizations,therehasbeensignificantprogressinopeningtheUnityCenter,aPsychiatricEmergencyServices(PES)center.TheUnityCenterisslatedtoopenduringthefirstquarterof2017,and inpreparation,PPBhas finalizeddirectives to instructofficersonprocedures for facilitatingtransportationtothePES.Additionally,theServiceCoordinationTeam(SCT)joinedtheStateBehavioralHealthCollaborativeTeam,agroupwhosepurposeistoprovideacoordinatedresponsetocommunity



6

mentalhealthissues.WebelievePPBandtheCityhavesubstantiallycompliedwithSectionVtotheextentthatcanbereasonablyexpected.

VI.CrisisIntervention

PPB has created the framework for the mental health response teams required in the SettlementAgreement.WehavebeenimpressedbytheworkoftheBHUACinreviewingPPBpolicies,training,andStandardOperatingProcedures(SOPs),makingrecommendations,andsolicitingfeedbackforimprovedoperation.PPBalsodoesareasonablygoodjobofcollectingdatarelatedtoEnhancedCrisisInterventionTeam(ECIT)calls,theBehavioralHealthResponseTeam(BHRT),andtheServiceCoordinationTeam(SCT).However,theMentalHealthMask(MHM)usedbyPPBtodocumentinteractionswithamentalhealthcomponentisbeingrevisedtocomplywithconcernsrelatedtodiscoverabilityincriminalcases.Thus,PPBiscurrentlyintheprocessofcreatingasystemofdatacapturethatwillallowforabetterunderstandingofECITinteractions(aswellasnon-ECITinteractionsthathaveamentalhealthcomponent).

The work of BHRT and SCT continues to be consistent with the letter and intent of the SettlementAgreement.PPBcontinuestooperatewithamodifiedMemphismodelbuthasyettoproducedatatodemonstrateitseffectivenessandresponsivenesstothePortlandcommunity.WeprovidedPPBwithanevaluationplantoaddressquestionsrelatedthefrequencyofmentalhealthcalls,theadequacyofECITcapacity across Precincts and shifts, outcomes for mental health calls, and differences in outcomesbetweenECITandCITofficers.AsthemodifiedMemphismodelreceivedprovisionalapprovalfromDOJandCOCL,PPBshouldusethedatacurrentlyavailabletoprovideanevaluation.ThiswillrequiredatafromtherevisedMHM,whichwebelievewillbeoperationalinthesecondquarterof2017.

Weobserved the CIT training providedby theBureauof Emergency Communications (BOEC) to theiremployees.Althoughwefoundthetrainingtoincluderevisedprotocolsfortriagingcallsrelatedtomentalillness,weidentifiedanumberofissueswiththetrainingthatwebelieveshouldbeaddressedbyBOEC.For instance, the training could have benefited from more subject matter experts, more consistentinformation across trainings, better role-play exercises, and better engagement of trainees in thescenarios.Weexpectthese issueswillbeaddressedwhenBOECprovidessupplementaltraining inthesecondquarterof2017aswellaswhenthistrainingisprovidedtonewhires.

VII.EmployeeInformationSystem

Theprocedureof identifying,selecting,and interveningwithpotentiallyproblematicofficersusingtheEmployee Information System (EIS) requires a substantial overhaul. Presently, PPB does not use thecapabilitiesofEISto identifyat-riskemployees,nordoesthesystemassessconductatthesupervisor,team,orunitlevel(Pars.116-117).OurpriorconsultationwithPPBonwaystoenhanceEIShasbeenmetwithresistancefromEISadministrators.Also,whilePPBhascompliedwiththethresholdsincludedintheSettlementAgreement,wemaintainthat ifPPBwantsanEISthatwillbeusefultotheorganization, itshouldgobeyondtherequiredthresholdsto include identifiersmore likely to flagofficerswhowouldbenefit from intervention. To assist PPB in this respect,we recommended they implement the SARAmodelofproblemsolvingasaheuristicdevice.InaTAStatementprovidedtoPPB,weexplainedhoweachstepof the SARAmodel (Scanning,Analysis, Response, andAssessment) couldbeexecuted,using EIS



7

initiativesfromotherlawenforcementagenciesasexamples.WeacknowledgethatEISisstillintheearlystagesofdevelopmentinthefield,butarguethatenoughisknownforPPBtooverhaulitsEISprogramandshowsignificantprogressin2017.

VIII.OfficerAccountability

AlthoughtheCitycontinuestoworkonofficeraccountability,littleprogresshasbeenmadeinrevisingthe accountability process to respond to the 180-day timeline and enable meaningful independentinvestigationsbytheIndependentPoliceReview(IPR).Anaccountabilityplanwasdiscussedatatown-hall forum, thoughwas ultimately rejected due to community concerns. A subsequent plan from theAuditorwas delivered to City Council in the third quarter of 2016, though, again, due to communityobjectionstotheplan,novoteonthematterwastaken.Duringthefourthquarterof2016,aworkgroupdiscussedspecificaspectsoftheaccountabilityprocess,thoughthetopicsdiscussedwereasmallportionoftheoverallproposedchanges.TheCityandPPBhavebeenslowinmakingimportantchangesandweurgethemtoproposeandimplementsystematicchangeswithmoreexpediency.

We reviewed the officer-involved shooting (OIS) which occurred in the fourth quarter of 2016. WemaintainthatPPBsatisfiedtherequirementsoftheSettlementAgreementingeneral,butwecontinuetonotealackofconsistencyinhowwitnessofficersareidentified.Wefoundoneofficerwhowebelieveshould havebeen considered awitness officer due to his/her vast first-hand knowledgeof the eventdespite not seeing the exact moment of lethal force. Aside from this concern, we note thatinvolved/witnessofficerswereseparatedinanimmediatefashionandCommunicationRestrictionOrders(CROs)wereissuedasquicklyascouldbeexpected.

Workstill remainsonthe issuesofGarrityandwhetheranofficermaybeorderedtoprovideapublicsafetystatement.Regardlessofwhetheranofficermaybecompelledtogiveapublicsafetystatementafteranofficer-involvedshooting(OIS),werecommendvolunteersafetystatementsbeencouragedbyPPB.Wealsoreportthatthe48-hourrulehasbeenremovedfromPPBpolicy,whichisapositivestepinresponsetocommunityconcerns.WeurgePPBtocompelofficerstatementsassoonasreasonableinthecontextoftheinvestigation.

ComplaintsofallegationsagainstPPBofficerswere,onthewhole,dealtwithinamannerconsistentwiththeSettlementAgreement.WereviewedonecasestemmingfromafindingofliabilityagainstPPBandfoundthatPPBdidnotreviewallpotentialviolationsofpolicyanddoesnotcurrentlyhavethesystemsinplacetodoso.Finally,althoughIPRacceptsandtrackscomplaintsagainstPPBmembers,webelievetheprocess would benefit from a complaint submission survey that queries complainants about theirsatisfactionwiththeprocess.WehaveopenedadiscussionofthismatterwithIPRandtheCityAuditor.

IX.CommunityEngagementandCreationofCommunityOversightAdvisoryBoard

Inthethirdandfourthquarterof2016,theCommunityOversightAdvisoryBoard(COAB)wasplacedonatwo-monthrecessbytheCityforthepurposesofstrengtheningthecommunityengagementprocess.InOctober of 2016, the recess ended, although a finalized community engagement plan—and possiblerelatedamendmentstotheSettlementAgreement—wasnotcreated.Workonarevisedplancontinued



8

throughtheendofthefourthquarterof2016aswellasintothefirstquarterof2017withthesupportofafacilitator.IntheabsenceofarevisedplanforCOAB2.0,thereexistsnostructuredgroupofcommunitymembers that canexecute the community aspectsof the SettlementAgreement, i.e., contribute toafinalized Community Engagement andOutreach (CEO) Plan, develop outreach and policing programs,consultondatacollectionefforts,developcommunityengagementandoutreachmetrics,meetwiththepolicerepresentatives,makerecommendationsregardingimplementationoftheSettlementAgreement,andactasanavenueforcommunitymemberstoprovidefeedbackonCOCL’ssemi-annualassessmentsof compliance (Par. 163). Members of the COAB felt that their recommendations were not beingadequatelyconsideredbythepartiesandsomemembersfeltdistrustfultowardstheCOCLastheirChair.WecontinuedtochairCOABmeetingsduringthethirdandfourthquarterof2016,asrequiredbytheSettlementAgreement,thoughbothentitiesagreedthattheyshouldoperateindependently.

Wemaintainthatcommunityengagementinthisprocessisofvitalimportance.TheCOABwasanewtypeofboardasitrelatestoconsentdecreesandsettlementagreements.AlthoughissuesbetweentheCOCL,the Parties, COAB members, and the community ultimately hindered the functioning of the board,communityinputintotheSettlementAgreementshouldnotbelostandPortlandshouldlearnfromtheselessons.WeawaittheCity’srevisedproposalsothatcommunityinputmayresume,andweencourageotherstakeholderstoworkcollaborativelywiththeCitytoensurethisoutcome.



9

III.USEOFFORCEA.UseofForcePolicy

SettlementAgreementParagraph

66.PPBshallmaintainthefollowingprinciplesinitsexistinguseofforcepolicies:(a)PPBshalluseonlytheforcereasonablynecessaryunderthetotalityofcircumstancestolawfullyperformitsdutiesandtoresolveconfrontationseffectivelyandsafely;and(b)PPBexpectsofficerstodevelopanddisplay,overthecourseoftheirpracticeoflawenforcement,theskillsandabilitiesthat allow them to regularly resolve confrontations without resorting to force or the leastamountofappropriateforce.67.COCLSummary:Paragraph67establishesthatthePPBshalladdseveralcoreuseofforceprinciplestoitsforcepolicy:theuseofdisengagementandde-escalationtechniques,callinginspecializedunitswhenpractical, taking intoaccountallavailable informationaboutactualorperceivedmental illness of the subject, and the appropriate de-escalation of forcewhennolonger necessary. Par. 67 also indicates that the force policy should include mention thatunreasonableusesof forceshall result incorrectiveactionand/ordiscipline. (Fordetailsandexactlanguage,seetheSettlementAgreement)ComplianceLabel PartialCompliance Methodology Engagedin1010.00policyreviewwithCity,PPB,andDOJ

ComplianceAssessment

InOctoberof2016andagaininDecemberof2016,theCity,PPB,DOJ,andCOCLengagedindiscussionsofDirectives1010.00 (UseofForce),1010.10 (LethalForce),and940.00 (AfterActionReports)(amongothers).Thesediscussionswereheldacrossmultipledaysineachmonthand allowed for face-to-face deliberation between the groups. During these discussions, therecommendationsoftheCOABandothercommunitymemberswerealsoraised,discussed,andwhere appropriate, incorporated into the respective directives. DOJ has agreed to providefeedbacktotheCOABregardinghowtheirrecommendationswereincorporated.

Wealso take thisopportunity toaddress communitymember concerns regarding thetimelinessofpolicyreviewandrevision.ParticularlywithDirective1010.00(theprimaryuseofforcepolicy),thediscussionsbetweentheCity,PPB,DOJ,andCOCLwereextensiveandrequiredapproximately 4 draft revisions, with each draft requiring everyone to review and providecommentsandcritiques.Aftereach setof revisions,PPB reconciled thecomments/critiques,madechangeswhereappropriate,andprovidedclarificationelsewhere.Thus,thefirstdraftofthe reviseddirective (whichcombinesmanydirectives related to force)wassent toDOJandCOCLinmid-October.AftermeetinginOctoberandmakingrevisions,draftswentbackandforthbetweentheentitieswithanaverageofapproximately2-3weeksforDOJandCOCLtoreviewthedrafts,sendcomments,havePPBconsidercomments,makerevisions,andsendareviseddraftbacktoDOJandCOCLforfurtherreview.



10

Althougha finalizedversionof1010.00wasnotapprovedprior to theendofQ4, theoverallformandcontentofthedirectiveweredraftedbytheendof2016.Asubsequentmeetingoccurred in January of 2017 to resolve minor concerns. Based on the changes to Directive1010.00weobserved in the3rdand4thquarterof2016,webelieve thedirective sufficientlymeets the requirements of Pars. 66 and 67. However, the final version must still beunconditionallyapprovedbyDOJ.Therefore,wewillawaitafinalversionbeforeconsideringPPBtobeinSubstantialCompliancewiththesetwoparagraphs.

WewishtonotethesignificantchangeinPPB’slevelofcommitmenttothepolicyreviewprocess,notonlyrelatedto1010.00butforallpolicyreviews.PPBhasdevotedateamofpolicyexperts, legal counsel, and subject matter experts to each of the directives that we havereviewed. We have been impressed with the review team’s competence and diligence inrespondingtoourcommentsandprovidinglegalandtacticalclarificationwhereneeded.

WebelievethepolicyhasbeenupdatedtoreflecttherequirementsoftheSettlementAgreement.However,PPBstillhasanobligationtotraintothepolicyandensurethatofficersandsupervisorsadheretothepolicy. Forourassessmentof thisparagraph,weonly looktowhetherthepolicyhasbeenrevised.ForPPB’sobligationtotrainonpolicies,thereadershouldrefertoourassessmentofPar.84(“AlltrainingthatPPBprovidesshallconformtoPPB’scurrentpoliciesatthetimeoftraining.”)aswellasPar.80(“PPBshalldevelopandimplementaprocessthat provides for the collection, analysis, and review of data regarding the effectiveness oftraining…”). For PPB’s obligation to evaluate adherence, the reader should refer to ourassessmentofPars.74,75,and77(auditingforcereports,AfterActionReports,andchain-of-commandreviews).COCLRecommendations

• ObtainfinalDOJapprovalforDirective1010.00

AssessmentRatingBasedOn

• COCLreviewofproposedDirective1010.00

1. ElectronicControlWeapons


68. COCL Summary: The PPB shall revise PPB Directive 1051.00 regarding Taser, Less-LethalWeaponsSystemtoincludeseveralcoreprinciples:ECWswillnotbeusedforpaincomplianceagainst those suffering frommental illness or emotional crisis except in rare circumstances;officers shall issue verbal warnings or hand signals (if communication barriers exist);conventionalstandardsforusingECWshouldbefollowed(e.g.oneECWatatime,re-evaluation;attempthand-cuffingbetweencycles).OfficersshalldescribeandjustifytheiruseofECWintheirForceReport,andreceiveannualtraininginECWuse.(Fordetailsandexactlanguage,seetheSettlementAgreement).



11

ComplianceLabel PartialCompliance Methodology Engagedin1010.00policyreviewwithCity,PPB,andDOJ


Directive1051.00wascombinedwithDirective1010.00asPPBdesiredtohave1010.00

viewedas a “one-stop-shop” for all policies related to force. Thus,Directive 1051.00will nolonger exist and its instruction to officerswill be transferred to Directive 1010.00. Directive1010.00 now includes a section directing officers onwhen theymay andmaynot employ aConductedElectricalWeapon(CEW)*andtherequirementsofofficersbefore,during,andaftertheuseofaCEW.Thesectionof1010.00whichdealswithCEWwasalsosubjecttotheface-to-facemeetingsbetweenCOCL,theCity,PPB,andDOJinOctoberandDecemberof2016and,assuch,wasreviewedforitsadherencetotherequirementsofPar.68andbestpractices.Thesediscussions also considered recommendations provided by the COAB and other communitymembersandwhereappropriate,suchrecommendationswereincorporated.

Based on the agreement between the Parties during our meetings, we believe therequirementsofPar.68havebeensatisfactorilymet.However,aswithourassessmentofPars.66and67,wewillawaitDOJfinalapprovalbeforeascribingSubstantialCompliancewiththisparagraph.

WebelievethepolicyhasbeenupdatedtoreflecttherequirementsoftheSettlementAgreement. However, as noted with our assessment of Pars. 66 and 67, PPB still has anobligationtotraintothepolicyandensurethatofficersandsupervisorsadheretothepolicy.Forourassessmentofthisparagraph,weonlylooktowhetherthepolicyhasbeenrevised.ForPPB’sobligationtotrainonpolicies,thereaderisagainreferredtoourassessmentofPar.84(“AlltrainingthatPPBprovidesshallconformtoPPB’scurrentpoliciesatthetimeoftraining.”)and Par. 80 (“PPB shall develop and implement a process that provides for the collection,analysis,andreviewofdataregardingtheeffectivenessoftraining…”).ForPPB’sobligationtoevaluateadherence,thereaderisreferredtoourassessmentofPars.74,75,and77(auditingforcereports,AfterActionReports,andchain-of-commandreviews).

*PPBand the SettlementAgreementhadpreviouslyused the termElectronicControl

Weapon(ECW).Asaresponsetosubjectmatterexpertopinionandrecommendationsfromthecommunity, Directive 1010.00 uses the term Conducted ElectricalWeapon (CEW). This andfuturereportswilluseCEWtoremainconsistentwithcurrentPPBterminology.COCLRecommendations

• ObtainDOJfinalapprovalforDirective1010.00


• COCLreviewofpreviousproposedDirective1010.00



12

2.UseofForceReportingPolicyandUseofForceReport


69.PPBshallreviseitspoliciesrelatedtouseofforcereporting,asnecessary,torequirethat:(a)AllPPBofficersthatuseforce,includingsupervisoryofficers,drafttimelyuseofforcereportsthatincludesufficientinformationtofacilitateathoroughreviewoftheincidentinquestionbysupervisoryofficers;and(b)Allofficersinvolvedorwitnessestoauseofforceprovideafullandcandidaccounttosupervisors.ComplianceLabel PartialCompliance Methodology Engagedin1010.00policyreviewwithCity,PPB,andDOJ


ReportingrequirementsforofficerusesofforcearefoundwithinDirective1010.00.The

sectionof1010.00thatdealswithreportingrequirementswasalsosubjecttotheface-to-facemeetingsbetweenCOCL,theCity,PPB,andDOJinOctoberandDecemberof2016and,assuch,was reviewed for its adherence to the requirements of Par. 69 and best practices. Thesediscussions also considered recommendations provided by the COAB and other communitymembersandwhereappropriate,suchrecommendationswereincorporated.

Based on the agreement between the Parties during our meetings, we believe therequirements of Par. 69 have been satisfactorily met. However, as with our assessment ofpreviousparagraphs,wewillawaitDOJfinalapprovalbeforeascribingSubstantialCompliancewiththisparagraph.

WebelievethepolicyhasbeenupdatedtoreflecttherequirementsoftheSettlementAgreement.However,PPBstillhasanobligationtotraintothepolicyandensurethatofficersandsupervisorsadheretothepolicy. Forourassessmentof thisparagraph,weonly looktowhetherthepolicyhasbeenrevised.ForPPB’sobligationtotrainonpolicies,thereaderisagainreferred toourassessmentofPar.84 (“All training thatPPBprovidesshall conformtoPPB’scurrent policies at the time of training.”) and Par. 80 (“PPB shall develop and implement aprocessthatprovidesforthecollection,analysis,andreviewofdataregardingtheeffectivenessof training…”). For PPB’s obligation to evaluate adherence, the reader is referred to ourassessmentofPars.74,75,and77(auditingforcereports,AfterActionReports,andchain-of-commandreviews).

COCLRecommendations



• COCLreviewofproposedDirective1010.00



13

3.UseofForceSupervisoryInvestigationsandReports


70.COCLSummary:Paragraph70states,“PPBshallcontinueenforcementofDirective940.00,whichrequiressupervisorswhoreceivenotificationofaforceeventtorespondtothescene,conductanadministrativereviewandinvestigationoftheuseofforce,documenttheirfindingsinanAfterActionReportandforwardtheirreportthroughthechainofcommand.”Paragraph70continuesontodescribewhatisrequiredofsupervisoryofficerswhenauseofforceeventoccurs,includingtimeframesforAfterActionReports,notificationrequirementsofserioususeofforce,forceagainstindividualswithmentalillness,suspectedmisconduct,procuringmedicalattention,andofficerinterviews(Fordetailsandexactlanguage,seetheSettlementAgreement).ComplianceLabel PartialCompliance Methodology Engagedin1010.00policyreviewwithCity,PPB,andDOJ


ThesectionsofDirective940.00thatdealwithsupervisoryresponsibilities followinga

forceeventwere combinedwithDirective1010.00asPPBdesired tohave1010.00 coverallpolicies related to force. Thus, the requirements of Par. 70will no longer be housedwithinDirective940.00andinstructiontosupervisorsregardingtheirforcereviewresponsibilitieswillbe transferred to Directive 1010.00. The section of 1010.00 that deals with supervisoryresponsibilitieswasalsosubjecttotheface-to-facemeetingsbetweenCOCL,theCity,PPB,andDOJ inOctober andDecember of 2016 and, as such,was reviewed for its adherence to therequirementsofPar.70andbestpractices.Thesediscussionsalsoconsideredrecommendationsprovided by community members and where appropriate, such recommendations wereincorporated.

WealsofeelitappropriatetoprovideanupdatetotheissueofAfterActionReportsbeingrequiredforallforceeventsthatweraisedinourlastComplianceAssessment.Aspartoftheproposed Directive 1010.00, varying levels of force are identified which each having acorresponding levelofreview.Foreventsthatcontainmorethanoneforceoption,themostsevereforceoptionusedwoulddictatethelevelofreviewassociatedwiththeevent.

Category IV includes forcethat is“intendedtoestablishcontrolofaresistantsubject,though not intended or reasonably likely to cause persistent pain or physical injury.” ForCategoryIVforce,supervisorswillberequiredtocompleteanabbreviatedAfterActionReportand the After Action Report would be reviewed by the authoring supervisor’s immediatesupervisor(e.g.ifaSergeantauthorstheAfterAction,thesupervisingLieutenantwouldperformthereview.IfaLieutenantauthorstheAfterAction,thesupervisingCapt.wouldperformthereview).



14

For Category III force (“Force that is reasonably likely to cause non-enduring pain,disorientation, physical injury, or the complaint of pain”), a longer-formAfter Action ReportwouldbeusedandthereviewprocesswouldgouptoandincludetheRUManager.

ForCategoryIIforce(“Forcethatisreasonablyexpectedtocauseenduringpain,physicalinjury,disabilityorimpairmentofanybodypart),thelonger-formAfterActionReportwouldbeusedandthereviewprocesswouldgouptoandincludetheAssistantChief.

ForCategoryIforce,whichwouldincludelethalforceandin-custodydeaths,theCityandDOJhaveagreedtoengageinfurtherdiscussionregardingthereviewprocess.PPBandtheCityare of the position that since such force events already receive an investigation from theDetectiveDivision, InternalAffairs (IA),and IndependentPoliceReview (IPR),anAfterActionReportisduplicative.WewillawaittheoutcomeofthediscussionbetweenthePartiesrelatedtothispoint.

Based on the agreement between the Parties during our meetings, we believe therequirementsofPar.70havebeensatisfactorilymet(pendingtheresolutionoftheCategoryIdiscussions).However,aswithourassessmentofpreviousparagraphs,wewillawaitDOJfinalapprovalbeforeascribingSubstantialCompliancewiththisparagraph.

WebelievethepolicyhasbeenupdatedtoreflecttherequirementsoftheSettlementAgreement.However,weagainemphasizethatPPBstillhasanobligationtotraintothepolicyand ensure that officers and supervisors adhere to the policy. For our assessment of thisparagraph,weonlylooktowhetherthepolicyhasbeenrevised.ForPPB’sobligationtotrainonpolicies,thereaderisreferredtoourassessmentofPar.84(“AlltrainingthatPPBprovidesshallconformtoPPB’scurrentpoliciesatthetimeoftraining.”)andPar.80(“PPBshalldevelopandimplementaprocessthatprovidesforthecollection,analysis,andreviewofdataregardingtheeffectivenessoftraining…”).ForPPB’sobligationtoevaluateadherence,thereaderisreferredtoourassessmentofPars.74,75,and77(auditingforcereports,AfterActionReports,andchain-of-commandreviews).

COCLRecommendations



• COCLreviewofDirective1010.00


71.PPBshallmaintainadequatepatrolsupervisionstaffing,whichataminimum,meansthatPPBandtheCityshallmaintainitscurrentsergeantstaffinglevel,includingtheSeptember2012additionof15sergeants.ComplianceLabel SubstantialCompliance Methodology Reviewedauthorizedandactualsergeants



15


As of December 31, 2016, PPB documentation shows a shortage of actual rankedsergeants ineachof thethreePrecinctscomparedwiththenumberofauthorizedsergeants,thoughthecurrentsergeantstaffing level isnot lowerthanminimallyrequiredbyPar.71. Intotal,therearetenfewersergeantsinrankthancurrentlyauthorized.Asergeant’sexamwasconductedinthefirstquarterof2017toaddressthisdeficiencyandweexpectthattheshortagewillberesolvedsoonafterwards.PPBalsoindicatesthatactingsergeantsareutilizedtomaintainsufficient supervision at all times. While this is an acceptable short-term solution, werecommendPPBcontinuetoevaluatetheneedforrankedsergeantsandtrainwherenecessary.

WefurtherrecommendPPBresumethedocumentationofspanofcontrolratherthantherawnumbersofsergeants.Spanofcontrolisaratioofofficerstosergeantsandprovidesbetter insight into staffing levels than raw numbers. The number of sergeants alone isinsufficientwithoutanunderstandingofhowmanyofficers theyare taskedwith supervising(withtoomanyofficers,asergeantcannotgiveadequateattentiontoeach;withtoofewofficers,asupervisor’sresourcesarenotbeingusedefficiently).Generally,anacceptablespanofcontrolis8officersperevery1supervisor(thoughindividualagenciesandcircumstancesmaydiffer).PPBhadprovidedthistousinthepastandwebelievespanofcontrol isamoreappropriateindicatorof“adequatepatrolsupervisionstaffing.”

COCLRecommendations

• Evaluateneedforrankedsergeantsandtrainwherenecessary• Resumemonitoringandreportingspanofcontrol


• COCLreviewofnumberofauthorizedandactualsergeants


72. PPBshalldevelopasupervisorinvestigationchecklisttoensurethatsupervisorscarryouttheseforceinvestigationresponsibilities.PPBshallreviewandrevisetheadequacyofthischecklistregularly,atleastannually.

ComplianceLabel PartialComplianceMethodology ReviewedSupervisorChecklist


The After Action Report required of supervisors following a force event has beenconverted to an interactive PDF that queries supervisors onwhether they have satisfactorilycompletedofall their force investigation responsibilities. The interactivePDF thusactsas the“supervisorinvestigationchecklist”requiredbytheparagraph.AsitwouldnotbepossibleforasupervisortoadequatelycompletetheAfterActionReportwithoutrespondingtoeachoftheir



16

responsibilities,webelievethePDFissufficienttoactasachecklist.Furthermore,ratherthan“checking the box” (as would be the case with a checklist), the interactive PDF requiressupervisorstoprovidethedetailedinformationforeachchecklistitem.

AsthisisrelatedtoDirective1010.00,wewillawaitDOJfinalapprovalbeforeascribingSubstantialCompliancewiththisparagraph.

Webelieve thepolicyhasbeenupdated to reflect the requirementsof theSettlementAgreement. However,again,PPBstillhasanobligationto train to thepolicyandensurethatofficersandsupervisorsadheretothepolicy.Forourassessmentofthisparagraph,weonlylooktowhetherthepolicyhasbeenrevised.ForPPB’sobligationtotrainonpolicies,thereaderisreferred to our assessment of Par. 84 (“All training that PPB provides shall conform to PPB’scurrentpoliciesatthetimeoftraining.”)andPar.80(“PPBshalldevelopandimplementaprocessthat provides for the collection, analysis, and review of data regarding the effectiveness oftraining…”).ForPPB’sobligationtoevaluateadherence,thereaderisreferredtoourassessmentof Pars. 74, 75, and 77 (auditing force reports, After Action Reports, and chain-of-commandreviews).

COCLRecommendations



• COCLreviewofSupervisorChecklist• COCLdiscussionswithPPB



17


73. COCL Summary: Paragraph 73 directs the PPB to revise its policies concerning chain ofcommandreviewsofAfterActionReports(940s)toensurethatthereviewsareaccurateandthorough; thatall commentsare recorded in theEIS tracking system; that supervisors in thechain are held accountable for inadequate reports and analysis through corrective action(includingtraining,demotionand/orremovablefromtheirsupervisoryposition);andthatwhenuseofforceisfoundtobeoutsideofpolicy,thatitbereportedandappropriatecorrectiveactionbetakenwith theofficerandthe investigation itself (Fordetailsandexact language,seetheSettlementAgreement).ComplianceLabel PartialCompliance Methodology Engagedin1010.00policyreviewwithCity,PPB,andDOJ


ThesectionsofDirective940.00thatdealwithAfterActionReportchain-of-command

reviewswerecombinedwithDirective1010.00asPPBdesiredtohave1010.00coverallpoliciesrelatedto force.Thus, therequirementsofPar.73willno longerbehousedwithinDirective940.00 and instruction to command staff regarding their After Action Report reviewresponsibilitieswillbetransferredtoDirective1010.00.Thesectionof1010.00thatdealswithAfterActionReportchain-of-commandreviewswasalsosubjecttotheface-to-facemeetingsbetweenCOCL, theCity, PPB, andDOJ inOctober andDecember of 2016 and, as such,wasreviewedforitsadherencetotherequirementsofPar.73andbestpractices.Thesediscussionsalsoconsidered recommendationsprovidedbycommunitymembersandwhereappropriate,suchrecommendationswereincorporated.

AsdiscussedinourevaluationofPar.70,thefinallevelforchain-of-commandreviewsisdeterminedbythehighestcategoryofforceassociatedwiththeevent.Formoreseriousforcetypes,therearemoreindividualsinthechain-of-commandreviews.However,regardlessofwhatcategorytheforcefallsinto,therequirementsofPar.73applytoallindividualsinthechain-of-command.

Based on the agreement between the Parties during our meetings, we believe therequirements of Par. 73 have been satisfactorily met. However, as with our assessment ofpreviousparagraphs,wewillawaitDOJfinalapprovalbeforeascribingSubstantialCompliancewiththisparagraph.

WebelievethepolicyhasbeenupdatedtoreflecttherequirementsoftheSettlementAgreement.However,PPBstillhasanobligationtotraintothepolicyandensurethatofficersandsupervisorsadheretothepolicy. Forourassessmentof thisparagraph,weonly looktowhether thepolicyhasbeen revised. ForPPB’sobligation to trainonpolicies, the reader isreferred toourassessmentofPar.84 (“All training thatPPBprovidesshall conformtoPPB’scurrent policies at the time of training.”) and Par. 80 (“PPB shall develop and implement aprocessthatprovidesforthecollection,analysis,andreviewofdataregardingtheeffectivenessof training…”). For PPB’s obligation to evaluate adherence, the reader is referred to our



18

B.ComplianceAuditsRelatedtoUseofForce


74.COCLSummary:Paragraph74statesthat“InconsultationwiththeCOCL,theInspector,aspartofPPB’squarterlyreviewofforce,willauditforcereportsandDirective940.00InvestigationReports”andwilldothistoensurethattheofficer’sforcereportiscompleteandaccurateandthattheofficer’sactionsinthefieldareinlinewithPPBpolicy.Theauditofforcereportsseekstoensurethatforceisusedinawaythatislawfulandappropriatetothecircumstances;thatde-escalation is used appropriately; that ECW is used appropriately andwithin policy; and thatspecialtyunitsandmedicalcarearecalledinappropriately.Intermsofforcereporting,theauditseeks to ensure that reports are submitted in a timely manner; that they include detailedinformation about the event, the decision to use force, the type of force used, any subjectresistanceandanyinjuriestotheparties;thatthereportincludesthementalhealthstatusofthesubjectofforce,documentationofwitnessesandcontactinformation,andotherdetailsasrequired by the Settlement. There should be sufficient information in the report to allowsupervisorstoevaluatethequalityoftheofficer’sdecisionmakingregardingtheuseofforce.(Fordetailsandexactlanguage,seetheSettlementAgreement)75.COCLSummary:Paragraph75statesthat,“InconsultationwiththeCOCL,theInspectorshallaudit force reports and Directive 940.00 investigations” to determine whether supervisorsconsistentlyengageinavarietyofbehaviorswhenreviewinguseofforcereportsandsupervisingtheiremployees.Specifically,theSettlementrequiresthatsupervisorscompleteanAfterActionReportwithin72hoursofbeingnotifiedoftheincident;Toperformwellatthistask,supervisorswouldneedtoreviewalluseofforcereportsforcompleteness,determinewhethertheofficer’sactionsareconsistentwithPPBpolicy,theSettlementAgreementandbestpractices;andtakeallappropriateactionsasasupervisor,includingdetermininganytrainingorcounselingneedsfortheofficer;takingcorrectiveactiononomissionsorinaccuraciesintheforcereport;notifyingappropriateauthoritieswhencriminalconductissuspected;anddocumentingalloftheabove-namedactions.(Fordetailsandexactlanguage,seetheSettlementAgreement)

assessmentofPars.74,75,and77(auditingforcereports,AfterActionReports,andchain-of-commandreviews).

COCLRecommendations



• COCLreviewofDirective1010.00



19

77.COCLSummary:“InconsultationwiththeCOCL,theInspectorshallaudittheadequacyofchainof command reviewsofAfterActionReports.” This typeof audit by the InspectorwillensurethatsupervisorsatalllevelsinthechainofcommandareconscientiouslyreviewingallAfter Action (940) Reports using the appropriate legal and administrative performancestandards, and taking appropriate action. The reviewers of After Action reports should beassessingthecompletenessofreportsandevaluatingthefindingsusinga“preponderanceoftheevidence” standard.Where appropriate, reviewers shouldmodify findings that do not seemjustified, speak with the original investigator, order additional investigations, identify anydeficiencies intraining,policyortactics,ensurethatsupervisorsdiscusspoortacticswiththeofficer involved, and document the above in EIS. (For details and exact language, see theSettlementAgreement.)ComplianceLabel PartialCompliance Methodology Reviewedprocessforforceaudit;Providedproposalsfornextphase

offorceaudit

ComplianceAssessmentPPBcontinuestomakesignificantprogressregardingtheforceauditsrequiredbyPars.

74,75,and77.Theyhaveimplementedasystemforreviewingforcereportsinordertoensurethatallnecessaryinformationisincluded,aswellasreviewingsupervisoryreviews.Werefertothisas“PhaseI”oftheforceaudit.PPBhasdemonstratedinitiativebycreatingaforceauditthatisresponsivetotheinformationalneedsoftheorganizationand,whereneeded,hasconsultedwithusasrequiredbytheSettlementAgreement.AfterimplementationofPhaseIoftheForceAudit,PPBconsultedwithusontherequirementsofPhaseII(describedbelow),thoughthiswillrequirecontinueddiscussionduringthefirstandsecondquarterof2017.

Giventhattheauditingsystemwastestedbyusingallforceevents,thatstrategyisnolongernecessarytomaintainthesystemanddrainsresources fromother importantauditingtasks.Hence,inDecemberof2016,theCOCLprovidedPPBwithaproposedmethodologyforstratifyingcasesacross forcecategoriesaswellasbyPrecinctandshift. Inourproposal,werecommendedPPBsample20%offorceevents.Aswerecommendedastratifiedsample,weaskedPPBtoexaminethedistributionofforceacross(1)forcetypes,(2)Precincts,and(3)shifts.ByensuringthatthedistributionofthesampledcasesisreflectiveofthedistributionofALLforceevents, PPB can bemore confident that the findings are representative of the whole. Forexample,ifPPBfindsthatinCentralPrecinctduringShiftA,50%ofallforceeventsarePointingofaFirearm,theyshouldchecktoseethatroughly50%ofthesampledcasesforCentralPrecinctduringShiftAarePointingofaFirearm.Thatway,thesampledcasesareanaccuratereflectionofthePPB’suseofforceevents.

Atthesametime,COCLprovidedPPBwithaproposedexpansionofForceAuditvariablestobecollectedthatbetter identifyproblematic(thoughperhapstechnically in-policy)usesofforcebehaviorsthatmayhavetrainingimplications,officerswhomaybenefitfromsupplementalinstruction,andtrendsacrossunitsandsupervisors.Thisexpansionofvariablespertainstowhatwecall“PhaseII”oftheforceaudit,whereinthePPBauditextendsbeyondanassessmentofwhetherforcereportscontainthenecessaryinformationtodrawingconclusionsaboutwhethertheforceusedwasnecessaryandappropriatetothecircumstances.Inessence,PhaseIIrequires



20

theindependentevaluationofforceeventsbytheInspectortodeterminewhethertheforcewasjustified. We have been informed that the Inspector already conducts these evaluationsinformally,thoughwehavenotseenanyevidenceofasystematicauditthatisconsistentwithour recommendations for Phase II. The evaluations performed by the Inspector should besystematicallycompleted,usingknownstandards,andcarefullydocumentedsothatwecanbeconfidenttheresultsarereliableandvalidacrosscases.

While theproposeddocumentsweprovidedwerebrieflydiscussed inDecember, thelargerpriorityatthattimewasfinalizingDirective1010.00sothatforceauditsandforcetrainingcouldbeconsistentwithpolicy.Morein-depthdiscussionsregardingourproposalsareslatedforthefirstandsecondquarterof2017andthuswewillprovidemoredetailsinournextreport.

Upon finalizing a stratification sampling methodology and agreeing to a final set ofelementstobereviewed,theCOCLwillreviewasampleofforceauditfindingstoverifythatthecodingofcasesisoccurringinaconsistentmanner.ThejointreviewwilleventuallydeterminewhethertheCOCLandtheInspectorhaveindependentlyreachedthesameconclusionaboutthejustifiabilityofforceandwhetherweboth identifythe implicationsofthatdecisionforPPB’scorrectiveactions.

Quarterly,PPBhaspreparedaForceAuditReport,identifyingcomplianceratesforeachofthesubsectionsofPars.74,75,and77.Forthisreport,weusePPB’sQ3ForceAuditReporttoidentifyareasofsuccessandconcern.

Ofnote,PPBreportsthatmanyoftherequirementsinPars.74,75,and77showfairlyhighcompliancerates(90%orhigher).Inotherareas,thereissubstantialimprovementthatthatshouldbecontinued.Forinstance,theForceAuditReportindicatesthatinapproximately70%offorceevents,theforceoptions(e.g.takedowns,pointingofafirearm,etc.)identifiedbytheofficerwereconsistentwiththeforceoptionsidentifiedbysupervisors.Althoughthisisadrasticimprovementoverpreviousreviews,itstillleavesnearly30%ofcaseswithinconsistencies.Inanothersectionofthereport,PPBstatesthat80%ofofficersincludedtheireffortstodocumentwitnessobservations,asignificant improvementfromQ2(53%compliance).This isasizeablegain in compliance, but one in every five force events are stillmissing efforts to documentwitnessobservations.Foreachoftheseareas,PPBshouldbecreditedwithimprovements,butworkremainstobedone.PPBhasaprocessinplacetoidentifydiscrepancies,makeEISentries,and resolve issues.With this process in place, we believe the number of discrepancies willcontinuetobereducedinthefuture.

Inotherareas,thereisincompleteinformation.Forinstance,PPBnotesthat5officersfailed to complete a Force Data Collection Report (FDCR) for a force event and that “afterreceivinginstructionfromtheirchainofcommandregardingthemissingFDCRs,4ofthemissingFDCRs were submitted.” PPB does not comment on the fact that this still leaves one FDCRmissing.ThereasonforthemissingFDCRandthefollow-upstepstakenshouldbereported.

Insomecases,thereportingisconfusingastothefindings.Forinstance,PPBnotes“In82%ofAARsauditedofficerreportingwasfoundtobeacompleteandaccurateaccountoftheforcedecisionmakingby investigatingsergeants. In6cases(7%)thesergeantfoundthattheofficer’sreportswerenotcompleteandaccurateaccountsoftheforcedecisionmaking.”Thisappearstoonlyrepresent89%ofcases,leavingthereadertoquestionwhethertheother11%ofcaseswerecompleteandaccurateaccountsoftheforcedecisionmaking.



21

We continue tomaintain that the Force Audit Reports need to go beyond reporting“checkbox”compliance(i.e.whethertheinformationismerelypresent)andextendtowhetheritisaccurateintheeyesoftheInspector.Forinstance,FDCRsarerequiredtoindicatethelevelofresistanceputforthbythesubject.AsDOJhaspointedoutintheirreportandaswehaveseenin our review of force events, the stated level of resistance in officer reports isn’t alwayssupported by the rest of the narrative. The Inspectormust be able to look at whether theresistancelevelisincludedinthenarrativeaswellasdeterminewhetherotherfactswithinthenarrativesupportthestatedresistancelevel.

ThisevaluativeprocesswillbereinforcedduringtheimplementationofPhaseIIoftheForceAudit.There,caseswillbereviewedforthetotalityofthecircumstances,includingGrahamfactors,START-IT(seePPBDirective1010.00),andthefourphasesofpolice-citizenencountersidentifiedbyBinder&Scharf(1980).ThedetailscollectedduringPhaseIoftheForceAuditwillbeexaminedandincorporatedintotheoverallreviewoftheevent.WemetwithPPBduringthefourthquarterof2016tobeginconsultationonPhaseII,andadditionalmeetingsoccurredinthefirst quarter of 2017.Wehave agreedwithPPB to review five cases in accordancewith theevaluative focus of Phase II and determine the degree of correspondence between ourindependentevaluations.

Additionally, the Force Audit Report contains data that are responsive to theidentificationoftrendsrequiredbyPar.76.For instance,PPBprovidesacomparisonofforceoptionsusedforeachprecinct/divisionintheForceAuditReport.TheForceAuditalsocomparesdata topastquarters in some instances.PPBshouldbecommended forevaluating trends inthese instances. These are the types of analyses that we feel are missing in the QuarterlySummaryForceReports.

AsafinalnoteregardingtheForceAudit,weseeinthisdomainofreform(asinotherdomainssuchastrainingandevaluation)continuedreferencestotheSettlementAgreementasthedrivingforcebehindchange.Forinstance,theveryfirstlineoftheForceAuditReportstates,“ThisauditwascreatedtosatisfytheDepartmentofJustice’srequirementforpresentationandanalysisofthedatacaptureonofficers’useofforce.”Inanothersectionofthereport,itstates,“TheDepartmentofJustice’s(DOJ)SettlementAgreement(SA)requiresthatofficersconsistentlychoose force options reasonably calculated to establish andmaintain control with the leastamountof appropriate forcewhen compared to the subject’s resistance.”Wemaintain thatthese continued references to DOJ requirements are inconsistent with the larger goal ofachievingsustainedchangewithinthePPBregardinguseof forceonthestreets.Consideringthatlessthan20%ofofficersbelievetheSettlementAgreementwillimprovethePPB(seeourNovember2016OutcomesAssessment),explicitstatementsthat theForceAudit ismeanttorespondtotheAgreementmaycauseofficerstodismisstheAudit’simportance.TheForceAuditisbeingconductedbythePPBforthebenefitofPPB.PPBistheentitythatrequiresofficerstochoosereasonableforceoptionsandweencouragetheInspector’sofficeandtheadministrationtoserveasamodelofhowownershipoverreformisachieved.

COCLRecommendations

• ProvideresponsetoCOCL’sproposalstoexpandtheforceauditvariables

• Initiateevaluativeprocessforforceevents(PhaseII)



22

• RemoveunnecessaryreferencestoDepartmentofJusticeand/orSettlementAgreement


• Implementationofinitialphaseofforceaudit• InitialdiscussionstoimplementPhaseII


76.InconsultationwiththeCOCL,theInspectorshallconductaquarterlyanalysisofforcedataandsupervisors’Directive940.00reportsdesignedto:(a)Determineifsignificanttrendsexist;(b) Determine if there is variation in force practice away from PPB policy in any unit; (c)Determineifanyofficer,PPBunit,orgroupofofficersisusingforcedifferentlyoratadifferentratethanothers,determinethereasonforanydifferenceandcorrectorduplicateelsewhere,asappropriate;(d)Identifyandcorrectdeficienciesrevealedbytheanalysis;and(e)DocumenttheInspector’sfindingsinanannualpublicreport.ComplianceLabel PartialCompliance Methodology ReviewedQuarterlyForceReports;MetwithInspectorandAnalysis

Team

ComplianceAssessmentIn the fourth quarter of 2016, PPB issued a condensed version of their Force Data

SummaryReports,making thereportsmorereadableand lesscumbersome.Wesupport thechanges that PPB has made to date and believe they allow PPB to better address therequirementsofPar.76.AlthoughthecontentsofthereportstillrequirePPBtoexpoundupontheimplications,thereportrepresentsanimprovementoverthe40+pagereportspreviouslyissuedbyPPB.

Using the quarterly force summary reports, PPB is required to “determine whethersignificanttrendsexist”(subsectiona).IntheQ4summaryreport,PPBincludesanumberofdatapointsthatareusefulfordeterminingtrends.Forexample,the“heatmaps”indicatePrecinctsandshiftswithhigherandlowernumberofforceevents.Trendsarenotpossibletoobserveoverasinglereport,andtherefore,werecommendthatPPBlookatpotentialtrendsovermultiplereports.Forinstance,wenoticethatEastPrecinctonTuesdaybetween6:00PMandmidnighthashadhighernumbersofforceincidentineachofthelastthreereports.Inordertomakethequarterlyforcesummaryreportscomplete,adiscussionaboutthistrendwouldbebeneficial.For instance, are crime rates higher in this day/time/Precinct combination? Are there othersituationalfactorsthatmayexplainthehighernumbersofforceevent(e.g.highernumberofarmedsuspects in this combination)?Are therepotential supervisor factors?Thepurposeofsuchdiscussionsisnottodeterminethereasonablenessofeachforceevent(thatisthefunctionof the Force Audit). Rather, the purpose is to identify the trend, seek to explain it, and ifnecessary,identifypotentialwaystoremedyit.Thisshouldalsobedoneincoordinationwiththeareacommandersandsupervisors.



23

PPBhasalsoindicatedthattherewillalwaysbeaday/time/Precinctthathasmoreforceevents than other.We agree and understand that by the sheer presence of variance in anydataset,onewillalwaysbehigherthantherest.However,thepointoftrenddiscussion istoreduceforceeventswherepossibleandtofirstrecognizethatthesedifferencesdohavecausesthatmayormaynotbecontrollable.

PPBhasother areaswithin theQ4 report that lend themselves to trendanalysis. Forinstance,wenotethatin57%offorceeventsinQ4,thesuspecthadafirearmpointedatthem.ThisrepresentsanincreasefromQ3(47%),Q2(49%),andQ1(49%).Theincreaseinpointingofa firearm, to thepoint thatmore thanhalf of all force events includepointingof a firearm,warrantsareview.Thistrendmaybetheresultofimprovedreportingbyofficersratherthanachange in force events, but that is unclear. Any analysis by PPB should seek potentialexplanationsforthetrendandwaystoreducetheoccurrenceswhereappropriate.

Tosomedegree,theannualreportsprovideananalysisoftrendsoverayeartimeframe,though no commentary is made on the trends as to potential reasons. For instance, the“perspectives”sectionincludescommentaryonthegrossnumberofforcetypesovertheentireyear.However,thereisnocommentaryonnoticeablechangesinforcetypesoverthevariousquarters(seeforinstance,PointingofaFirearm).Aswiththequarterlyreports,theannualreportshouldcommentonthetrendsandprovidesomecommentary.

Subsection(b)ofPar.76requiresPPBto“determineifthereisvariationinforcepracticeawayfromPPBpolicyinanyunit.”Currently,PPB’squarterlysummaryreportsdonotperformthis function.However,webelievePhase IIof theForceAuditwillbehelpful inmakingsuchdeterminations, particularly the category of “justified but concerning.” Despite communitybeliefs, PPB does not have so many out-of-policy force events that trends would be easilyidentifiableifatall.Thus,moreinformativewouldbewhethertherearetrendsin“concerning”usesofforcethatmaystillbeconsideredin-policy.DuringPhaseIIoftheForceAudit,wewillaskPPB to categorize the implicationsof concerning forceevents (policy, training, tactical, etc.).Shouldtrendsbeseenacrossdifferentunits,precincts,andsupervisors, thenthePPBcanbeconfident that there is an organization-wide need for action. However, should trainingimplications be localized (i.e. one Precinct/shift having more training implications), thenadditionaltrainingorotherresponsesmaybeneededinthatarea.WerecommendPPBworkwithustoimplementPhaseIIsothatsubsection(b)mightbeaddressed.

Subsections(c)ofPar.76requiresPPBto“determineifanyofficer,PPBunit,orgroupofofficersisusingforcedifferentlyoratadifferentratethanothers,determinethereasonforanydifferenceandcorrectorduplicateelsewhere,asappropriate.”Asitrelatesto“anyofficer”or“groupofofficers,”wesuggesttheInspectorworkwiththeEmployeeInformationSystem(EIS)administrators in accordance with our recommendations in that regard. With EIS, we haverecommendedtheynotonlylookatthecurrentthresholds,butreviewofficerswhohavethehighest ratesof force/complaintsoveraparticular timeline.This isoneareawherePPBmayescapethe“silomentality”wehavediscussedinthepast.Thismayalsoinformwhether“groupsofofficers”useforcemoreoftenifthesameofficerscontinuetobeidentifiedinthedata.Asto“PPBunits,”webelievetheheatmapsdescribedabovecouldbeusedtohelpidentifytrends,though requiremore discussion to “determine the reason for any difference and correct orduplicateelsewhere.”



24

WealsosuggestPPBlookatthestatement“orduplicateelsewhere.”PPBshouldnotonlycommentonareaswithhigher levels of forcebut also areas/trends thatdemonstrate lowerlevels of force. What environmental, tactical, supervisory (etc.) considerations may havecontributedtothoseareashavinglowernumbersofforceandhowmightthatknowledgebeappliedtootherunits?Asanexample,wenotethatinthefirst,second,andthirdquartersof2016, the call type “Disturbance – Priority” was consistently the most common call typeassociatedwithforceevents.Inallthreeofthosequarters,the“Disturbance–Priority”hadatleasttwiceasmanyforceeventsasthenexthighestcalltype(“TrafficStop”).However,inthefourthquarterof 2016, thenumberof forceevents associatedwith “Disturbance –Priority”substantiallydroppedtobeequaltothatof“TrafficStop”(forceeventsassociatedwithtrafficstopsremainconstantoverthesamefour-quarterperiod).PPBmightlookatpotentialreasonsforthedropinthenumberofforceeventsassociatedwith“Disturbance–Priority”andattempttoreplicatethechange,wherepossible,withothercalltypes.

Subsection(d)ofPar.76requiresPPBto“identifyandcorrectdeficienciesrevealedbytheanalysis.”Thisrequirementcallsbacktoouraboverecommendations–whatarethereasonsfor the trends and what are potential ways to address them? Thus, we have no specificrecommendationsforsatisfyingthissubsectionotherthanreferringPPBtothestatementswehavemadeabove.Similarly,subsection(e)ofPar.76(“documenttheInspector’sfindingsinanannual public report”) requires PPB to combine findings, trends, and resolutions from thequarterlyreportsintoanoverallannualreport.PPBhasyettodothis,thoughwerecommendthechangeswehaveidentifiedaboveoccurpriortoissuinganannualreport.ShouldPPBmaketheabovestatedchanges, suchactionswouldcontributesignificantly to thecompletionofacomprehensivereportattheendof2017.

COCLRecommendations

• Commentontrendsovertimeandmakesuggestionsforcorrecting/duplicatingelsewhere

• IncorporateaspectsofForceAuditandEISintoquarterlyreportsAssessmentRatingBasedOn

• COCLreviewofquarterlyForceDataSummaryReports• COCLdiscussionswithInspectorandanalysisteam



25

IV.TRAINING


78. All aspects of PPB training shall reflect and instill agency expectations that officers arecommitted to the constitutional rights of the individualswhohaveor areperceived tohavementalillnesswhomtheyencounter,andemploystrategiestobuildcommunitypartnershipstoeffectivelyincreasepublictrustandsafety.Toachievetheseoutcomes,PPBshallimplementtherequirementsbelow.ComplianceLabel NotYetAssessed Methodology N/A–Summativeandcontingentuponsatisfyingparagraphsbelow


Asstatedinparagraph78,toachievethedefinedoutcomes,thePPBshall“implement

therequirementsbelow.”Asthisisasummativeparagraph,compliancewillbeassessedintermsoftheachievementofallrequirementsoftheSettlementAgreementpertainingtoSectionIV,training.

Weinterpret“AllaspectsofPPBtraining”toincludeECIT,AdvancedAcademy,In-Service,andSupervisorIn-Service.TheavailableevidencesuggeststhatPPBismakingagenuineefforttoimprovethesemajortrainingprograms.WecannotprovideasummativejudgmentonPar.78until we have documents indicating that “all aspects of PPB training” conform to the“requirementsbelow.”

We will evaluate training progress in terms of both the implementation conditionsdescribed below and the achievement of outcomes listed in paragraph 78, namely, theconstitutional treatmentof individualswhohaveorareperceivedtohavemental illness, thebuilding of community partnerships, the increase of public trust, and the increase of publicsafety.

COCLRecommendations

• SubstantiallycomplywithallparagraphswithinSectionIV–Training

• EnsurethattherequirementsfoundinSectionIVareappliedto“allaspectsofPPBtraining”asdefinedabove


• N/A–Summativeandcontingentuponsatisfyingparagraphsbelowandachievingtheoutcomeslistedinparagraph78.



26


79.TheTrainingDivisionshallreviewandupdatePPB’strainingplanannually.Toinformtheserevisions,theTrainingDivisionshallconductaneedsassessmentandmodifythisassessmentannually,takingintoconsideration:(a)trendsinhazardsofficersareencounteringinperformingtheirduties;(b)analysisofofficersafetyissues;(c)misconductcomplaints;(d)problematicusesofforce;(e)inputfrommembersatalllevelsofPPB;(f)inputfromthecommunity;(g)concernsreflected in court decisions; (h) research reflecting best practices; (i) the latest in lawenforcementtrends;(j)individualprecinctneeds;and(k)anychangestoOregonorfederallaworPPBpolicy.ComplianceLabel PartialCompliance Methodology Reviewed2016TrainingNeedsAssessment


InOctoberof2016,PPBreleasedthe2016AnnualTrainingNeedsAssessment,utilizing

input from training evaluations, supervisors, various data sources, IPR, IA, legal sources,trainings,conferences,agencyvisits,community,andDOJ/COCLtechnicalassistance.Inall,webelievePPBisutilizingawiderangeofsourcesthatwillultimatelyreflectwheretrainingcanbeimproved.Furthertothis,insomeareasoftheNeedsAssessment,acourseofactionisspecifiedfortheidentifiedneed.WecontinuetobelievethatPPBistakingtherequirementofaNeedsAssessmentseriouslybasedonthe2016report.

However,therearestillsomeissuesthatweidentifiedinourTAStatementontheNeedsAssessmentthatremaininthe2016NeedsAssessment.Oneoftheissuesrelatestoassessmentsoflearning.The2016NeedsAssessmentutilizedevaluationtoolsfromthe2015In-ServiceandECITtraining.WehavecritiquedthosetoolsinpreviousreportsthoughnotethatPPBimprovedtheirevaluationtools in2016.Assuch,weexpectthe improvedtoolswillbe incorporated infutureNeedsAssessmentsappropriately.

WecontinuetoquestiontheutilityofseparatingoutthesourcesofinformationfoundinPar.79(subsectionsa-k)withthe“fivecorelawenforcementdisciplines”identifiedbyPPBratherthanincorporatingsubsectionsa-kintothefivecoredisciplines.Forexample,innearlyallofthea-k subsections of the Needs Assessment, we identified needs that would be considered“Defensive Tactics.” However, rather than all needs being located in the Defensive Tacticssection,theyareseparatedout,requiringPPBtrainingpersonneltolookinmultipleareaswhencrafting a training plan. Furthermore, segregating sources from the five disciplines onlyreinforcesthementalitythatPPBinstructorsareobligedtoconsultthemratherthanincorporatethemintolessonplans.Byintegratingthesourcesintoeachofthedisciplines,PPBcansendthemessage that officers, supervisors, community members, and other sources are partners inidentifyingpatroltacticneeds,defensivetacticneeds(andsoon).WerecommendPPBcontinuetoutilizethefivecoredisciplinesandincorporateeachsourceofinformationintothem.

We also notice inconsistency when it comes to identifying the specific need andindicatingaplanofaction foreach.For instance, thesection“Trends inHazardsOfficersareEncountering in Performing Their Duties” lists the specific training topic, the year it was



27


80.Within 180 days of the Effective Date, PPB shall develop and implement a process thatprovidesforthecollection,analysis,andreviewofdataregardingtheeffectivenessoftrainingfor the purpose of improving future instruction, course quality, and curriculum. Theseevaluationsshallmeasureanddocumentstudentsatisfactionwiththetrainingreceived;studentlearningasa resultof training;and theextent towhichprogramgraduatesareapplying theknowledgeandskillsacquiredintrainingtotheirjobs.ThisauditshallbereportedtotheTrainingDivisionManagerandshallincludestudentevaluationsoftheprogramandtheinstructor.ComplianceLabel PartialCompliance Methodology Reviewedto-dateapplicationofKirkpatrickModelofevaluation


In responsetoourpreviousOutcomesAssessments,ComplianceAssessments,andTA

Statements,PPBhasmademarkedimprovementintheevaluationoftraining.Oflargestnoteisthecompetency-basedtesting linkedtochanges inDirectives. Inthese instances,officersarerequiredtocompleteanevaluationonspecificaspectsofrevisedDirectives.WerecommendPPBcontinuetheseevaluationsinordertoidentifypotentialissueswiththeclarityoflanguagewithintheDirectivesaswellasprovideanevaluationofofficerunderstanding.

PPBhasexpandedtheirreportingoftrainingevaluation,asevidencedintheirJuly2016reportassessingthe2015In-ServiceTraining.Inthatreport,eachIn-Serviceclasswasreviewedfor (1)officer reaction, (2) resultsof learningevaluations, and (3)on-the-joboutcomes. Thislargelycovers theelementsof theKirkpatrickmodel (except fororganizationalchangewhichshouldnotbeviewedaspertainingtoasingleclass).

suggested,andanotessectionthatindicatesapotentialplanofaction.Thisformatisalsofoundfor sections “Changes in Oregon and Federal Law,” “Changes in PPB Policy,” “ProfessionalStandardsListofOpenTasksAssigned toTrainingDivision,” “IndividualPrecinctNeeds,”and“Research Reflecting Best Practices and Latest in Law Enforcement Trends.” This format isinformativeforthereaderasitmakessurethatPPBisrespondingtotrainingneedsratherthansimplylistingthem.However,othersectionsdonotsuggestaplanofaction,butonlythattheneedsexist.WerecommendPPBprovideapreliminaryplanofactionforeachtrainingneedthatisbeingidentified.

COCLRecommendations

• Incorporatesubsectionsa-kintothefivecoredisciplinesratherthanseparatingthemout

• Identifyneedsandindicatepreliminaryplanofactionforeachsection


• Reviewof2016NeedsAssessment



28

WhileweappreciatePPBengaging intheevaluationsofthesethreesteps,webelievethatsomestepshavenotcompletelyrealizedthemethodologicalrigorwehaverecommendedin previous reports and TA Statements. Particularly for learning evaluations, PPB reportscontinuetospeakingeneralities inrelationtocompetency-basedassessmentoftraining.Forinstance,intheevaluationoftheBoxDrill,PPBreports,“Thestudentsdemonstratedreasonableuseofforcedecisionmakingwithinthecontextofeachexercise.Overall,whengivenasituationwheretheywouldneedtouseforce,theymadereasonableforcedecisionsandwhengivenasituation that did not require the use of force, they did not.” These statements are vaguegeneralitiesratherthanspecificmetricsofofficercompetency. Inotherareas,estimationsofcompetencyareused.Forexample,intheevaluationofCPRandAEDtechniques,PPBreports,“Byestimation,approximatelyfivepercentofthestudents’performanceindicatedaneedforadditionaltraining.”Althoughusinganestimateismorein-linewiththetypeofreportingwebelievewouldhelpcraftfuturetrainingoridentifyofficerswhowouldbenefitfromsupplementaltraining,havingexactnumberswouldenhancetheutilityoftheevaluations.

We continue to stress the importance of assessing the classroom performance ofindividualstudents,especiallyforrecruits.WebelievePPBunderstandsthatmoreneedstobedoneinthewayofindividualcompetency-basedevaluation.IntheirQ4updateforPar.80,theTrainingDivisionstates,“Neartheendofthisquarter,theTrainingDivisionbegantransitioningthetraininglearningassessmenttasks(whichincludedcompetency-basedevaluations)tootherstaffmembers.”WhilethelearningassessmenttaskswillremainwithintheTrainingDivision,theyarebeingdistributedtoalargernumberofpeoplewithinthedivision.Welookforwardtodiscussing with PPB how this transition will take place, whether individual officers will beevaluated,andwhetherexactpercentageswillbeincludedinfuturereports.

We recommend PPB examine the course objectives when determining the extent ofevaluationthatwouldbeappropriate.AsaguideforPPB,wehavecreatedareferralchartforthetypesofevaluationthatwouldbemostappropriategiventhetrainingobjectivesforeachclass(seeAppendixA).Forexample,ifacertaintrainingclassisaimedatensuringofficersreachormaintainalevelofproficiency,thiswouldrequireapost-testonlymethodology.However,iftraining contains new information or if PPB wants to determine the extent of informationretention,thiswouldbebettermeasuredwithapre-/post-testmethodology.Thus,theobjectivefortheclasswouldinformhowbesttomeasurethetraining.

As an example, we use the Equity class delivered in the 2016 In-Service. This classintroducednewinformationtoofficersandwasdesignedtoincreaseofficerunderstandingofhistoricalinequityaswellasalterofficerattitudes.Inordertoview(1)whetherofficersalreadyknewtheinformationand(2)whetherofficerknowledge/attitudeschangedasaresultoftheclass,apre-testandpost-testwouldberequired.Alternatively,ifPPBwantstoensureofficersare proficient in technical skills (e.g. firearms or takedown maneuvers), a pre-test is notnecessaryaschangesinskillarenotthefocus–onlythatofficerscandemonstratetheskill.

WealsocontinuetorecommendthatPPButilizecontactsurveysasawaytoevaluatebehavioral change related to certain classes, especially classes that seek to improveofficers’interactionswithindividualswhoareperceivedtobefacingamentalhealthcrisis,asrequiredbytheSettlementAgreement(seeParagraph78).



29

COCLRecommendations

• Enhancethemethodologicalrigorassociatedwithtrainingevaluation

• Introduceindividualizedtestingforclasseswheresuchtestingisrelevant

• WorkwiththeCOCLandtheCitytodevelopandimplementcontactsurveystomeasuretheimpactoftraining

• ContinuetoworkwiththeCOCLtoarriveatmeasurementtoolsandevaluationdesignsthatmeetscientificstandards.


• COCLreviewoftrainingevaluationtoolsandmeasures• COCLreviewofPPBresponsedocument


81. PPB shall ensure that the Training Division is electronically tracking, maintaining, andreportingcompleteandaccuraterecordsofcurrentcurricula,lessonplans,trainingdelivered,attendance records, and other training material in a central, commonly-accessible, andorganized file system. Each officer’s immediate supervisor shall review the database for theofficersunderhis/hercommandatleastsemi-annually.ComplianceLabel PartialCompliance Methodology ReviewedLMSUpdatesfor2016Q3andQ4


In the third quarter of 2016, PPB signed a contract with Cornerstone to design and

implementaLearningManagementSystemthatconformstotherequirementsofPar.81.Inthefourthquarterof2016,PPBspenttimewithCornerstonepersonneltobecomeacquaintedwithvarioussystemoptionsandcustomizetheLMSfortheBureau.However,PPBindicatedintheirquarterlysummaryreportthatafull-timepositiontomaintainandtrainothersontheLMShadnot been posted as of the fourth quarter. As the contract with Cornerstone was signed inSeptemberof2016andthemeetingbetweenPPBandCornerstonedidnotoccuruntilNovemberof2016,itisunclearwhythefull-timemanagementpositionwasnotfilledorevenpostedduringthis period of time.We recommend PPB post and fill this position immediately so that themanagercanbefullyacquaintedwiththesystemwhenitlaunches.

COCLRecommendations

• Postandfillsystemmanagementpositionimmediately• OncetheLMShasbeenimplemented,provideCOCLwith

technicaldemonstrationAssessmentRatingBasedOn

• ReviewofLMSupdatesforQ3andQ4



30


82. PPB shall report training delivered and received semi-annually to the Assistant Chief ofOperationsand,duringthependencyofthisAgreement,toDOJ.ComplianceLabel SubstantialCompliance Methodology ReviewCourseAttendanceSummaryReports


PPBhasprovideduswithCourseAttendanceSummaryReportsthatindicatethenumber

ofofficerswhohaveattendedandsuccessfullycompletedtrainingclasses.Uponreviewingthesummary reports, we noticed discrepancies in the total number of training hours for someclassesbasedonthenumberofemployees.PPBinformedusthatthediscrepancieswereduetotheinformationbeinghand-entered.Thefactthatinformationonthesereportsishand-enteredfurtherunderscores theneed forPPB to secure theLMS identified inPar.81 (“electronicallytracking,maintaining,andreportingcompleteandaccuraterecords”).PPBneedstoimplementtheLMSassoonaspossibleinordertoavoid“hand-entered”mistakesinthefuture.WealsocontinuetorecommendPPBupdatethecontentoftrainingreportssothattheymightbetterreflect results of individual competency-based evaluations (e.g. percent of officers whopass/fail).This,too,isimpactedbytheLMSnotbeingfunctionalatthistime.OncetheLMSisimplementedwithinPPB,wewouldexpectthereportstobeupdated.

COCLRecommendations

• SecureandimplementLMS• Updatetrainingreportcontent


• COCLreviewofCourseAttendanceSummaryReports


83.PPBshallinstituteguidelinestogovernitsselectionofofficersthatserveastrainersandshallensurethatthoseofficersdonothaveahistoryofusingexcessiveforce.Thetrainerselectionguidelinesshallprohibittheselectionofofficerswhohavebeensubjecttodisciplinaryactionbasedupontheuseofforceormistreatmentofpeoplewithmentalillnesswithinthethree(3)preceding years, or twice in thepreceding five (5) years, andwill take into account if a civiljudgmenthasbeenrenderedagainsttheCityinthelastfive(5)yearsbasedontheofficer’suseofforce.ComplianceLabel SubstantialCompliance Methodology ReviewedSOP1-19;Reviewed“WorkHistoryReviewSheet”forQ4

hires



31


SOP 1-19 (Training Division Instructor Selection Standards) remained in effect during

2016 Q3 and Q4. As we indicated in our previous report, we believe the SOP contains therequirementsofPar.83inlanguage.Wemaintainthatifatrainerisinvolvedinaciviljudgmentwithin the last five yearsbasedon their useof force, PPB shouldprovide a justification andexplanationastowhytheofficer is fit forserviceasatrainerandthecivil judgment isnotadisqualifyingfactor.AsPPBisonlyrequiredto“takeintoaccount”atrainer’spriorciviljudgment,itisnotpossibleforstrictcriteriatobeestablishedhere.ShouldPPBhiresuchatrainer,wewillreviewthejustificationandexplanationusingacommon-sensestandard.WealsocontinuetorecommendPPBnotifyCOCLifanexceptiontothecriteriaofSOP1-19ismade.

WereviewedtheWorkHistoryReviewSheetforQ4hiresandbelievePPBperformsduediligencewhenhiringinstructors.WeobservednoexceptionstothecriteriaofSOP1-19andnoprospectivetrainerhadbeeninvolvedinaciviljudgment.However,whenreviewingtheWorkHistoryReviewSheet,wenoticedtwocolumnsinthedocumentthatstate,“DOJActionItem83.”ThesecolumnsarerelatedtothereviewofCivilJudgmentsandwhethertheofficerwasdisciplinedforforceorthemistreatmentofpeoplewithmentalillness,asrequiredbyPar.83.However,byassociatingthereviewswithPar.83,thereviewsbecome“somethingDOJismakingusdo.”PPBhasSOP1-19thatcontainstherequirementsforthereviewsandwerecommendPPB change the Work History Review sheet to reference PPB practices rather than theSettlementAgreement.

COCLRecommendations

• NotifyCOCLwhenanexceptionismadetoSOP1-19’scriteria• Provideajustificationforhiringatrainerinvolvedinacivil

judgment• ReviseWorksheettoindicateSOP1-19insteadofDOJActionItem

83AssessmentRatingBasedOn

• COCLreviewofSOP1-19• COCLreviewof“WorkHistoryReviewSheet”


84.(COCLSummary)Paragraph84describesthecontentanddeliveryoftrainingthatisexpectedforpatrolofficersandsupervisors.Itbeginsbystatingthat“AlltrainingthatPPBprovidesshallconform to PPB’s current policies at the time of training. PPB shall train all officers on theAgreement’s requirementsduring thenext in-service training scheduled.”ThesubsectionsofPar.84 relate to the typesof training required forpatrolofficers, including increasinguseofscenarios related to use of force events, de-escalation techniques, procuring medical care,proactiveproblemsolving,civilorcriminal liability,andpositivecommunicationskillswithoutderogatory language.Particular attention is given topolice interactionswith individualswhohave,orareperceivedtohave,mentalillness.Thesubsectionsalsorefertosupervisortraining,



32

includingconductinguseofforceinvestigations,evaluationofofficerperformance,andpositivecareerdevelopment/disciplinaryactions.ComplianceLabel PartialCompliance Methodology Observe2016officerandsupervisorIn-Servicetraining


InNovemberof2016,weobservedtheentiretyofPPB’s In-Service trainingaswellas

Supervisor In-Service Training. Overall, we believe the training was well conceived andprofessionally delivered. Furthermore, we identified a number of elements that we haverecommendedinthepastbeingimplementedintheIn-Servicetrainingweobserved.Astothespecific requirements of Par. 84’s subsections, we observed nearly all of them beingincorporatedintotheIn-Service.OneaspectspecificallyrequiredbyPar.84thatwasinabsentintrainingon“theimportanceandimpactof…peerintervention.”Wefeelthismaybeaddressedinascenariosituationwhereinanactorofficerdemonstratesbehaviorthatwouldwarrantpeerintervention.For instance,thescenariomightrequireacall forback-upanduponarrival,theactorofficermayusederogatoryorescalatinglanguage.Studentswouldthenbeexpectedtointervenetoimprovetheinteraction.

Afairamountoftrainingthatweobservedinvolvedtechnicalortactical instructiontoofficers,suchascorrectfootpositioningwhenfiringariflefromthegroundorpropertechniquefor gauze packing an open wound. We have no reason to question the accuracy of thesepresentations.Rather,ourreviewwillfocusmoreonthemessagingoftraining,howtoimprovepolice-communityrelations,andtheavoidanceofforcewhenpossible(throughde-escalationorotheralternativeapproachestoavoidforce).Thus,ourreviewofthe2016In-Servicetrainingfocusesontheseelements.

Thisanalysiswillnotcovereverysinglepartofthe2016In-Servicetraininghereduetospacelimitations.Furthermore,additionalobservationwilloccurin2017afternewpolicieshavebeenimplementedandadditionalchangeshavebeenintroduced.Inthemeantime,weofferourobservationsonsegmentsthatwefoundtobeparticularlypositiveaswellaspartsthatwefoundtobeparticularlytroubling.Again,PPBshouldberecognizedfortheireffortstodelivertrainingthatisconsistentwithagencyneeds,bestpractices,andtheSettlementAgreement.WebelievetherearestillaspectsofPPBtrainingthatrequirechange,thoughwecreditPPBforthechangestheyhavemadetodate.

Aspartofthe2016In-Service,afour-hourtrainingblockwasreservedforaclassdealingwithEquity.ConsideringthetotalityoftheIn-Servicewas20hours,theEquityclassrepresenteda one fifth of the total In-Service training time. Given the sometimes differing perspectivesbetweenlawenforcementandthepublictheyserve(forexample,see2017PewReport“BehindtheBadge”),thisclasswasagoodopportunityforofficerstoheartheperspectivesofcommunitymembers, particularly those frompeople of color and thosewith less resources available tothem.Atthebeginningoftheclass,thepresenterstatedthattheEquityclasswasbeingprovidedbecauseofacommitmentbytheCityandPPBtoensurefairtreatmentofallmembersofthecommunity(indeed,theEquityclasshasbeenprovidedtootherCityemployees).Furthermore,thepresenterreinforcedthemessagethattheCityandPPBaretakingtheissueseriouslyand



33

thattheEquityclass“isn’taone-timedeal.Wearegoingtokeepmovingforward[withteachingissuesofequity].”

TheEquitytrainingincludedawidevarietyoflearningstyles,includingPowerPointslides,multiple videos, small-group discussions, large-group discussions, and a summary debriefingsessionattheendoftheclassthatincludedadiscussionofhowtoapplylessonslearnedfromtheclass.Althoughwemaintainthatthissectioncouldhavebenefitedfromapre-/post-testtomeasurelearning(seeourevaluationofPar.80), itappearedthatofficersat leastgainedtheperspectiveofportionsofthecommunityandmaybeabletoincorporatesuchperspectivesinfuturestreetencounters.Whileitwasclearthatsomeofficersmaynothaveagreedwiththeperspectives(norshouldtrainingrequireofficerstoagreewithotherperspectives),thetrainingsucceededinitsabilitytointroducetheperspectiveofsomecommunitymembersandprovidehistoricalbackgroundfortheformulationofthoseperspectives.

TheEquitytrainingservesasagoodintroductiontotheissues.Goingtothenextlevel(translatingideasintopractice),officerswillneedtobeintroducedto,andhavetheopportunityto practice, specific communication skills that send the message of fairness, respect, andcompassion.Wewilldiscussthisfurtherbelowandinfuturereports.

TheIn-Servicetrainingalsoincludedportionsdevotedtoupgradingofficers’ConductedElectricalWeapons(CEWs),familiarizingofficerswiththeupgradedCEWs(includingavideofromthemanufacturer),andpracticingusingtheCEWsinaccordancewithpolicy,bestpracticesandtheSettlementAgreement.Again,wedonotcommentonthetechnicalaspectsofCEWs(suchasproperarcing),thoughsomeaspectsoftheCEWpresentationsarecauseforconcern.PPBtrainedofficersonCEWpolicy, thoughnoted that thepolicywould likelychange in thenearfuture(therequirementtotraintocurrentpolicyisrequiredbytheSettlementAgreement,evenifthatpolicyislikelytochangeinthefuture).Atsomepointsinthetraining,presentersmadecommentsattimesdisparagingthecurrentandfuturepolicychangesandattributingthereasonforchangestotheDOJandtheSettlementAgreement.Forinstance,atonepoint,thepresentermentioned that “DOJ has told us they view Taser as a higher level of force” with the slideattributingthequotetoDOJ.Inanotherinstance,thepresenterappearedtoopenlycriticizethenewerpoliciesonCEW,andmadementionthattherewas“neverreallyanissue”withpastCEWpractices. We remind PPB that these types of statements during training will only act tounderminechanges.TrainersshouldbeencouragedtocommunicatethemessagethatchangestopolicyandprocedurearemadeinthebestinterestoftheBureau.

WealsoobservedtheCEWtraininginstructormakeanumberofpositivepointsthatwebelieve are consistentwith the reform efforts. For instance, the instructor provided explicitinstanceswhereusing aCEWwouldnotbe an appropriateuseof force (e.g. suicide threatswhere the situation is not deteriorating; limited situations where drive-stun would beappropriate;unreliabilityofCEW forpain compliance).Additionally, thepresenter gave real-worldapplicationsofthematerialcoveredinclass,aswellaspracticalinformationforwritingreportsrelatedtoCEWuse(e.g.specific informationto includetocapturethetotalityof thecircumstancesforsupervisoryreview).

OfficerswerealsoabletopracticetheirCEWskillsinarangesetting.ConsistentwiththeintentoftheAgreement,officerswereinstructedtoprovideaverbalwarningpriortodeployingtheirCEWs.However,theywereinstructedtodelivertwocyclesduringthesimulationandmostofficersdidnotissueasecondwarningpriortothesecondcycle.Furthermore,althoughofficers



34

weretrainedtoaimforthebellyofsuspects,someofficers’probesstruckthefaceofthetarget.Thesedeviations from instructionmaybedue toofficers recognizing theywere ina trainingexerciseandnotonthestreet. Inanyevent,werecommendthatPPBmonitorthe individualmembersmore closely for policy and tactical adherence.While CEW aimwas observed andcritiquedinoneofthescenarios,webelieveitdeservesattentioninallaspectsoftraining.

OfficersweresubjectedtoanumberofscenariosaspartoftheIn-Servicetraining.Someofthescenarioswerelow-frequency/high-risksituations.Otherswerehigh-frequency/low-risksituations.Othersweresomewhereinbetween.WecommendPPBforprovidingscenariosthatreinforcetoofficersthatnotallencountersshouldbeconsideredacallforforce.

Wehighlightoneparticularaspectofscenariosthatwefeltwasverywelldeliveredinthemessage it sent toofficers.Officerswereasked to face thewall, and (when instructed) turnaroundandreacttotheactionsofasecondperson.Inthefirstsituation,whentheofficerturnedaroundthesecondpersonwaspointingagunattheofficer.Appropriately,thelargemajorityofofficers respondedbydrawing theirweaponand firing. In the verynext situation,when theofficerturnedaroundthesecondpersonwassimplywalkingwithhishandsinhispockets.Officerresponseswerevariedhere,withabouthalftheofficersdrawingtheirweapons,orderingthepersontogetdown,toshowhishands,orsomeotherresponseindicatingthepersonwasviewedasa threat. Theotherapproximatelyhalfofofficers (thoughpotentiallywaryof theperson)askedthepersonhowhisdaywas,wherehewasgoing,andasking(ratherthanordering)iftheofficer could see his hands. One officer stated, “Hey, how’re you doing?”When the secondpersonsaid“Fine,justgoingtothestore,”theofficerresponded“Haveagoodtimethere.”

We found the debriefings to be particularly helpful to the officers. During this groupdebriefingsession,theinstructorstressedthatofficersmustrememberthatjustbecauseforcemayhavebeenappropriateintheirlastinteraction,eachinteractionmustbejudgedonitsownmerits.Althoughnotallofficersrespondedperfectly,wetakethisscenarioasademonstrationthatPPBagreesthatscenariosshouldincludeeverydayencountersinadditiontohigh-risk/low-frequency encounters.We encourage PPB to continue including scenarios designed to haveofficersthinkaboutmanycommunitymembersasharmless.Maintainingaheightenedsenseofdanger isnota flawed strategy, so longas this internal state isnotexternallydisplayed inamannerthatleadstounnecessaryforceevents.

Wenoticedthatinnearlyallclasseswhereforcewaspartofthepresentationoractivities(PVO,Takedowns,AR-15,CEW,Scenarios,etc.),presentersprovidedanoverviewofPPB’sforcepolicyandtheGrahamstandard.WebelievethisisgoodpracticebyPPBasitdoesnotseparatethe technical application of force from the constitutional threshold for applying it. TheconstitutionalthresholdwascontinuallyreinforcedandweencouragePPBtocontinuetodiscusspolicyandappropriatenessofforcepriortoallsessionsdealingwithitsapplication.

Finally, likemanytrainingacademies,wesawastrongemphasisontacticalresponses,which are important in split-second force events. However, many potential force situationsemerge from conflictual, non-cooperative encounters between an officer and a communitymemberthatcarrythepotentialforde-escalationtomitigatetheneedforforce.Assuch,wecannotemphasizeenoughtheneedfortrainingincommunicationskills,proceduraljustice,andempathytopreventtheescalationofconflict.Inthe2017In-Service,wewillbeonthelookoutfor this typeof content anddelivery.Also, just as firing aweapon requirespractice and theachievement of proficient standards, we maintain that interpersonal skills require lots of



35

practice,feedback,andmorepractice.Thisisgenerallylackinginpolicingtrainingandcouldbestrengthened inthePPB intheclassroomaswellas inscenarios.For instance, theAdvancedAcademytrainingholdsnumerousclassesonproceduraljustice,communication,andavoidingforceprecipitation.Refresherclassesintheseareaswouldbeofbenefittoofficersinadditiontobeingoneofmanydebriefingpointsduringscenarios.

WealsoobservedtheSupervisorIn-ServicetraininginNovemberof2016.AstherehadnotbeenaSupervisorIn-Serviceheldsincewebeganourfieldworkin2015,thiswasthefirstopportunitytoobservethistraining.TheSupervisorIn-Servicecoveredavarietyoftopicswhichwewillcommentonindividually.Ingeneral,wenotethatclasstimewasnotwell-managedandothertopicsmayhavebeenincludedtobetterutilizetheallottedtime.Forinstance,oneclasswasscheduledfor45minutesthoughwascompletedin10minutes.OnesupervisorquestionedwhytheinformationcouldnothavesimplybeenputonPPB’sintranet.Duringanotherclass,thepresenterstartedbysaying,“AfterI’mdonewiththis,it’slunchtimewhichIsayatthefrontendbecauseitusuallycutsthenumberofquestionsinhalf.”Weobservedotherexamplesofthistypeofcommentaryinotherclasses.AsthiswasthefirstSupervisorIn-Servicesince2014,thesestatementsandinefficientuseoftimeappeartobecounterproductive.Forinstance,theChief’sChat portion’s time allotment could have been expanded so that information on thecomprehensiveuseoftheEmployeeInformationSystem(EIS)orpositivechangesmadewithintheBureauasaresultoftheSettlementAgreementcouldbediscussed.

DuringtheChief’sChatportionofthetraining,anAssistantChiefcoveredsomeofthelargerissueswithinPPB,includingcurrentstaffinglevels,recruitmentandhiring,redistributionofspecialtyunits,eliminatingashift, ITandCriminalJustice InformationServices(CJIS),AfterActionReports,promotions,andofficermorale(amongotherthings).Foreachofthetopics,theAssistant Chief provided updates where appropriate and allowed for the supervisors to askquestions.WedidnotfindanyissuesofconcernwiththisportionoftheSupervisorIn-ServiceaswefelttheAssistantChiefdemonstratedownershipandasensethatchangesarebeingmadetoimprovetheorganization,particularlywithregardtoquestionsabouthowto improveofficermorale.

SupervisorsreceivedanupdateoftheprocessrelatedtoAfterActionReportsforforceevents.Here,supervisorswereinformedthatchangestotheAfterActionReportsandchain-of-command reviewswould likely occur (see our assessment of Pars. 70, 72, and 73) and thussupervisorswould be further updatedwhen changeswere finalized. For the time being andwherethepolicydidnotyetmatchtheSettlementAgreement,supervisorswereinstructedtoexplain thedifferences toofficersandgiveupdatesonceanagreementbetween thePartiesabouttheforcepolicyhadbeenreached.

DuringtheAfterActionReportportionoftheSupervisorIn-Servicewefoundexamplesofbothpositiveandnegativeinstancesofmessaging.Forinstance,thepresenterreferencedDOJreports when saying that “tensing up, thrashing around, and wiggling did not impress ourmonitorasjustificationforstrikes”(emphasisadded).Thereferenceto“ourmonitor”makesitseem as if PPB does not agree with the DOJ position and may consider those actions asjustificationforstrikes.Inotherportionsofthepresentation,theSettlementAgreementandDOJwerealsoreferenced,againtakingawayfromownershipofthechanges.

Inotherplaces,thepresenter’scommentswerecompletelyin-linewiththeconceptofownership. For instance, one supervisor asked if the collective changes to the Force Data



36

CollectionReport(FDCR)would“maketheDOJhappy.”Thepresenterrespondedwith“Itwillmakeushappybecauseweareputtingoutaqualityproduct.”InanotherinstancewhereDOJhadarguedthatacertainforceeventshouldhavebeenfoundasapolicyviolation,thepresenteragreed,tellingthesupervisorsthatwhensomethingviolatespolicy,itneedstobeidentifiedassuch.

As for the content of the After Action Report section, the presenter stressed theimportanceofFDCRsincludingallinformationforsupervisorstomakeaninformedassessmentoftheofficers’actions(see,forinstance,thepointsfoundinPar.74(a)and74(c)).Thepresenteralso stated that rather than reviewing FDCRs for technical adherence to policy, supervisorsshouldreviewFDCRsandask,“IsthisthewayIwantmyofficerstoacteverysingletimeinthissituation?”Wefoundthistobeaverymuchneededstatementforsupervisorstohearasthisputs the focus on improving officers’ decision making rather than simply observing policy.AlthoughsupervisorswereinstructedonhowtoreviewFDCRsandofferguidancetoofficersonhowtomorecomprehensivelycompletethem,nearlyallintheroomagreedthatsupplementalinstruction to officers on what a comprehensive FDCR looked like was necessary (includingdescriptionsofvagueterms,differencebetweenverbalandforcede-escalation,etc.).

TheSupervisorIn-ServicealsoincludedasectionrelatedtoWorkplaceHarassmentandanothersectionrelatedtosupervisorsidentifyingandarticulatingreasonablesuspicionthatanofficermaybeintoxicatedonduty.Mostofthecontentrelatedtothesesectionsis legalistic.Perhapsmoretimecouldhavebeenspentonnon-legalstrategiesforaddressingsuchissues.Also,wewouldencouragethePPBtospendmoretimeonsupervisoryskillsneededtoidentifyissueswithcommunityinteractionandcommunicationskills,howtointervenewithappropriatecoachingandcounseling,andhowtomonitorprogressovertime.

Researchindozensofpoliceorganizationsindicatesthatthewillingnessofpoliceofficerstofollowpoliciesandsupportmanagementdecisionswilldependonwhethertheyfeeltheyarebeing treated fairly and respectful by those in authority positions – what is typically calledorganizational justice. Therefore, we would recommend that any course on responding toproblematicbehaviorbesupplementedwithacourseongoodsupervisioningeneral.

Westressthat,onthewhole,wefoundtheofficerandsupervisorIn-Servicetrainingstobefairlywelldelivered.WerecommendPPBbeonthelook-outformessagingoftraining,asweobservednegativemessaging inboth trainings.Positive trends inPPB training includeEquitytraining,scenariosreinforcingthatnotallcommunitymembersarecriminals,reinforcementofforce policy in many classes, and (in some classes) ownership of changes related to theSettlementAgreement.Additionalclassroominstructionincommunicationskills,bothasofficersand as supervisors, combinedwith existing scenario sessions, would strengthen the PPB In-ServiceTrainingandwilllikelyreduceproblematicbehaviorduringencounterswiththepublic.

Inthefirstandsecondquarterof2017,wewillobserveAdvancedAcademytrainingaswellasthe2017In-Servicetraining.Ourobservationswillbeattunedtosimilaraspectsastothosewhichwehavedetailedinthisreport.Wewillprovideourobservationsofthosetrainingsinournextreport.

COCLRecommendations

• Increasereferencestoownershipandorganizationalresponsibilityforchanges



37

• Continuetoincludecommonlyencounteredsituationsinscenarioswithattentiontoproceduraljusticeandempathy

• Finalize policies in order for training not to reference futurechanges

• Increasenon-tactical training and scenarios on topics related tointerpersonalcommunicationskillsandproceduraljustice

• Revisit theclassesprovidedtosupervisorstousethetimemoreefficiently and strengthen coursework related to “goodsupervision” around addressing problematic behavior, coaching,organizationaljustice.

• AddsupervisorytrainingonEISAssessmentRatingBasedOn

• COCLobservationof2016officerandsupervisorIn-Servicetraining


85. In consultation with the COCL, the Inspector shall audit the training program using thefollowing performance standards to ensure that PPB does the following: (a) Conducts acomprehensiveneedsassessmentannually; (b)CreatesaTrainingStrategicPlanannually; (c)Within180daysoftheEffectiveDate,developsandimplementsaprocessforevaluationoftheeffectiveness of training; (d) Maintains accurate records of Training delivered, includingsubstanceandattendance; (e)MakesTrainingRecordsaccessible to theDirectorofServices,Assistant Chief ofOperations, andDOJ; (f) TrainsOfficers, Supervisors, and Commanders onareasspecifictotheirresponsibilities;and(g)EnsuresthatswornPPBmembersareprovidedacopyofallPPBdirectivesandpoliciesissuespursuanttothisAgreement,andsignastatementacknowledgingthattheyhavereceived,read,andhadanopportunitytoaskquestionsaboutthedirectivesand/orpolicies,within30daysofthereleaseofthepolicy. ComplianceLabel PartialCompliance Methodology ReviewedalldocumentsrelatedtoPar.85andpriortraining

paragraphs;ProvidedauditplanbasedonpreviousTAStatementsandcorrespondingparagraphsintheSettlementAgreement


InDecemberof2016,COCLprovidedPPBandthe Inspectorwithatrainingauditplan

whichcoveredeachofthesectionsofPar.85.UsingpreviousTAStatements(NeedsAssessment,Training Evaluation) as well as subsections’ corresponding paragraphs in the SettlementAgreementasatemplate,weidentifiedthetypesofconsiderationswefeltwerenecessarytoperformacomprehensiveauditofPPB’strainingprogram.Someofthesectionsoftheauditplanmeasuretechnicaladherence(e.g.makingtrainingrecordsaccessibletocertainpeople)whileothersrequireafarmorecriticalassessmentofthetrainingprogram.



38

Thesectionsidentifiedinthetrainingauditplanlargelymirrorthetypesofconsiderationswehaveincludedinourpastreports.Forinstance,whenreviewingtheadequacyoftheTrainingNeedsAssessment,weaskedPPBtoconsiderprevioustrainingevaluationsandhowtheinputofvariousstakeholderswassoughtand incorporated.Whenreviewingtheadequacyof trainingevaluation,weaskedPPBtoconsiderthetypesofevaluationtoolsusedgiventheobjectivesofthecourse.WhenreviewingwhetherPPB“trainsofficers,supervisors,andcommandersonareasspecific to their responsibilities,”we askedPPB to consider the total responsibilities of eachrankingandevaluatewhetherallwerebeingadequatelymet.Forall sectionsof the trainingaudit,weaskedPPBtogobeyondauditingtheexistenceoftrainingmaterialandinsteadauditthequalityofthematerial.

AsweprovidedPPBourauditplaninDecember,theywereunabletoprovidearesponsepriortotheendofthefourthquarter.Thus,weanticipatediscussionswithPPBinthefirstandsecondquarterof2017.Thefruitsofthosediscussionswillbeincludedinournextreport.

COCLRecommendations

• Providearesponsetoourauditplanandbeginworktocreatea2017trainingauditreport


• PPB’spreviouseffortsontrainingaudit


86.InconsultationwiththeCOCL,theInspectorshallgatherandpresentdataandanalysisonaquarterly basis regardingpatterns and trends in officers’ usesof force to theChief, thePPBTraining Division, and to the Training Advisory Council. The Training Division and TrainingAdvisory Council shall make recommendations to the Chief regarding proposed changes inpolicy, training, and/orevaluationsbasedon thedatapresented.The Inspector shall also, incoordinationwith theCOCLandPSD, identifyproblematicuseof forcepatternsand trainingdeficiencies.TheChief’sOfficeshallassessalluseof forcepatterns identifiedbytheTrainingDivisionand/orTrainingAdvisoryCouncilandtimelyimplementnecessaryremedialtrainingtoaddressdeficienciessoidentified.ComplianceLabel PartialCompliance Methodology ObservedInspectorpresentationtoTrainingAdvisoryCouncil(TAC);

ReviewedTACrecommendationstoDirective1500.00;ReviewedTACreport


Inthethirdquarterof2016,theInspectorgaveapresentationresponsivetoPar.86.This

includedanin-depthdiscussionaboutCEWuseasrequestedbytheTAC.Apresentationduringthe fourth quarter was scheduled, though due to time constraints, the presentation was



39

rescheduled for the first quarter of 2017. We have personally observed a number of theInspector’s presentations to TAC and will continue to attend TAC meetings to observe thepresentations.

Although the Inspector provided information regarding CEW trends to the TAC, webelievetheInspector’spresentationsonoverall forcetrendswouldbenefit fromthetypesoftrendreviewanddiscussionwhichwehaverecommendedinourassessmentofPar.76.Suchtrend review and discussionwould satisfy the Inspector’s requirement to “present data andanalysis”asrequiredbyPar.86.InthepresentationstoTACwehaveobserved,theInspectorhas touchedupon forcenumbers inacursory fashion.Thepresentations includea reviewofcross-sectional data and do not look at force trends over more than one quarter. PPB hasapproximatelytwoyearsofdatathatmaybeusedtoidentifytrendsinforcetypes,Precincts,shifts,subjectinformation(e.g.whethersubjectsarearmed),etc.andshouldbegindatareviewoveralongertimeline.TACmembershavebegunperformingtheirownevaluationsofdatatoidentifytrendsandtheyareintheprocessofformingasubcommitteetoreviewtrendsmoresystematically.We appreciate thewillingness of TAC to look at these trends independently,though would recommend that the Inspector play an active role in working with thesubcommittee.

As to the Inspector’s responsibility in Par. 86 to “identify problematic use of forcepatternsandtrainingdeficiencies,”weagainbelievePhaseIIoftheForceAuditwillassisttheInspector in performing this function. We have recommended that the Inspector classifyproblematictrendsashaving implicationsfortraining,tactics,supervision,etc.,andthus,theprevalence of such classifications will allow TAC to see where recommendations are mostneeded.

Aswenotedinourlastreport,TACissuedalistof23recommendationsrelatedtouseofforcetraining,organizationalattitudes,andforcereportingduringthesecondquarterof2016.Inturn,theChiefissuedaresponsetoeachoftherecommendationsfromTAC,identifyingthosewithwhichheagreed,agreedinpart,oragreedtofurtherreview.TheresponsewasdetailedandwelookforwardtoseeingtherecommendationsincorporatedintofuturePPBtraining.

COCLRecommendations

• ReporttrendsinamannerconsistentwithourrecommendationsforPar.76

• IncorporatefindingsofPhaseIIoftheForceAuditintopresentations

• InspectorshouldworkwithTACsubcommitteeasanintegralpartner

• IncorporateTACrecommendationsintoTrainingAssessmentRatingBasedOn

• COCLobservationsofInspectorpresentationtoTAC• TAC“2016TrainingandUseofForceReportRecommendations”

andresponsefromtheChief• COCLreviewofPPBquarterlyforcesummaryreports



40


87.TrainingAdvisoryCouncilmeetingswillbeopentothepublicunlessthematterunderdiscussionisconfidentialorraisespublicsafetyconcerns,asdeterminedbytheChief.ComplianceLabel SubstantialCompliance Methodology ReviewPPBwebsiteregardingTAC;ReviewTACagendasandminutes


TheTrainingAdvisoryCouncil(TAC)meetingshavecontinuedtobeopentothepublic.

WehavealsonotseenanyinstancewhereTAChadtodiscussmattersdeemedconfidentialorwhichraisedpublicsafetyconcernstosuchanextentthatthegroupwasrequiredtogointoanexecutivesession.Inaddition,TAChaspostedup-to-dateminutes(uponapproval)tothePPBwebsiteaswellaspreviousagendas.

COCLRecommendations

• Norecommendationsatthistime


• COCLreviewofinformationavailableonPPBwebsite• COCLreviewofTACminutes



41

V.COMMUNITY-BASEDMENTALHEALTHSERVICES


88.TheabsenceofacomprehensivecommunitymentalhealthinfrastructureoftenshiftstolawenforcementagenciesthroughoutOregontheburdenofbeingfirstresponderstoindividualsinmentalhealthcrisis.Underaseparateagreement, theUnitedStates isworkingwithStateofOregon officials in a constructive, collaborativemanner to address the gaps in statementalhealth infrastructure. The state-wide implementation of an improved, effective community-basedmentalhealthinfrastructureshouldbenefitlawenforcementagenciesacrosstheState,aswellaspeoplewithmentalillness.TheUnitedStatesacknowledgesthatthisAgreementonlylegally binds the City to take action. Nonetheless, in addition to the City, the United StatesexpectstheCity’spartnerstohelpremedythelackofcommunity-basedaddictionandmentalhealth services toMedicaid clients and uninsured area residents. The City’s partners in theprovisionofcommunity-basedaddictionandmentalhealthservicesinclude:theStateofOregonHealth Authority, area Community Care Organizations (“CCOs”), Multnomah County, localhospitals, health insurance providers, commercial health providers, and existing Non-GovernmentalOrganizations(“NGOs”)suchascommunity-basedmentalhealthproviders,andotherstakeholders.ComplianceLabel N/A Methodology ContinuetomonitortheCityandPPBcontinuingtoworkwith

communitypartners

ComplianceAssessmentThis paragraphwill be assessed upon the City and PPB’s continuing relationshipwith

community partners. As this is a summative paragraph, compliance is dependent uponcompliancewithotherparagraphswithinthissection.

COCLRecommendations

• Continuerelationshipwithcommunitypartners


• N/A–Summativeparagraph



42


89.TheUnitedStatesexpectsthatthelocalCCOswillestablish,bymid-2013,oneormoredrop-offcenter(s)forfirstrespondersandpublicwalk-incentersforindividualswithaddictionsand/orbehavioralhealthserviceneeds.All suchdropoff/walk incentersshould focuscareplansonappropriatedischargeandcommunity-basedtreatmentoptions,includingassertivecommunitytreatmentteams,ratherthanunnecessaryhospitalization.ComplianceLabel SubstantialCompliance Methodology ReviewedminutesfromUnityTransportationWorkgroup


We point out that this paragraph indicates an expectation of Community Care

Organizations(CCOs).However,theSettlementAgreementholdsnolegalpowertorequireCCOstodoanything.Therefore,whileweassesstheprogressoftheUnityCenterhere,wewouldliketoclarifythatPPBandtheCityarenotresponsibleforopeningtheUnityCenterorthequalityofservices it provides. Our assessment and compliance rating pertain to PPB’s and the City’sparticipationintheprocess–nottheultimatesuccessorfailureoftheUnityCenter.

ProgressonopeningtheUnityCenter,aPsychiatricEmergencyServices(PES),continuedinthethirdandfourthquarterof2016.ForPPB’sresponsibilities,revisionsofDirectives850.21,850.22,and850.25weremade to reflect thepracticeofAMRproviding transportation forapersononamentalhealthhold.TherevisionsweremadeinconsultationwithDOJandCOCLandtheDirectivesreceivedDOJapprovalinthefourthquarterof2016.However,thedirectiveshavenot yet been signed by the Chief as the practice of AMR transports is contingent upon theopeningoftheUnityCenter.Thisistobeaccomplishedinthefirstquarterof2017.

BasedonPPBandtheCity’sparticipationintheprocesstodate,webelievetheyhavesubstantiallycompliedwithallreasonableexpectationsforthemrelatedtothisparagraph.WeexpectthatPPBwill issuethereviseddirectivesoncetheUnityCenterPEScomesonlineandtrainmembersonthereviseddirectivestoensurecomprehensionthroughouttheBureau.Thistraining should include a test of comprehension and PPB should also include measures foradherencetopolicyonthestreet.

COCLRecommendations

• IssuereviseddirectivesonceUnityCenterPESopens.• Trainandtestmembersonreviseddirectives.


• COCLreviewofUnityTransportationWorkgroupminutes



43


90.TheCCOswillimmediatelycreateaddictionsandmentalhealth-focusedsubcommittee(s),whichwillincluderepresentativesfromPPB’sAddictionsandBehavioralHealthUnit(“ABHU”)[NowcalledBehavioralHealthUnitor“BHU”],theABHUAdvisoryBoard[NowcalledtheBHUAdvisory Committee or “BHUAC”], Portland Fire and Rescue, Bureau of EmergencyCommunications(“BOEC”)andotherCitystaff.Thesecommitteeswillpursueimmediateandlong-termimprovementstothebehavioralhealthcaresystem.Initialimprovementsinclude:(COCLSummary) increased sharingof information (subject to lawfuldisclosure); creationofrapidaccessclinics;enhancedaccess toprimarycareproviders;expandedoptions forBOECoperatorsdivertcallstocivilianmentalhealthservices,addressingunmetneedsidentifiedbySaferPDX;expandingandstrengtheningnetworksofpeermediatedservices;andpursuetele-psychiatry.ComplianceLabel SubstantialCompliance Methodology ReviewCommunityOutreachMeetingminutes;ReviewHealthShare

CouncilAgendas;ReviewBehavioralHealthCollaborativedocuments


The Settlement Agreement does not hold any legal power over Coordinated Care

Organizations(CCOs)andwethereforecannotholdPPBresponsibleforparticipationinCCOsubcommitteesifnosuchsubcommitteesareavailable.PPBhadpreviouslyparticipatedinaTaskForcewithHealthShare,thoughthisTaskForcehascompleteditswork.Inthethirdandfourthquarterof2016,PPBcontinuedtoattendmonthlymeetingsforLegacyEDCommunityOutreach. Additionally, the Service Coordination Team’s (SCT) application to join the StateBehavioralHealthCollaborativeTeamwasapprovedandSCTpersonnelbeganserviceonthatcommittee.Asindicatedinourlastreport,thecollaboration’sgoalsappearconsistentwiththeintentofPar.90.

Beginninginthethirdandfourthquarterof2016andcontinuinginthefirstquarterof2017,thePartiesbegandiscussionsrelatedtopotentialchangesintheSettlementAgreement(seePar.175).WerecommendtheParties includethisparagraph intheirreview.GiventheAgreement’slackofauthorityregardingCCO’sandgivenPPB’sproactiveattemptsatsatisfyingtheintentofPar.90,webelievetheyhavesubstantiallycompliedwiththisprovision.PendingtherevisionoftheAgreement,wewillreassessPPB’sresponsibilitiesatthattime.

COCLRecommendations

• PartiesshouldincludePar.90inconsiderationofanychangestotheSettlementAgreement


• PPBinvolvementwithBehavioralHealthCollaborativeTeam• PPBinvolvementwithLegacyEDCommunityOutreach



44

VI.CRISISINTERVENTION

A.AddictionsandBehavioralHealthUnitandAdvisoryCommittee


91.InordertofacilitatePPB’ssuccessfulinteractionswithmentalhealthconsumersandimprovepublic safety, within 60 days of the Effective Date, PPB shall develop an Addictions andBehavioralHealthUnit(“ABHU”)withinthePPB.PPBshallassigncommand-levelpersonnelofatleasttherankofLieutenanttomanagetheABHU.ABHUshalloverseeandcoordinatePPB’sCrisisIntervention Team (“C-I Team”), Mobile Crisis Prevention Team (“MCPT”), and ServiceCoordinationTeam(“SCT”),assetforthinthisAgreement.Asapointofclarification,sincethewritingoftheAgreement,theABHUisknownasBehavioralHealthUnit(“BHU”),theC-ITeamisknownasEnhancedCrisisInterventionTeam(“ECIT”),andtheMCPTisknownasBehavioralHealthResponseTeam(“BHRT”).Discussionoftheseentities,andtheirreferenceinsubsequentAgreementparagraphs,willusetheircurrentnomenclatures.ComplianceLabel SubstantialCompliance Methodology ReviewedBHUUnitStructure;InterviewedBHUcommandpersonnel


PPBhasprovidedtoCOCLupdatedunitstructures,includingwhenchangestopersonnel

haveoccurred.IntermsofpersonnelandBHU’sgeneraloversight,theBHUcontinuestoconformtotherequirementsofPar.91,asevidencedbytheBHUunitstructureandourobservationsofBHUcoordinatingECIT,BHRT,andSCToperations.WhiletheBHUprovidesoversighttotheECITprogram (including ECIT training, dispatch criteria, ECIT data collection, etc.), ECIT officersdirectlyreporttotheirprecinctlevelchainofcommand.ThiscommandstructureconformstotheMemphisModel.

WeechopreviousreportsthatSubstantialCompliancewithPar.91doesnotindicatethatthe functions of ECIT, BHRT, and SCT are in Substantial Compliance with their respectiveparagraphs.CompliancewithPar.91indicatesthattheestablishmentofBHUandthegeneraloversightstructurerequirementshavebeensatisfiedintheircurrentiteration.

COCLRecommendations

• ContinuetoupdateCOCLandDOJonchangestopersonnelwhenapplicable


• COCLreviewofunitstructuresandpersonnel



45


92. [BHU]willmanage the sharing andutilizationof data that is subject to lawful disclosurebetweenPPBandMultnomahCounty,oritssuccessor.PPBwillusesuchdatatodecreaselawenforcementinteractionsormitigatethepotentialusesofforceinlawenforcementinteractionswithconsumersofmentalhealthservices.93.[BHU]shalltrackoutcomedatageneratedthroughthe[ECIT],[BHRT],andSCT,to:(a)developnew response strategies for repeat calls for service; (b) identify training needs; identify andpropose solutions to systematic issues that impede PPB’s ability to provide an appropriateresponse to a behavioral crisis event; and (c) identify officers’ performance warrantingcommendationorcorrection.ComplianceLabel PartialCompliance Methodology ReviewedBHCT,BHRT,andSCTcoordinationteammeetingagendas

andminutes;RevieweddiscoverabilityissueswithPPB;ReviewedBHRTandSCToutcomemeasures


PPB utilizes a number of work groups to collaborate on ways to “decrease law

enforcement interactions [and] mitigate the potential uses of force in law enforcementinteractionswith consumers ofmental health services.” For instance, the Behavioral HealthCoordinationTeam(BHCT)meetsonabi-weeklybasis todiscusscurrentandpotentialBHRTclients.TheBHCTiscomprisedofanumberofcommunitypartnersincludingrepresentativesfromMultnomahCounty,Cascadia,andFederal/Statelawenforcement.PPBinformsusthatacoregroupsofpartnersattendsconsistently,withotherpartnersattendingasneeded.

The discussions during these meetings are designed to problem-solve and createstrategiestoreducefuturecriminaljusticecontactsforindividualsthathavefrequentcontactbuthavebeendifficulttoengageinongoingservices.BHUpersonnelindicatethatinformationon individuals discussed is only shared if it is subject to lawful disclosure. To insure this, allpartnersbroughttheiragencylawyerstotheinitialmeetingstoensureallwerefullyinformedofHIPPAandotherprivacy lawconsiderations.BHUpersonnel indicate theBHCThasbeenaparticularlyvaluablecollaborativestrategy.

TheServiceCoordinationTeamalsoconductsweeklymeetingstodiscusspotentialclientsand make determinations about eligibility for SCT Services. Meetings include communitypartners and representatives fromvarious entities inMultnomahCounty. Themeetings alsoreview current SCT clients in order to “facilitate continuation of care” for clients (PPB Q4QuarterlyUpdate).WebelievethesemeetingsmeetthespiritofPar.92.

ThecollectionofdatathroughtheMentalHealthMask(MHM)continuedduringthethirdand fourth quarter of 2016. However, concerns about the ability to produceMHMdata fordiscoveryhavecausedPPBtoreconsiderthemethodbywhichmentalhealthinteractiondataarecaptured.Arevisedplanfordatacollectionwasdiscussedinthefirstpartof2017,witha



46

planforimplementationbyMay2017.Onceinplace,thedataproducedshouldbeutilizedtoidentifyindividualsandlocationswithrepeatcallsforserviceanddevelopresponsestrategies.

RelevantoutcomemeasuresarecollectedforBHRTandSCT.TheseoutcomemeasureswerediscussedduringourNovember2016OutcomeAssessmentandisfurtherexploredinourMay2017OutcomeAssessment.

Finally,wecontinuetorecommendamentalhealthcontactsurveytomeasurechangesandareasforimprovementinPPB’ssystemofmentalhealthresponse.Discussionshavebeenongoingrelatedtothementalhealthcontactsurveyaswellasourrecommendationtorollitintoamoregeneralcommunitycontactsurvey.

COCLRecommendations

• Implementrevisedprocessforcollectingdataonmentalhealthinteractions

• PlanamentalhealthcontactsurveywiththeassistanceofCOCLAssessmentRatingBasedOn

• COCLreviewBHCT,BHRT,andSCTcoordinationmeetingagendasandminutes

• COCLreviewofBHRTandSCToutcomemeasures


94.Within90daysoftheEffectiveDate,PPBshallalsoestablisha[BHU]AdvisoryCommittee.The [BHU]AdvisoryCommittee shall include representation from: PPB command leadership,[ECIT], [BHRT], and SCT; BOEC; civilian leadership of the City government; and shall seek toincluderepresentationfrom:theMultnomahCountySheriff’sOffice;OregonStateDepartmentofHealthandHumanServices;advocacygroupsforconsumersofmentalhealthservices;mentalhealthserviceproviders;coordinatedcareorganizations;andpersonswithlivedexperiencewithmentalhealthservices.ComplianceLabel SubstantialCompliance Methodology ReviewedBHUACrosterofmembers;ReviewedBHUACminutes;

ObservedBHUACmeetings

ComplianceAssessmentTheBehavioralHealthUnitAdvisoryCommittee(BHUAC)continuedtomeetinthethird

andfourthquarterof2016.Theadvisorycommitteeisadiversegroupwithrepresentativesfromlaw enforcement, CCO’s and City and County agencies, aswell asmental health communityrepresentatives/peer support specialists.AsCOCLhaspersonallyobservednumerousBHUACmeetings, we are confident that the group has a diverse number of voices contributing tomeetings.

WealsotaketimeheretorespondtocommunityconcernswehaveheardthatBHUACmeetingsareclosedtothepublic.Ontwoseparateoccasions(firstuponBHUACcreationandlaterrevisitingtheissue),BHUACmembershavediscussedwhethermeetingsshouldbeopento



47

the public. Although some members believed the community should be allowed to attendmeetings, the committee ultimately voted to keepmeetings closed.We have reviewed theminutesofthisdiscussionandspokenwithBHUACmembersaboutthe issue.Membershavegenuineconcernsthatbyopeningthemeetingtothecommunity,committeemembersmaybeguarded in their desire to openly discuss sensitive topics. As a compromise for achievingtransparency,BHUACnowpostsmeetingminutesonline.BHUAChasrecognizedthatdespitebeingclosedtothepublic,morecanbedonetocommunicatewithcommunitymembersthroughthe COAB and other outreach mechanisms. We recommend BHUAC explore options foraccomplishingthis.OnesuchoptionwouldbetoholdasubsetofBHUACmeetingsopentothepublic.Forinstance,BHUACmayholdeverythirdmeetingpublicly,allowingforthecommunitytopresentcommentsinsomecapacity.

Thediscussionsaroundwhethermeetingsshouldbeopenorclosedhavebeenthoughtfulandconsideredbothprosandconsofremainingclosedtothepublic.Thus,sincethemeetingsarenotrequiredtobeopentothepublic,wearesatisfiedwiththeresultofthecommittee’sdiscussion.

COCLRecommendations

• Exploreoptionsforcommunicatingwiththecommunity,includingholdingsomeofBHUACmeetingsopentothepublic.


• COCLreviewofBHUACroster• COCLreviewofBHUACminutes• COCLobservationsofBHUACmeetings


95. The [BHU] Advisory Committee shall provide guidance to assist the City and PPB in thedevelopment and expansion of [ECIT], [BHRT], SCT, BOEC Crisis Triage, and utilization ofcommunity-based mental health services. The [BHU] Advisory Committee shall analyze andrecommendappropriatechangestopolicies,procedures,andtrainingmethodsregardingpolicecontactwithpersonswhomaybementallyillorexperiencingamentalhealthcrisis,withthegoalofde-escalatingthepotentialforviolentencounters.The[BHU]AdvisoryCommitteeshallreport its recommendations to the [BHU] Lieutenant,PPBComplianceCoordinator,COCL (asdescribedherein),andtheBOECUserBoard.ComplianceLabel SubstantialCompliance Methodology ReviewedBHUACminutes;ObservedBHUACmeetings


Inthethirdandfourthquarterof2016,BHUACmetonamonthlybasistodiscussand

makerecommendationsinanumberofareas.TopicscoveredintheBHUAC’sagendasincludereviewoftrainingrelatedto850.20,BHUdata,discussionsregardingculturaldiversityinECIT



48

scenariotraining,BHUoutreachefforts,BHUMissionStatement,MHM,OregonPerformancePlan(StateMHsupportsystem),revisedCOAB,CITtrainingforBOECpersonnel,andvariousPPBSOP’s.Wepersonallyobservedsomeofthemeetingsduringthethirdandfourthquarterandforothermeetings,wehavereviewedBHUACminutes.WecontinuetobelievetheworkofBHUACsubstantiallycomplieswiththerequirementsofPar.95andcontinuetorecommendthatPPBandBHUACsustaintheprogresstheyhavemadetodate.

COCLRecommendations

• Sustainprogressmadetodate


• COCLreviewofBHUACminutesandagendas• COCLobservingBHUACmeetings


96.Within240daysoftheEffectiveDateofthisAgreement,the[BHU]AdvisoryCommitteewillprovidestatusreportsontheimplementationofthe[BHU]andBOECCrisisTriage,andidentifyrecommendations for improvement, if necessary. PPB will utilize the [BHU] AdvisoryCommittee’s recommendations indeterminingappropriate changes to systems,policies, andstaffing.ComplianceLabel SubstantialCompliance Methodology ReviewedBHUACrecommendationsfoundinBHUACminutes


BHUACcontinuestomeetandproviderecommendationstoBHUandPPB(seePar.95).

Furthermore, BHUAC reviewed the course curriculum for BOEC CIT training (including CrisisTriage) and made recommendations where appropriate. Thus, there has been substantialcompliancewith the first sectionof Par. 96. Aftermaking recommendations,wehave seenregular documentation of PPB providing responses to BHUAC for each of theirrecommendations.Forinstance,inAugustof2016,theBHULieutenantprovidedresponsestorecommendationsforSOPs#1-3,#2-1,and#1-2.Intheresponse,theLieutenantindicatedBHU’sagreementwiththerecommendationandanaffirmativestatementofhowtherecommendationwill be integrated into the SOPs. Thus, the system used by BHU and BHUAC provides for acontinuousfeedbackloopandisdonesoinamannerconsistentwiththeAgreement.Thus,thesecondsectionofPar.96issubstantiallysatisfied.WerecommendBHUACandPPBcontinuethequalityofworkwehaveseentodate.

COCLRecommendations



• COCLreviewofBHUACstatusreportsandrecommendations• COCLreviewofPPBresponsestoBHUACrecommendations



49

B.ContinuationofC-IProgram


97.PPBprovidesC-ITrainingtoallitsofficers.C-IisacorecompetencyskillforallswornpoliceofficersintheCity.PPBshallcontinuetotrainallofficersonC-I.ComplianceLabel SubstantialCompliance–OngoingObligation Methodology ReviewAdvancedAcademyC-ITrainingmaterial


Inapreviousreport,weprovidedareviewoftheC-Itrainingcontentandassesseditto

beoverallin-linewithC-Itrainingwehavereviewedinotherjurisdictions.AlthoughPPBdidnotholdanAdvancedAcademytraininginthethirdorfourthquarterof2016,allofficersreceiveC-ItrainingandPPBhasdemonstratedacommitmenttocontinuingtotrainallofficers.Inthefirstand secondquarter of 2017, PPBwill holdAdvancedAcademy for a total of 16 recruits andmembersoftheCOCLTeamwillpersonallyobservetheCITclassesforthatAdvancedAcademyto ensure that the training delivered continues to comply with the requirements of thisparagraph.

COCLRecommendations



• COCLpriorreviewofAdvancedAcademyCITrainingmaterials


98.PPBagreestocontinuetorequireaminimumof40hoursofC-Itrainingtoallofficersbeforeofficersarepermittedtoassumeanyindependentpatrolorcall-responseduties.Additionally,PPBshallincludeC-IrefreshertrainingforallofficersasanintegralpartofPPB’son-goingannualofficer training.PPB’sTrainingDivision, inconsultationwith [BHU]AdvisoryCommittee, shalldeterminethesubjectsandscopeofinitialandrefresherC-Itrainingforallofficers.ComplianceLabel SubstantialCompliance Methodology ReviewedAdvancedAcademyCItrainingmaterials;Observed2016

In-Servicetraining;Reviewed2016In-Servicetrainingmaterials




50

Officers are required to complete aminimum of 40 hours of CI training before theyassumeindependentpatrolorcall-responseduties.The40hoursofCItrainingissplitbetweenthe State Academy and the Advanced Academy. As no officers are allowed to assumeindependentpatroldutiesbeforetheycompletetheAdvancedAcademy,thisportionofPar.98hasbeensatisfied.

Inthefourthquarterof2016,weobservedthe2016In-Servicetrainingwhichcontainedclasses related tomental health response. The trainingwas crafted in consultationwith theBHUAC.

OfficerswereprovidedanupdatetotheprogressoftheUnityCenterandthepresenterdetailedthebenefitstobothconsumersofmentalhealthservicesaswellastheofficers.Ratherthandescribing theUnity Center as a response to the SettlementAgreement, thepresenterdemonstratedtheadvantagesoverpriormentalhealthresponseandtheanticipatedlong-termbenefits.WefeltthepresentationontheUnityCenterwaswelldelivered.

OfficerswerethenprovidedanupdatetoMentalHealthMaskdataandanexhortationonimprovingtheaccuracyandreliabilityofthedata.Aswehavesaidinpreviousreports,newdatacollectiontoolsarelikelytoincreaseinaccuracyandreliabilityovertimeasofficersbecomemoreaccustomedtothetoolsandreceivesupplementaltraining.Thus,weencouragePPBtocontinuetotrainofficersonastandardizedprocessforcompletingMHM’stomakethemmorereliable.Furthermore,oncetherevisionoftheMHMiscomplete,PPBshouldrefreshofficersastowhenandhowtouseit.Asinothertrainingswehaveobserved,thepresenterindicatedthatonereasonforimprovingofficercompletionoftheMHMisthatPPBbelievesthecurrentnumberofcallsinvolvingamentalhealthcomponentfoundintheMHMdatamaybeunderreported.

OfficerswerealsoprovidedareviewofmentalhealthDirective850.20,whichoutlinesofficer procedure when responding to a call involving a mental health crisis. Officers hadreviewedthisdirectivewhenitwasreleasedandwererequiredtotakeaknowledge-testduringthatreview.AtthebeginningoftheIn-Serviceclasssession,officersparticipatedinaninteractiveexercisetodeterminetheirlevelofknowledgeretentionsincetherevised850.20tookeffect.Although the responses were not individually identifiable (thus not a measure individualretention),webelievethemannerofassessmentwassufficienttoobserveoverallretentionandmeettherequirementsof850.20(providedPPBanalyzesthedatatoidentifypotentialneedsforclarifying 850.20). Officers were also encouraged to view ECIT as a resource and to not behesitanttorequestECITassistance.Finally,thereviewof850.20containedrefresherinformationonmanyareasrelatedtomentalhealthresponse,includingwhentocallanECITofficer,tacticsfordisengagement,de-escalation,andothers.

BasedonPPBpolicyofnotallowingofficerstoassumeindependentpatroldutiespriortocompletingtheAdvancedAcademycoupledwiththeC-Irefreshertrainingweobservedduringthe2016In-Servicetraining,webelievePPBhassubstantiallycompliedwiththerequirementsof this paragraph. We recommend that future In-Service trainings continue to include C-IrefreshertraininginconsultationwithBHUAC.

WehavereviewedthecurrentCITtrainingmaterialfromPPBandwillbeaddressingthatmaterial inournextreport.WerecommendPPBprovideuswithupdatedbasicacademyCITtrainingmaterialsothatwemightreviewthefull40hoursthatthetraineesreceive.



51

COCLRecommendations

• WhenAdvancedAcademyoffered,providedocumentationofCITtraininginbasicandadvancedacademies


• COCLobservationof2016In-Servicetraining

C.Establishing“MemphisModel”CrisisInterventionTeam


99. Within 120 days of the Effective Date, PPB shall establish a Memphis Model CrisisInterventionteam(“[ECIT]”).ComplianceLabel PartialCompliance Methodology ReviewedBHU/ECITdata;InterviewBHU/ECIT/PPBPersonnel;

ReviewedMentalHealthMaskdata;ReviewedBOECdata;ConductedfocusgroupswithECITandnon-ECITofficers


PPB continues to operate a modified “Memphis” model of crisis intervention. PPB’s

approachmaybeareasonablealternativetothetraditionalMemphismodel,butthatremainsuncertain.AftertwofullyearsundertheSettlementAgreement,wedonotbelievePPBhasthedatasystemsinplacetoadequatelymeasuretheeffectivenessoftheiruniquesystem.

InorderforPPBtoevaluatetheirmodifiedmodelandjustifyadeviationfromtheoriginalMemphisCITmodel,werecommendthattheysetupdataanalysissystemsandutilizeexistingdatatoanswerthefollowingquestionsinacomprehensivefashion.Thesequestionspertaintothree areas: 1. Assessing volume, resource allocation and response capacity; 2. Assessingoutcomes of mental health related calls (ECIT and CIT withMH Component), 3. ComparingoutcomesofcallshandledbyECITandCITofficers.

1. WhatpercentofcallsthatPPBrespondstohaveamentalhealthcomponent?a. Whatpercentofmentalhealthcomponentcalls is thepersonexperiencing

mental illness theprimary subject of the interaction (e.g. not awitness orreportingparty)?

2. WhatpercentofmentalhealthcallsthatPPBrespondstomeetECITcriteria?3. WhatisthePrecinctdistributionofcallscodedasECITbyBOEC?4. WhatistheShiftdistributionofcallscodedasECITbyBOEC?5. WhatisthenumberofECITofficersineachPrecinct/Shiftcomparedwiththenumber

ofcallsthatmeettheECITdispatchcriteria?6. InwhatpercentofcallsthatmeetECITdispatchcriteriaisanECITofficerrequiredto

traveltwoormorepatrolareastoreachthecall?



52

7. WhatisthepercentofcallscodedasECITbyBOECthatreceiveanECITresponse?a. AretherePrecinct/Shiftdifferencesinthisregard?

8. ForcallsthatmeettheECITdispatchcriteria,aretheredifferencesbetweenECITandnon-ECITofficersinthefollowingoutcomes:

a. UseofForceb. Disposition(e.g.arrest,referral,etc.)c. TransporttoHospital/PESd. Contactsurveyresults(tobeimplemented)

9. Forcallsthathaveamentalhealthcomponent(butdonotmeettheECITdispatchcriteria),aretheredifferencesbetweenECITandnon-ECITofficers inthefollowingoutcomes:

a. UseofForceb. Disposition(e.g.arrest,referral,etc.)c. TransporttoHospitald. Contactsurveyresults(tobeimplemented)

10. WhatisthedegreeofcollaborationbetweenPPB,BOEC,andotherCity/communitypartnersintheongoingreviewandsubsequentdevelopmentofECIT?

PPB has asked for time to collect data to evaluate theirmodifiedMemphismodel of

mentalhealthresponse.COCLandDOJprovisionallyagreedthatPPBshouldbegiventheroomtodemonstratethattheirmodelisresponsivetotheneedsofthePortlandcommunity.Whilewe have seen some success anecdotally with PPB’s approach, we have yet to see acomprehensive evaluation. As we are moving into Year 3, we recommend PPB collect andanalyzeappropriateevaluationdatatoaddressthequestionsposedabove.

COCLRecommendations

• DevelopandutilizedatasystemscapableofdemonstratingtheresponsivenessofPPB’smodifiedMemphismodel

ComplianceRatingBasedOn

• COCLreviewofMentalHealthMaskdata• COCLreviewofBOECdata• COCLmeetingswithBHUandPPBpersonnel• COCLride-alongswithECITofficers• FocusgroupswithPPBpersonnel


100.PPB’s[ECIT]shallbecomprisedofofficerswhovolunteerforassignmenttothe[ECIT].Thenumberof[ECIT]memberswillbedrivenbythedemandfor[ECIT]services,withaninitialgoalof60-80volunteer,qualifiedofficers.ComplianceLabel PartialCompliance



53

Methodology ReviewECITRosterfoundinQ3andQ4supportingdocuments;ReviewMHMdata;InterviewBHU/ECIT/PPBpersonnel;ReviewDirective850.20


AlthoughPPBhascertainlymet the“initialgoalof60-80volunteer,qualifiedofficers”

(PPBhad106operationalECITmembersinQ4of2016),wehaveseennoevidencethatallowsus todetermine if currentnumber is a consistentwith thedemand for ECIT services. InourassessmentofPar.99,weidentifyanalysesthatPPBshouldperformtoevaluatetheirmentalhealthresponsemodel.TheresultsoftheseanalysesshouldprovidePPBwithanunderstandingofthedemandforECITservicesandthenumber/distributionofofficersthatisneededtocoverthedemand.PPBshouldutilizethedatathatcurrentlyexisttobeginaddressingthispoint.

COCLRecommendations

• UtilizeexistingdatatoassessdemandforECITservices


• COCLreviewofMentalHealthMaskdata• COCLreviewofECITrosters


101.Noofficersmayparticipatein[ECIT]iftheyhavebeensubjecttodisciplinaryactionbaseduponuseofforceormistreatmentofpeoplewithmentalillnesswithinthethreeyearsprecedingthestartof[ECIT]service,orduring[ECIT]service.PPB,withtheadviceofthe[BHU]AdvisoryCommittee,shalldefinecriteriaforqualification,selection,andongoingparticipationofofficersinthe[ECIT].ComplianceLabel PartialCompliance Methodology ReviewedSOP#43;ReviewedSOP#3-3;Reviewedevaluation

documentsforpotentialECITofficers

ComplianceAssessmentIn the fourth quarter of 2016, a new class of ECIT officers was trained by PPB. We

reviewed documents related to 22 potential ECIT officers to evaluate adherence to theSettlementAgreementregardingtheselectionofECITofficers.WealsoreviewedtheBHUAC’srecommendationsregardingqualificationandselectioncriteriaforECITofficers.

OuranalysisshowedthatthereviewofECITcandidateswasthoroughandin-linewiththerecommendationsofBHUACandthemandatesoftheSettlementAgreement.Thepre-trainingevaluation of potential ECIT officers included a supervisor questionnaire (which includesquestions in-line with BHUAC recommendations), evaluations of EIS entries, evaluation of



54

InternalAffairshistory(includingwhethertheofficerwassubjecttodisciplineforuseofforceormistreatmentofpeoplewithmentalillness),andareviewoftheirprobationarystatus.

TwoofficershadpendingInternalAffairscasesrelatedtotheuseofforceormistreatmentofpeoplewithmental illness.Thesetwoofficerswereallowedtoparticipate inECIT trainingconditionally,withtheunderstandingthattheywouldnotbeallowedtocommenceECITserviceuntilthecomplaintswereresolved.PPBinformsusthatthecomplaintagainstoneofficerwasnot sustained and that officer has begun ECIT service. The other officer’s complaint is stillpending and this officer is not identified as an ECIT officer in BOEC or PPB databases. Thisapproachisconsistentwiththeparagraph101andPPB’scriteriaforECITservice.

In the third quarter of 2016, the BHUAC again reviewed SOP #3-3 (“Enhanced CrisisInterventionTeam”).Uponreview,theSOPwassignedbytheCentralPrecinctCommanderonSeptember2,2016.However,thelanguageoftheSOPcontinuestosaytheBHULieutenantwill“ReviewanysustainedIAinvestigationinvolvingforceormisconduct…”Aswehavepreviouslynoted, the Settlement Agreement does not contemplate a review of a sustained complaint;ratheritrequiresanautomaticremovaloftheofficerfromECITservice.

Ourreport(aswellasDOJ’s)identifyingthediscrepancywasreleasedafterthesigningofthe SOP. Given that, we recommend PPB make the changes as soon as possible. Asrecommendedlanguage,theSOPcouldberevisedtosay“TheBHULieutenantshall:…InitiateremovalproceedingsintheeventofanysustainedIAinvestigationinvolvingforceormisconductagainstapersonwithmental illness” (new language in italics).Thismaybecoupledwiththebulletpointthat“AnydecisiontoremoveanECITofficerfromtheteamwillbecoordinatedbytheCentralPrecinctCommander.”

COCLRecommendations

• ReviseSOP3-3tobecomeconsistentwiththeSettlementAgreement


• COCLreviewofSOP#3-3• COCLreviewofSOP#43• COCLreviewofevaluationdocuments


102.PPBshallspeciallytraineach[ECIT]memberbeforesuchmembermaybeutilizedfor[ECIT]operations.PPB,withtheadviceofthe[BHU]AdvisoryCommittee,shalldevelopsuchtrainingfor[ECIT]membersconsistentwiththeMemphisModel.ComplianceLabel SubstantialComplianceMethodology ReviewedECITtrainingdocuments;ObservedECIT40-hourtraining;

ObservedECITrefreshertraining




55

Overthepastyearandahalf,wehaveobservedthecompleteECIT40-hourtrainingaswellasanECITrefresherclassforofficerswhowentthroughECITtrainingpriortonewmaterialbeingaddedtothecurriculum.WehavespokenwithPPB,BHU,andTrainingDivisionmembersregarding the development, execution, and evaluation of the ECIT training. Last year, weprovided a Technical Assistance (TA) Statement regarding the 40-hour training as well asconveyedourcritiquesoftheECITrefreshertraininginourlastcompliancereport.

PPB hasmade a number of changes to their ECIT training that are responsive to ourrecommendations, including providing binders, holding a graduation ceremony, facilitatingpaneldiscussions,andincreasingculturaldiversityinscenarios(e.g.havingscenarioactorscomefromvaryingracial,ethnic,andculturalbackgrounds).Fortheseandotherchanges,theBHUcoordinatedwith theBHUACasevidenced inmeetingminutes.Suchcollaboration isentirelywithinthespiritoftheSettlementAgreement.

AlthoughPPBhasanongoingobligationtoevaluatetheECITtrainingandmakenecessaryadjustments,webelieve that theyhavesubstantiallycompliedwith therequirementsofPar.102.AlthoughwefindthetrainingtobeconsistentwiththeMemphismodel intermsofthecontent, PPB’s overall evaluation of their unique mental health response model (see ourassessmentofPar.99)willdeterminewhetherfuturechangesmaybenecessary.

COCLRecommendations



• COCLobservationofECIT40-hourtraining• COCLobservationofECITrefreshertraining• COCLreviewofPPBresponsestopreviousrecommendations


103.[ECIT]memberswillretaintheirnormaldutiesuntildispatchedforuseas[ECIT].BOECorPPBmaydispatch[ECIT]memberstothesceneofacrisisevent.ComplianceLabel SubstantialCompliance Methodology InterviewedPPBpersonnel;InterviewedBOECpersonnel;Reviewed

Directive850.20;Reviewedknowledgecheck;Observed2016In-Servicetraining


InaccordancewithPar.103(andtheMemphismodelofmentalhealthcrisisresponse),

ECITmembersretaintheirnormaldutiesuntildispatchedforuseasECIT.BOECpersonnelhavereceivedtrainingonthecriteriafordispatchinganECITtoacall(seeourassessmentofPar.114).Additionally, PPB’s Directive 850.20 includes the criteria for when an officer is required torequestECITassistance.UponthereleaseofDirective850.20,officerswererequiredtoperform



56

aknowledgechecktomakesuretheyunderstoodtheDirective.TheknowledgecheckincludesatestquestiononECITresponsecriteriaaswellasaquestiononhowtomakearequestforECITassistance.Of817officerswho took theknowledgecheckonDirective850.20,814 (99.63%)correctly identifiedtheresponseoptionsthatwouldrequireanECITdispatch.All817officerscorrectlyidentifiedtherequirementtorequestanECITofficerthroughBOEC.Furthermore,inPPB’s2016In-Service,officerswereprovidedrefresherinformationonthecontentofDirective850.20andengagedinanevaluationofofficerretention.ResultsoftheIn-Serviceevaluationshould informthe2017NeedsAssessment.Takentogether,webelievePPBhassubstantiallycompliedwith the requirementsofPar.103, thoughPPBshouldcontinue toevaluateofficercomprehensionandadherencetoDirective850.20usingorganizationaldata.

COCLRecommendations



• COCLinterviewsofPPBandBOECpersonnel;Directive850.20andassociatedknowledgecheck;2016In-Service


104.PPBwillhighlighttheworkofthe[ECIT]toincreaseawarenessoftheeffectivenessofitswork.ComplianceLabel SubstantialCompliance Methodology ReviewedPPBpublicawarenessefforts;ReviewedBHUwebsite;

ReviewedBHUACminutes

ComplianceAssessmentPPBcontinuestoperformawidevarietyoftasksdesignedtoincreaseawarenessofthe

workperformedbyBHU,ECIT,BHRT,andSCT.Thisworkincludesflashalertemails,newsletters,conference presentations, conference attendance, community outreach training andpresentations,socialmedia,andotherefforts.WebelievethatPPBhasmadeaseriousefforttohighlighttheworkoftheBHUinitsentirety,notonlyECIT.

PerBHUACmeetingminutes,onOctober26,2017,PPBpresented toBHUACa listofoutreachefforts to increase awarenessofBHU, ECIT, BHRT, and SCT. This is responsive to arecommendationwehavemadeinpreviouscompliancereports.BHUACappearedimpressedbythetypeandscopeofoutreachperformedbyBHU.UponreviewbyBHUAC,adiscussionensuedaboutareaswhereoutreachmaybeenhanced,thoughnoformalrecommendationsweremadeon additional outreach. Based on this and our previous review of PPB outreach efforts, webelievetherequirementsofPar.104havebeensubstantiallycompliedwith.PPBshouldcontinuetohighlighttheworkofallaspectsofBHU.



57

COCLRecommendations

• ContinuetohighlighttheworkofallaspectsofBHU


• COCLreviewofpublicawareness/educationdocuments• COCLreviewofminutesforpresentationtoBHUAC


105.Foreachcrisiseventtowhich[ECIT]isdispatched,the[ECIT]membershallgatherdatathat[BHU]shallutilizetotrackandreportdataonpublicsafetysysteminteractionswithindividualswith perceived or actualmental illness orwho are in crisis. These data shall include: (COCLsummary)therequiredtrackingofdetailsaboutthecontextandnatureofincident,informationaboutthesubject,techniquesused,injuries,disposition,presenceofmentalhealthprofessionalonscene,andanarrativeoftheevent.ComplianceLabel PartialCompliance Methodology ReviewedMentalHealthMaskdata;InterviewedBHUandPPB

personnel

ComplianceAssessmentInthethirdandfourthquarterof2016,PPBusedtheMentalHealthMask(MHM)asthe

methodforcollectingthedatapointsrequiredinPar.105.AlthoughthereremainsomeissueswithreliabilityrelatedtotheMHM(seeourlastreport),webelieveditwasoverallsufficienttocapturethedatapoints.However,issuesofdiscoverabilityinthelegalprocesshasforcedPPBtomodifytheprocessandwhentheMHMinformationwillbecollected.

Per PPB, the data collected on ECIT mental health interactions will likely not besignificantlyaffected–ECITofficerswillstillberequiredtocompleteadatatemplateoncallswheretheyareactinginanECITcapacity.Additionally,ECITandnonECITofficerswillcompletethedatatemplateforallcallswithamentalhealthcomponentinwhichaGeneralOffenseReport(GO)iscompleted.WeaskPPBtoconsiderthepotentialforanECITcall(ascodedbyBOEC)beinghandledbyaCITofficerwhenanECITofficerisnotavailablebutwithoutthecompletionofaGO.Inthatcase,theofficershouldberequiredtocompleteaMHtemplate.

InadditiontotrackingmentalhealthcallsusingtheMHM,theBHUisrequiredtoreportonthedatacollected. AspartofPPB’ssupportingdocumentsfortheirquarterlyreports,wehavereviewedreportsthatsummarizetheMHMdataasitrelatestoECITinvolvementsuchcalls,communitymemberdemographics, thepresenceofaweapon, the techniquesused (e.g.de-escalation,disengagement,etc.),theuseofforce, injuriesrelatedtothecall,thepresenceofsupervisorsormentalhealthprofessionals,andthedispositionofthecall. PPBshouldutilizesuchdata toassess theircurrentstrategiesand identifypotentialways to improveresponse.Althoughwehave reviewed the reports, theydonot appear on thePPB’s BHUwebsite and



58

thereforethecommunitydoesnothavethebenefitofreadingthem.WerecommendPPBpostthesereportsontheBHUwebsite.

COCLRecommendations

• EvaluatefuturedatacollectiontoolsformentalhealthinteractionstoensurethatdataarecollectedforallcallsmeetingECITcriteria

• UtilizeMHMreportstoassesscurrentstrategiesandidentifypotentialwaystoimproveresponse

• PostMHMdatareportsonwebsiteComplianceRatingBasedOn

• COCLreviewofMentalHealthMaskdata• COCLinterviewswithBHUandPPBpersonnel

D.MobileCrisisPreventionTeam


106.PPBcurrentlyhasa[BHRT]comprisedofatwo-personteam,oneswornofficerandonecontractorwhoisaqualifiedmentalhealthprofessional.Within120daysoftheEffectiveDate,Cityshallexpand[BHRT]toprovideone[BHRT]carperPPBprecinct.107.Each[BHRT]carshallbestaffedbyoneswornPPBofficerandonequalifiedmentalhealthprofessional.[BHRT]shallbethefulltimeassignmentofeachsuchofficer.ComplianceLabel SubstantialCompliance Methodology ReviewedBHUUnitStructure


PPB continues tohaveaBHRT car in eachprecinct comprisedof oneofficer andone

qualified mental health professional. For the officer, the BHRT is considered their full-timeassignment.WithregardstothePPB’srequirementsoftheseparagraphs,theycontinuetobeinsubstantialcompliance.

COCLRecommendations



• COCLreviewofBHUUnitStructure



59


108.Noofficersmayparticipatein[BHRT]iftheyhavebeensubjecttodisciplinaryactionbaseduponuseofforceormistreatmentofpeoplewithmentalillnesswithinthethreeyearsprecedingthe startof [BHRT] service,orduring [BHRT] service.PPB,with theadviceof [BHU]AdvisoryCommittee,shalldefinecriteriaforqualification,selection,andongoingparticipationofofficersinthe[BHRT].ComplianceLabel PartialCompliance Methodology ReviewedBHUACminutes;ReviewedSOP#3-2;ReviewedSOP#43


Inthethirdquarterof2016,SOP#3-2(“BehavioralHealthResponseTeam”)wassigned

bytheCentralPrecinctCommander.InthesameveinasSOP#3-3(“EnhancedCrisisInterventionTeam”),thelanguageofSOP#3-2indicatesthattheBHULieutenantwill“ReviewanysustainedIAinvestigationinvolvingforceormisconduct…”AswithourassessmentofPar.101,theSOPwas signed prior to our last report (when we first identified the inconsistency with theSettlementAgreement).WethereforerecommendPPBrefertothelanguagewesetforthinourassessment of Par. 101 when revising SOP #3-2 so that it reflects the requirements of theAgreement.

Upon this revision and the continued use of SOP #43 (for ongoing participation), webelieve PPB will have sufficiently defined criteria for qualification, selection and ongoingparticipationofofficersintheBHRTanddonesousingtheconsultationoftheBHUAC.

COCLRecommendations

• ReviseSOP3-2tobecomeconsistentwiththeSettlementAgreement


• COCLreviewofSOP#3-2• COCLreviewofSOP#43


109. PPB shall specially train each [BHRT]member before suchmembermay be utilized for[BHRT]operations.PPB,withtheadviceofthe[BHU]AdvisoryCommittee,shalldevelopsuchtrainingfor[BHRT]members.ComplianceLabel SubstantialComplianceMethodology ReviewedBHUACrecommendationsforSOP#3-2




60

Inthethirdquarterof2016,SOP#3-2(“BehavioralHealthResponseTeam”)wassigned

bytheCentralPrecinctCommander.TherecommendationsofBHUACregardingBHRTmembertraining is memorialized within SOP #3-2. The SOP contains a declaration of PPB’s “strongcommitment”toBHRTofficerscontinuingtoattendtraining“basedonavailabilityandfunding”(SOP#3-2).WecommendPPBfordocumentingthiscommitmentintheSOP.

Inthethirdandfourthquarter,membersofBHRT(aswellasothermembersofBHU)attendedtrainingsrelatedtotraumainformedcare,threatassessment,crisisnegotiation,crisisintervention, and mental health holds. Where appropriate, we recommend PPB createsupplementaltrainingmaterialspecifictoPortland.

COCLRecommendations

• DevelopsupplementaltrainingmaterialspecifictoPortlandcontextwhereappropriate(forexample,resourceguidesandupdates)


• COCLreviewofSOP#3-2• COCLreviewofexternaltrainingdocuments


110. [BHRT] shall utilize [ECIT] data to proactively addressmental health service, in part, byconnectingservicerecipientswithserviceproviders.ComplianceLabel PartialCompliance Methodology ReviewedMentalHealthMaskdata


PPBinitiatedtheMentalHealthMask(MHM)inthefirstquarterof2016.AlthoughPPB

putsforthsummaryinformationonMHMresultsitisnotclearifBHRTiscurrentlyusingthedatato connect specific “service recipients with service providers.” One way that PPB couldaccomplishthis istocullthroughtheMHMdatato identify individualswhomayhaverepeatcontactswithPPBofficersbutwhohavenotbeenreferredtoBHRT.Thiswouldbeaproactiveattempt to identify persons thatmay benefit from BHRT serviceswithout having to rely onreferrals fromPPBofficers. PPBmayalso consider identifying areas, locations, and facilitieswhereinteractionsinvolvingpersonswithmentalillnesshavehigherfrequenciesanddeterminewhetheradditionalresourcesorstrategiesarenecessary.AlthoughthiscouldbedonewiththecurrentiterationoftheMHM,futurerevisedversionsoftheMHMshouldalsoensurethatthesetypesofanalysescanbeaccomplished.

COCLRecommendations

• UsecurrentMHMdatatoidentifypotentialBHRTclients• Ensurethatfuturerevisedversionsofthemaskretaintheability

toidentifypotentialBHRTclients



61


• COCLreviewofMentalHealthMaskdataandBHUreports.• LackofevidencerelatedtoBHRTutilizingMHMdatatoidentify

individualsforintervention.


111.Within180daysoftheEffectiveDate,PPB,withtheadviceof[BHU]AdvisoryCommittee,shall develop policies and procedures for the transfer of custody or voluntary referral ofindividualsbetweenPPB,receivingfacilities,andlocalmentalhealthandsocialserviceagencies.These policies and procedures shall clearly describe the roles and responsibilities of theseentitiesandof[BHRT]officersintheprocess.ComplianceLabel PartialCompliance Methodology ReviewedDirectives850.20,850.21,850.22,and850.25;Engagedin

policyreviewwithPPBandDOJ

ComplianceAssessmentRevisionsofDirectives850.21,850.22,and850.25weremadeinthethirdquarterof2016

toreflectthepracticeofAMRprovidingtransportationforapersononamentalhealthhold.TherevisionsweremadeinconsultationwithDOJandCOCLandtheDirectivesreceivedDOJapprovalinthefourthquarterof2016.However,thedirectiveshavenotyetbeensignedbytheChiefasthepracticeofAMRtransportsiscontingentupontheopeningoftheUnityCenter.Thisistobeaccomplishedinthefirstquarterof2017.WeexpectthatPPBwillissuethereviseddirectivesoncetheUnityCenterPEScomesonlineandtrainmembersonthereviseddirectivestoensurecomprehensionthroughouttheBureau.Thistrainingshouldincludeatestofcomprehension.

COCLRecommendations

• IssuereviseddirectivesonceUnityCenterPESopens• Trainandtestmembersonreviseddirectives


• COCLreviewofDirectives850.20,850.21,850.22,and850.25



62

E.ServiceCoordinationTeam


112. The Service Coordination Team (“SCT”), or its successor, shall serve to facilitate theprovision of services to individuals who interact with PPB that also have a criminal record,addiction,andhighlyacutementalorphysicalhealthserviceneeds.ComplianceLabel SubstantialComplianceMethodology ReviewedSCToutcomemeasures;ReviewedSCTReferralsReport


PPBcontinuestofacilitatetheprovisionofservicestoindividualswhoexperiencedrug-

addiction,mentalillness,andarechronicallyinvolvedincriminalbehavior.TheSCTcoordinatesaccesstohousing,medical,counseling,andaddiction/mentalhealthservices.MembersoftheSCTareproactiveinseekingoutcollaborationswithotherstakeholdersintheStateofOregon.SCT currently has a graduation rate of approximately 20%. Those who do graduate, havesignificantimprovementsonmeasuresofemployment.WecontinuetobelieveSCTsubstantiallycomplieswiththerequirementsofPar.112andcommendthemfortheworktheyaredoing.

COCLRecommendations

• ContinuecollectingdatarelatedtoSCToutcomes• Useoutcomedatatoinformprogramimprovements• ContinueeffortstocollaboratewithotherStatestakeholders


• COCLreviewofSCTprocess• COCLreviewofSCToutcomemeasures• COCLreviewofStateBehavioralHealthCollaborativeTeam

application

F.BOEC


113.Within120daysoftheEffectiveDate,BOECandPPB,withtheadviceofthe[BHU]AdvisoryCommittee,shallcompletepoliciesandprocedurestotriagecallsrelatedtomentalhealthissues,includingchangestoprotocolsforassigningcallstoMultnomahCountyCrisisCallCenter,andaddingneworrevisedpoliciesandprotocolstoassigncallstothePPB[BHU]ordirectlytoNGOsorcommunity-basedmentalhealthprofessionals.ComplianceLabel SubstantialCompliance



63

Methodology InterviewedBOECpersonnel;ReviewedBOECprotocols;ReviewedBHUACminutes


As indicated inourprevious report,BOEChas completed thepolicies andprocedures

prescribedwithinPar.113.TheBOECpoliciesandproceduresdirectcall-takersanddispatcherswhento transferacall toanECITofficer (i.e.mentalhealthcrisisand: (1)uponrequestofacommunitymember;(2)uponrequestoftherespondingofficer;(3)wherethesubjectisviolent;(4)wherethesubjecthasaweapon;(5)wherethesubjectisthreatingorattemptingsuicideor;(6)thecallisataresidentialmentalhealthfacility)orwhentotransferacalltotheMultnomahCountyCrisisLine.AlthoughthereisnoprocesstoassigncallsdirectlytoNGOsorcommunity-basedmentalhealthprofessionals,theCrisisLineactsasareferralpointandisbetterequippedto identifypotential resources for thepersonwithmental illness thanBOEC. Crisis Line candetermineifthepersonalreadyhasamentalhealthservicesproviderandcanhelpcoordinatecare. Crisis Line has information on referrals for persons not connected to services.Furthermore,theCrisisLinecandispatchProjectRespond.Finally,theCrisisLinewillre-engageBOECiftheyidentifyanimminentthreatinvolvedwiththecall(e.g.overdoseorpresenceofaweapon)andBOECcanthendispatchanECITofficer.Thus,whileBOEC’spoliciesdonotrequirethemtodispatchtoaNGOorcommunity-basedmentalhealthprovider,theirpartnershipwithCrisisLinemeetstheintentofPar.113withinthesystemavailabletothem.

Additionally, thepoliciesandprocedureswerecreatedwith feedback fromBHUAC. Infuture reports, we will be looking at the application of the policies and procedures andinterviewing BOEC and PPB personnel to identify potential barriers in the process. Shouldbarriersbeidentified,werecommendBOECconsultwithBHUAConhowtheymightberesolved,andreviseaccordingly.However,atthistime,webelieveBOEChassubstantiallycompliedwiththerequirementsofPar.113.

COCLRecommendations

• Conductperiodicassessmentofpoliciesandprocedurestoidentifyissuesorconcerns,consultwithBHUAConpotentialresolutions,andreviseaccordingly


• COCLreviewofBOECprotocolsforECITdispatch• COCLreviewofBOECprotocolsforsuicidalcallers• COCLreviewofBHUACminutes


114.Within180daysoftheEffectiveDate,theCitywillcompletetrainingofallBOECDispatchersinCrisisTriage.TheCity,withtheadviceofthe[BHU]AdvisoryCommittee,shalldevelopongoingtrainingforBOECDispatchers.ComplianceLabel PartialCompliance



64

Methodology ObservedBOECCITTraining

ComplianceAssessmentInNovemberof2016,theCOCLteamobservedaneight-hourCITtrainingprovidedby

BOECtoagroupofemergencycommunicators (call-takersanddispatchpersonnel).WenotethatBOEChadoriginallyplannedfora16-hourtrainingonCIT,thoughwereinitiallyunabletodoso.BOECemployeeswhoreceivedthe8-hourtrainingwillreceiveanadditional8hoursinthesecondquarterof2017.Newhireswillreceivethe16-hourtrainingasasingleblock,whichwearetoldwillbegininthesecondandthirdquarterof2017.

This training was developed in consultation with BHUAC. In December of 2016, weprovidedBOECwithanoral assessmentofourperceptionsof the trainingand subsequentlyprovidedthemwithaTechnicalAssistance(TA)Statementinthefirstquarterof2017.AlthoughourTAStatementwasnotreleaseduntilthefirstquarterof2017,theworkwasperformedin2016Q4andisthereforeappropriatetoincludeinthisreport.

Oneissuethatweobservedinthetrainingwasalackofsubjectmatterexpertsinseveralsegmentsofthetraining.Forthesesegments,BOECsupervisorspresentedthematerialdespitenotbeingcontentexpertsinmentalhealthresponseandmentalillness.Duringthesesessions,itwasclear that theBOECsupervisorswerenotcompletely familiaror comfortablewith thesubjectmaterial.ForalltrainingtopicsoutsidetheexpertiseofBOECsupervisors,subjectmatterexpertsshouldpresentthematerial.

Wealsonotethat,althoughhandoutswereprovidedforsomesegmentsofthetraining,therewere not handouts for all segments and thematerialswere distributed inconsistentlyacrossdifferenttrainingdays.Forinstance,amemberofDOJattendedtheBOECtrainingthedayafterweobserved.WhencomparingournoteswithDOJ,wefoundthatthetrainingattendedbyCOCL receivedhandoutsnotprovided to studentsat the trainingobservedbyDOJ. Thiswasapparentlytheresultoftwodifferentinstructorsteachingthesessionondifferentdays.

Inothersections,theinformationwasnotdeliveredinamannerconsistentwithmostCITtrainings.Forexample,theemergencycommunicatorswatchedavideothatsimulatedaperson“hearingvoices.”Although“hearingvoices”exercisesarecommon inCITtrainings, it ismoreoftenthestudentsthemselveswhogothroughtheexperienceratherthanwatchingavideoofsomeoneelseexperiencingit.Thiscanbeaccomplishedthroughtheuseofheadphonesorothermeans.However,thepointoftheexerciseisforthestudenttogaingreaterunderstandingofhowdifficultitistocompleteseeminglyeasytaskswhenexperiencingauditoryhallucinations.

As another example, emergency communicatorswatched a videowherein individualswithschizophreniadiscussedlifewithmentalillness.InmostCITtrainings,aconsumerorfamilypanelisusedtofacilitatediscussion,thoughinthisinstance,thevideowasusedasasubstitute.Whilethevideosavedtimeandresourcescomparedwithhavingafamilyorconsumerpanel,thereisanetlosscomparedwiththeexperienceandinsightthatwouldhavecomewithapanel.The video also does not allow for a question/answer session, is not unique to the Portlandexperience,andwassolelyfocusedonschizophrenia.BOEChasinformedusthatfuturetrainingswillincludeapanelportion.

The scenario portion of the BOEC training contained several issues that should beaddressedforfuturetrainings.Oneissuewasanapparentlackofengagementbytheemergency



65

communicators,whodidnotapproachthescenariosasanopportunitytopracticetheskillstheyhadjustlearned.Webelievethismayhavebeenmitigatedbyholdingthescenariosinamoretrue-to-lifemanner.Duringthescenarios,allemergencycommunicatorssataroundatableandonly four of them actually participated in a scenario. The otherswere asked towrite downsuggestions if one came to mind to assist that participant. Instead, we suggest that futuretraining scenarios have the emergency communicator be at a work station where they arerequiredtotypeinformationintoacomputerandwherethereisnotoutsideassistance.Thiswouldbemuchmorereal-lifeandwouldforcetheparticipantstofocusonthetaskathand.

Wealsonotedthatthedebriefingsessionforthescenariosonlyfocusedonthepositiveactionstakenbytheparticipantanddidnotofferconstructivefeedbackonthingsthatcouldbeimproved.ThismaybeduetotheBOECsupervisoractingastheassessorofbehaviorratherthanasubjectmatterexpert.Inthefuture,thosemorefamiliarwithcrisiscommunicationskillswouldbepreferableastheywouldbeabletoprovideamorecomprehensiveassessmentofstudentperformance.

Finally, the policies and procedures referenced in Par. 113 were presented to theemergency communicators. Although the policies and procedures were already enacted byBOEC,thetrainingsessiongavetheparticipantsachancetoaskquestionsandreceiveclarity.WenotedanumberofconcernsregardingtherevisedBOECpoliciesor thereasonswhythechanges were necessary.We have been informed thatmany of BOEC personnel’s concernsrelatedto liability forutilizingdiscretionforwhentotransfercalls totheMultnomahCountyCrisisCallCenterandwhentodispatchanECITofficer.Inthefirstandsecondquarterof2017,wewillprobetheseconcernsbyinterviewingemergencycommunicators,identifyingthespecificcausesoftheconcerns,andworkingwithBOECtoresolvetheissues.

COCLRecommendations

• Continuetrainingallemergencycommunicators• Obtainsubjectmatterexpertsforallrelevantclasses• Ensureconsistentdistributionofinformationacrossalltrainings• Includeexercisesandpanelsinplaceofvideos• EnhancescenarioportionofCITtraining


• COCLobservationofBOECtraining• ReviewofTrainingMaterials


115.Within180daysoftheEffectiveDate,theCityshallensureCrisisTriageisfullyoperationaltoincludetheimplementationofthepoliciesandproceduresdevelopedpursuanttotheaboveparagraphandoperationbytrainedstaff.ComplianceLabel PartialCompliance Methodology ObservedBOECTraining




66

TheabilityofBOECtocomplywithPar.115iscontingentuponthesuccessfuldeliveryof

training, BOEC personnel conformancewith the training, and BOEC’s ability to provide dataindicatingthat“CrisisTriageisfullyoperational.”Thisconformstotheoverallmodelthatsoundpolicies should lead to sound training, which in turn should lead to improved behavior(appropriatelymeasured).Currently,BOEChascreatedrevisedpoliciesandproceduresthatwebelieveare inaccordancewiththerequirementsofPar.113(seeabove). Additionally,BOECbeguntrainingemergencycommunicatorsonthepoliciesandproceduresaswellas inCIT ingeneral.AsevidencedinourassessmentofPar.114,wecannotyetcategorizethedeliveryoftrainingas“successful”untilfurtherimprovementsaremade.Thus,atthispartofthemodel,BOECneedstorefinethetrainingsothattheycanbettermeasureadherencetothepoliciesandprocedures.

In the first and second quarter of 2017, wewill interview BOEC personnel to assessunderstandingof(andbyextension,conformancewith)thenewpoliciesandprocedures.Uponthesuccessfulevaluationoftheseaspects,wewillthenworkwithBOECtosetupsystemsofself-monitoring to assess their Crisis Triage data and establish benchmarks for what may beconsidered“fullyoperational.”

TocomprehensivelyevaluatewhetherCrisisTriageis“fullyoperational,”webelieveBOECmayneedtohireananalystposition.Currently,BOECisunabletoproduceoranalyzedatainamannerthatisresponsivetotheSettlementAgreement.WerecommendthatBOECeitherhireananalystorcoordinatewithPPBtoperformjointanalysisofmentalhealthresponse.

COCLRecommendations

• Continuetrainingallemergencycommunicators• Obtainsubjectmatterexpertsforallrelevantclasses• Ensureconsistentdistributionofinformationacrossalltrainings• Includeexercisesandpanelsinplaceofvideos• EnhancescenarioportionofCITtraining• ObtainananalysttoevaluateBOECresponsibilities


• COCLobservationofBOECtraining• Reviewoftrainingmaterials• Unfulfilledrequestfordata



67

VII.EMPLOYEEINFORMATIONSYSTEM


116.PPBhasanexistingEmployeeInformationSystem(“EIS”)toidentifyemployeesanddesignassistancestrategiestoaddressspecificissuesaffectingtheemployee.SeePPBManual345.00.PPBagrees toenhance itsEIS tomoreeffectively identifyat-riskemployees, supervisorsandteamstoaddresspotentiallyproblematictrendsinatimelyfashion.Accordingly,within90daysoftheEffectiveDate,PPBshall:(a)Requirethatcommandersandsupervisorsconductpromptreviews of EIS records of employees under their supervision and document the review hasoccurredintheEISperformancetracker;(b)RequirethatcommandersandsupervisorspromptlyconductreviewsofEISforofficersnewtotheircommandanddocumentthereviewhasoccurredintheEISperformancetracker;and(c)RequirethatEISstaffregularlyconductdataanalysisofunitsandsupervisorstoidentifyandcomparepatternsofactivity.117.PPBagreestocollectdatanecessarytoconducttheseanalysesatsupervisor-andteam-levels.ComplianceLabel PartialCompliance Methodology DiscussionswithEIS/PPBpersonnel;ReviewedPPBEISanalysis


In theabsenceof compellingevidence thatPPBhaddevelopeda fully functioningEIS

program,theCOCL,onseveraloccasions,hasencouragedthePPBtodoso.PPBthenaskedforconsultationonEISenhancements.InDecemberof2016,theCOCLprovidedadraftTechnicalAssistanceStatement(TAStatement)toPPBregardingspecificwaysinwhichPPBcouldimprovethe process of assessing EIS flags, forwarding them on for supervisor or panel review,determininganappropriateintervention,andmonitoringofficerconductpost-intervention(seeAppendixB).OurmodelforenhancingtheEISprocessusedtheSARAmodelofproblemsolvingasaheuristicdevice(S=Scantheenvironmenttoidentifytheproblem;A=Analyzetheproblemtounderstandcontributingfactors;R=Respondtotheproblemwithinterventions;A=Assesstheeffectivenessof the interventions andmakeadjustments asneeded).COCLprovidedvariouswaysinwhicheachstepoftheSARAmodelcouldbeexecutedusingotherpoliceagenciesasexamples.Rather thanactingasaprescriptivedocument (i.e. imposing certainactions tobetakenbyPPB),theTAStatementidentifiesthetenetsofacomprehensivesystemforpreventingfutureadverseeventsinvolvingofficersandallowsPPBtodetermineacourseofactionwhichbestfitswithitsorganizationalstructureandworkforceissues.

We also note that, compared with other sections of the Settlement Agreement, theenhancementofEIShasmade the leastprogress.Timeandagain,wehavebeen toldbyEISpersonnel that the way EIS is currently being used is sufficient to satisfy the Settlement



68

Agreement,despitethecontinueddisagreementfromCOCLandDOJ.Consequently,wehaveseen little in thewayofmeaningfulprogressduring this reviewperiod,with littlemorethanacademicargumentsaboutthepredictivevalueofEIS.Aftertwoyears,webelievemoreprogressshouldhavebeenmadeandurgePPBtomakesubstantivechangesin2017.Inparticular,weareaskingPPBtohaveanopenmindaboutthepotentialbenefitsofafully-functioningEISprogramandtodevelopaprogramthatistailoredtothespecificneedsandworkenvironmentofthePPB.

As for their current procedure of evaluating subsections (a) and (b) of Par. 116, PPBreportssomedecreasesincompliancewithsupervisoryreviews.Forsubsection(a)(supervisorsperforming semi-annual reviews), compliance was at approximately 60% for both the thirdquarter(Q3)andfourthquarter(Q4)of2016.PPBindicatesthattherestructuringoftheBureaupriortoQ3hasimpactedtherates.Asthere-organizationoftheBureausettles,wewouldexpectthispercenttoimprovetopreviouslevels.Forsubsection(b)(supervisorsperformingreviewstoofficersnewtotheircommand),complianceratesdippedtoapproximately65%inQ3,whichrangedfrom84%to99%inpreviousquarters.PPBidentifiedthisdecreaseasanissueofconcernandquicklyresponded.Inthefourthquarter,compliancewithsubsection(b)increasedto88.7%.We commend PPB for moving quickly to address the lower compliance rates in Q3 andrecommend that they continue to monitor and respond to compliance rates for thesesubsections.

DespitePPB’seffortstomonitorcompliancewithreviewsrequiredinPars.116and117,COCLmaintainsthattheintentofthisrequirementgoesmuchfurtherthansimplyconductingreviewsofemployees.ThesereviewsandpresumedresponsesweremeanttobegroundedintheanalysisofPPBdataandobservedpatternsofpersonnelbehavior:“PPBagreestoenhanceits EIS to more effectively identify at-risk employees, supervisors and teams to addresspotentially problematic trends in a timely fashion.” This has yet to happen in a systematicmanner.

Acenturyofsocialscienceresearchisbasedonthepremisethathumanbehaviorisnotrandomand thatpastbehavior isoften indicativeof futurebehavior. In thecurrentcontext,someofficersengageinmoreat-riskbehaviorsthanothers.Whenadequatelymeasured,certainvariables have the power to identify officers whose future behavior are more likely to beproblematic for the Bureau, the community, and the officer’s employment. In 2016, EISadministratorsrejectedthispremise.

WhenPPBreviewsanEISflag,theevaluationshouldfocusonthepatternofforceeventsandpotentialexplanationsratherthantheindividualeventsthatcausedtheflag.Theevaluationshouldaddresswhythatpersondemonstratesahigherrateof force,complaints,communitymember injuries, etc. comparedwith other similarly situated officers, assuming there existssomemeaningfulpattern.Basedonthereasonsforhigherrates,interventionsmay(ormaynot)bedevelopedandimplementedfortheofficerandperformancewouldthenbemonitoredtodetermine whether further intervention is necessary. We urge the PPB to develop an EISprogramthatismorecomprehensive,notonlybyutilizingexistingPPBdatabutbyencouragingsupervisors and commanders to become more involved in the systematic review of at-riskofficers. Allowing one or two EIS administrators to decide whether a flag has merit is notconsistentwiththeintentofEIS.EISshouldbeatoolthatencouragesandsupportssupervisoryinterventioninapreventativemannerandisoverseenbyseniorPPBadministrators.



69

COCLRecommendations

• ReassessEISprocessinaccordancewithourTAStatement• CreatemeasurementsforeachstepoftheEISprocesstoensure

consistentandreliableinterventionsComplianceRatingBasedOn

• COCLreviewofEISandthresholdreviewprocess• COCLdiscussionswithEISAdministrators


118. PPB shall continue to use existing thresholds, and specifically continue to include thefollowingthresholdstotriggercasemanagementreviews:(a)Anyofficerwhohasusedforcein20%ofhisorherarrestsinthepastsixmonths;and(b)Anyofficerwhohasusedforcethreetimesmorethantheaveragenumberofusesofforcecomparedwithotherofficersonthesameshift.119.Within90daysoftheEffectiveDate,PPBshalladdoneadditionalthresholdtotriggercasemanagementreviewofanyofficerwhohasthreeusesofforceinaone-monthperiod.ComplianceLabel SubstantialCompliance Methodology InterviewedEIS/PPBpersonnel;ReviewedEISprogram


ThethresholdsPPBisrequiredtomaintainbasedonPar.118continuetobeusedtoflag

officers for casemanagement reviews. PPBhas also expanded the thresholds to include therequirement of Par. 119. Thus, PPB has substantially complied with these two paragraphs.However,asinpreviousreports,wehavearguedthatthethresholdsidentifiedintheSettlementAgreement are too broad to adequately identify individuals whomight benefit from a casemanagementreview(manywillgoundetected).IntheinterestofdevelopingacomprehensiveandeffectiveEISprogrambasedonbestpractices,wemaintainourrecommendationthatPPBconsiderrevisedthresholdsforEISreview.Hopefully,thatwilloccurinthecontextofrevisitingPar.117.However,theauthorsoftheSettlementAgreementagreedonthethresholdspresentinPars.118and119and,therefore,PPB’scomplianceshouldnotbejudgedonthebasisofahigherstandard.WethereforeassessPPB’scomplianceutilizingthecurrentthresholds.

COCLRecommendations

• Explorethepotentialforlowerthresholdstoidentifyalargerpopulationofat-riskemployees


• COCLreviewofEISthresholds



70


120.Within90daysoftheEffectiveDate,PPBshallidentifyandtrainasecondEISadministrator.ThisindividualmaybeassignedtoothertaskswithintheProfessionalStandardsDivisionorasotherwiseneeded.ComplianceLabel PartialComplianceMethodology ReviewedDirective345.00;ReviewedEISProgram


PPBreportintheirQ4updatethataSergeanthasbeentransferredtotheProfessional

StandardsDivisionandwillbecomeanadditionalEISAdministrator,bringingthetotaltothreeforthetimeframeofthisreport(however,thiswasnotmeanttobeapermanentchangeandthe total has since returned to two EISAdministrators). This newEISAdministratorwill alsocompilea“referencelibrarycontainingmaterialthatwillsupplementtheon-the-jobtrainingandidentifydomainsofknowledgenecessaryforsuccessfulfunctioningasanEISAdministrator.”Webelieve this is consistentwithour recommendation inprevious reports to compilea trainingmanualforEISandhaveresourcesdevotedtothepursuitofbestpracticesandevidence-basedpolicing.Therefore,substantialcompliancewillbeachievedpendingthesufficientcompletionofthemanual.

COCLRecommendations

• MoveforwardwithplanstocreateandimplementreferencelibraryforEISAdministrators

• ProvideCOCLwithupdatesasnecessaryComplianceRatingBasedOn

• PPBprevioustrainingofEISAdministrators



71

VIII.OFFICERACCOUNTABILITY

A.InvestigationTimeframe


121. PPB and the City shall complete all administrative investigations of officer misconductwithinone-hundredeighty(180)daysofacomplaintofmisconduct,ordiscoveryofmisconductbyothermeans.Forthepurposesofthisprovision,completionofadministrativeinvestigationsincludesallstepsfromintakeofallegationsthroughapprovalofrecommendedfindingsbytheChief,includingappeals,ifany,toCRC.AppealstoCRCshallberesolvedwithin21days.ComplianceLabel PartialCompliance Methodology ReviewCampbellDeLongResources,Inc.StakeholdersReport;

ObserveCityCouncilPresentation;Reviewdraftofproposedaccountabilitychanges


Using the memorandum provided by the Accountability Focus Group in the second

quarterof2016(seeourpreviouscomplianceassessment),theCitycraftedanoverhaultotheaccountabilitysystemwhichstreamlinedtheprocessofcomplaintinvestigation(removingthe“byzantine”structure),allowedforsupervisoryinvestigationsoflower-levelcomplaints,limitedthecriteriabywhichacomplaintmaybedismissed(leadingtothe investigationofnearlyallcomplaints),andcombinedthePRB/CRC.Inthisproposal,theresponsibilityforfindingsstayedwiththeRUManager.Theproposalwasmetwithdisapprovalfromcommunitymembersduringatown-hallheldinAugustof2016.Asaresultofthecommunitydisapproval,theproposalwasnotputinfrontoftheCouncilashadbeenpreviouslyscheduled.

InSeptemberof2016,theCityAuditorandDirectorofIPRwentbeforeCityCouncilwitha separate proposal for changes to City Code that they believed would respond to therequirementsoftheSettlementAgreement.Thisseparateproposalincludedstepstoreducethenumberofdaystakentoperformanadministrativeinvestigation,maintaintheseparationoftheCitizenReviewCommittee (CRC) andPoliceReviewBoard (PRB)meetings (thus keepingCRCopentothepublic),allowfortheinvestigatingagencytopreparefindings,limittheauthorityoftheIndependentPoliceReview(IPR)todismisscases,andexpandthepotentialfor“meaningfulindependent investigation by IPR, when IPR determines such independent investigation isnecessary”(seePar.128).

DuringtheCityCouncilmeeting,anumberofcommentsfromcommunityorganizations,citizens,andCRCmembersdemonstratedpublicoppositiontosomeaspectsoftheproposal.Basedontheconcernsheard,theCityCouncilcontinuedthehearingontheaccountabilityplan



72

indefinitely so that apublic-held stakeholders group couldbe convened todiscuss themorecontentiousaspectsoftheAuditor’splan.ThatworkgroupheldtwomeetingsinNovember.

The workgroup identified areas of agreement as well as issues which still remain indebate. Expanding the number of CRCmembers, quorum levels, and the presence of publiccommentwereallconsideredareaswherethevariousstakeholdersagreed.ThepointintheCRCmeetingwherepublic comment is appropriate (prior to or after a decision is rendered)washeavilydebatedwithnoconsensusgained.TheabilityofCRCtotakepubliccommentatthecasefilereviewhearingwasalsodebated,thoughnotascontentiously.Theworkgroupalsoidentifiedninetopicareasforfuturediscussion.

ThetimetakentoformanaccountabilityplanthatrespondstotheSettlementAgreementandthatreducesthenumberofdaysforanadministrativeinvestigationhasbeenharrowing.AstheCityAuditorstatedinhertestimonytoCityCouncil,“Theseconversationshavebeengoingonforoverayear.”InresponsetoCityCounciltablingthediscussionforfutureconsensusontheaccountabilityproposal,oneCommissionerstated“Idon’tbelievetherewilleverbeaproposalonthisissuethathasconsensussupport.”

WeagreewiththeCityAuditorthattheseconversationshavebeengoingonforalongtime.We also agreewith the Commissioner that proposed changes cannot be delayed untilconsensus by all involved is achieved. Indeed, proposals for accountability reform havecontinuouslyevolvedandyetthereremainsdisagreementbetweenthevariousstakeholdersonanumberofissues.Weagreethattheclosed-doormeetingsoftheoriginalworkgroup(seeourApril2016complianceassessment)didnotmeetthespiritof theSettlementAgreementandthereforeapplaudtheCityCouncilfordelayingvotingonanyproposaluntilcommunityinputcouldbegathered.However,theworkgroupdidnotmeetuntiltwomonthsafterthedecisionoftheCityCouncilandnoproposedaccountabilitychangeshavebeenacceptedtodate.

Simply stated, discussion on this issue cannot continue indefinitely due to a lack ofconsensus.Afinalizedplanneedstobecraftedandimplementedassoonaspossibleutilizinginputfromthecommunity.Furthermore,anyplanmustnotbe“band-aidsonabulletwound.”Small changes which do not lead to substantive improvements in the police accountabilitysystemarenot sufficient. IPR, IA, and theCityCouncil need to createaplan for reformandimplementthechangesnecessarytosatisfyPar.121aswellasPar.128(seebelow).WebelievethatsomechangesrecommendedbytheCityAuditorandIPRareimportanttoaccomplishingthereformgoal.Forinstance,weagreethattheinvestigatingentityshouldalsoproposefindingsastheyaremostfamiliarwiththefactsofthecase.Additionally,webelievethatexpandingtheroleofIPRisbeneficial.However,weawaitafinalproposalbeforeprovidingafinalassessment.

Inourpreviousreport,weindicatedthatCRCappealswereexperiencinga6-monthdelayinbeingheard.IntheSeptember2016hearingbeforeCityCouncil,theCityAuditorindicateda9-month backlog of hearing appeals, stating “the current backlog extends to next June.”However,aroundthattime,CRCdoubledtheireffortstohearappeals,whichledtothecurrentabsenceofanybacklog.WeappreciatetheeffortsofCRCtoeliminatethebacklog,buthearingmore appeals can come at the expense of preparing for and engaging in other CRCresponsibilities.Inthefinalanalysis,doublingdowneffortsbyrelyingonthecurrentnumberofCRCmembersisnotsustainableandwethereforeagreewithstakeholdersandtheCityAuditorthatmembershipshouldbeexpandedandrotatingpanelsbeimplemented.



73

COCLRecommendations

• CreateandimplementaplanforsatisfyingPar.121aswellas128


• COCLdiscussionswithcommunitymembers,CityofficialsandPPB• COCLreviewofStakeholdersReportpreparedbyCampbell

DeLongResources,Inc.• COCLreviewofCityAuditorProposal


122.PPBshallconductadministrativeinvestigationsconcurrentlywithcriminalinvestigations,ifany, concerning the same incident. All administrative investigations shall be subject toappropriate tollingperiodsasnecessary toconductaconcurrentcriminal investigation,orasotherwiseprovidedbylaw,orasnecessarytomeettheCRCorPRBrecommendationtofurtherinvestigate.ComplianceLabel PartialCompliance Methodology ReviewedCriminal-IAConcurrentInvestigationAuditReportsfor

2016Q3andQ4;ReviewedDirective0330.00

ComplianceAssessmentIn the third and fourth quarter of 2016, PPB continued to provide documentation

indicating when Internal Affairs investigations began compared with when criminalinvestigationsbegan.Fornearlyallcases,theinvestigationsbeganwithinacoupledaysofeachotherandthereforemeetthecriteriafor“concurrent.”Therearetwocaseswherethisdidnotoccur.

Inthefirstcase,theadministrativeinvestigationbeganmorethanonemonthafterthecriminal investigation. PPB states in their quarterly summary reports that “Due topersonnelchangeswiththeCHOandthePSDCaptain,IADwasnotnotifiedofthiscaseuntil8/19/2016,atwhichtimeaconcurrentadministrativeinvestigationwasopened.”Asthecriminalinvestigationended on 8/18/2016 and the administrative investigation began on 8/19/2016, it cannot beconsidereda“concurrentinvestigation”inanyrespect.Weunderstandthatpersonnelchangescome with an expected learning curve. However, this also brings up concerns regardingprocedures within PPB, specifically, when a criminal investigation begins, what is therequirementfornotifyingIAandwhoisresponsiblefornotification?Furthermore,asnotificationdidnotoccur,wasanEISentrymadeforthepartyresponsibleforthisfailuretoact?Ifnot,werecommendanEISentrybemade.

Inthesecondcase,thedocumentation impliesthatacriminal investigationbegantendaysaftertheinitiationoftheadministrativeinvestigation.WespokewithPPBregardingthiscase and were informed a criminal investigation was in fact opened the day after theadministrative investigationbegan,thoughdocumentation inAIMdidnotoccuruntil10days



74

later.Thus,whilethecaseswere,infact, investigatedconcurrently,documentationfellshort.Thisagainraisesconcernaboutconsistencyinprocedure.WerecommendinthisinstanceaswellthatanEISentrybemade.

ThelanguageofDirective0330.00remainsincontrastwiththeSettlementAgreement.COCL,PPB,andDOJhaveengagedinrevisionsofpolicyrelatedtotheAgreement,thoughhavenotyetdiscussedDirective0330.00.Whenthisdirectiveisdiscussed,PPBmustensurethatitisconsistentwithPar.122.

COCLRecommendations

• ReviseDirective0330.00toreflecttherequirementofPar.122• MakeEISentriesforfailureofnotification/documentation


• COCLreviewofCriminal-IAConcurrentInvestigationAuditreports


123.IfPPBisunabletomeetthesetimeframetargets,itshallundertakeandprovidetoDOJawrittenreviewoftheIAprocess,toidentifythesourceofthedelaysandimplementanactionplanforreducingthem.ComplianceLabel PartialCompliance Methodology InterviewedCity/PPBpersonnel;ReviewedQ1andQ2overduecase

documents

ComplianceAssessmentPPB continues to provide reports indicating which cases went beyond the 180-day

timeline. Inthosereports,PPB identifiedthesourceof thedelaysandprovidedremedies foravoidingfutureoccurrencesasrequiredbytheAgreement.Whileweawaitthefinalizationofarevisedaccountabilityprocess,weurgethePPBtocontinuetoreducethetimetakenateachstepoftheprocess.

RemediesfordelaysidentifiedbyPPBhaveimprovedinsomerespects(seeourpreviousreport), though there continue to be instances where actionable steps in remedies are notpresent.Forinstance,onecasewasdelayed“duetothewrongdirectivebeingsubmittedwiththeoriginalfindingspacket.”TheIALieutenantstated“Withtheconstantrevisingofdirectives,ithasbeendifficulttodeterminewhichversionofadirectivewas inplaceatthetimeoftheincident.Iknowthattherehavebeenstridesmadewithinthedivisiontoensurethiskindoferrorwillnothappenagain.”Withoutexplanationofthestrides,theactionplandoesnotcontainthedocumentationneededforreview.

Wesawnumerous instanceswhere thedelaywasdue toan incomplete investigation(witnessesnotinterviewed,missingallegations,etc.)whichcausedthecasetobesentback,thusaddingtothetotalnumberofdaysneededforthereview.Insomeinstances,theremedywas



75

anexhortationonthe importanceofacompleteandthorough investigation,whichdoesnotqualifyasactionablesteps.Inotherinstances,theinvestigativestepsneededbyinvestigatorswasreinforced,whichismorein-linewithactionablesteps.Additionalactionmaybenecessaryifdeficientinvestigationscontinuetobeidentified(e.g.EISentry).

Other cases were confusing in the information reported by PPB. For instance, therecommendedactionplanforonecasestated,“AlargepartofthedelayonthepartofIAwaswiththeofficerbeingunavailableduetoLOSstatusfor27days.Thisshouldbeconsideredatollingperiod.”WeagreethatLeaveofService (LOS) timeshouldnotcountagainstPPB(seebelow).However,theIAinvestigationperiodwas57daysoverdueandthustheremaining30daysarenotexplained.Furthermore,theLOSsectionofthereportindicatestheofficerwasonLOSfromJune7throughJune19(12days).IntheIAInvestigativesectionofthereport,itstatesthe officerwas on LOS fromMay 9 through June 19 (41 days). Thus, the report is not onlyincompleteinitsjustification,butinternallyinconsistent.

As an example of actionable steps, one IA Lieutenant entry stated, “In the future,[complicatedcaseswithmanywitnesses],especiallywhenassignedtonewerinvestigators,willhaveamoreseniorinvestigatorassignedtodealwiththepotentiallyoverwhelmingcomplexity.”Thisisaspecific,actionableplan,whichdirectlyrespondstotheproblemofdelaywithaspecificremedy.We recommend all action plans contain this type of response and that actionableresponses bememorialized in relevant SOPs. If additional analysis is needed to identify thesourceoftheproblem,thenitshouldbeperformed.Forexample,otherplansindicatedmoreinvestigatorswereneededtoreducecaseloads,suggestingthatunderstaffingwaspartoftheproblem.Inresponse,PPBhiredthreenewinvestigators,whichshouldreducethetotalnumberofdaysneeded.

ForcaseswhereofficersareonLOS,wedonotbelievethosedelaysarewithinthecontrolofPPB.However,wealsonotedsomeinstanceswheretheinvestigatorsvacationtimewasthereasonforthedelay.This isnotthesameasLOSandwouldnotbeanacceptablereasonfordelays, since proper scheduling of personnel should address this issue, assuming adequatestaffing.Totheircredit,PPBhashiredmoreinvestigatorsandhasbeguncross-traininginordertoaccountforvacationtime.Wewouldexpectthatdelaysduetovacationwouldbecomelesscommoninthefuture.

Althoughnotrequiredbythisparagraph,itmaybehelpfulforIPRtoundertakeaprocesssimilartothereportsprovidedbyPPB.Inmanycases,wenotedinstanceswherestagesunderthedirectionofIPRwereoverdue,thoughnoexplanationorplanofactionwasprovidedbecauseit is a PPB document. We anticipate these issues may be addressed when a finalizedaccountabilityprocessisputintoplace.However,fortheinternaloperationofIPR,thesetypesofreportsmayprovideutility.

COCLRecommendations

• Providedefinitivestepsforpreventingfuturedelays• Includeindividualaccountabilitystepsinadditiontosystemsteps


• COCLreviewofoverduecasedocumentation



76

B.OnScenePublicSafetyStatementsandInterviews


124. Within 90 days of the Effective Date, the City and PPB shall review its protocols forcompelledstatementstoPSDandreviseasappropriatesothatitcomplieswithapplicablelawandcurrentprofessionalstandards,pursuanttoGarrityv.NewJersey,385U.S.493(1967).TheCitywillsubmittherevisedprotocoltoDOJforreviewandapproval.Within45daysofobtainingDOJ’sapproval,PPBshallensurethatallofficersareadvisedontherevisedprotocol.ComplianceLabel PartialComplianceMethodology Participatein1010.00discussions


Protocols for compelled statements were included as part of the Directive 1010.00

discussionswhichoccurredin2016Q3andQ4,thoughthisparticularaspectwaslargelypunteduntilthefirstquarterof2017.Wewillreportontheproposedrevisionstotheprotocolsinournextreport,assubstantivediscussiononGarrityandtheissueofcompelledstatementsdidnotoccur until February. Basedon the initial discussionswhichoccurred in the third and fourthquarterof2016,webelievePPBhaspartiallycompliedwiththisparagraph.

Inthefourthquarterof2016,thePPAcontractwasnegotiatedtoremovethe“48-hourrule”whichrequiredatwo-dayperiodbeforeofficerscouldbecompelledtoprovideastatementtotheInternalAffairs.Wesupportthedecisiontoremovethe48-hourrule,thoughcautionPPBnot to informally continue the practice by delaying statementsmore than that necessary togather the relevant facts of the event. The issue surrounding the 48-hour rule was thatstatements of involved officers were not being collected with expediency. Thus, with theimpedimentofthe48-hourruleremoved,PPBcannowcompelstatementsassoonaspractical.

COCLRecommendations

• Compelstatementsassoonaspractical


• Participationin1010.00discussions


125.Separationofallwitnessandinvolvedofficerstolethalforceeventsisnecessaryinordertosafeguardtheintegrityoftheinvestigationofthatevent.Immediatelyfollowinganylethalforceevent,PPBshallcontinuetoissueacommunicationrestrictionorder(“CRO”)toallwitnessandinvolvedofficers,prohibitingdirectorindirectcommunicationsbetweenthoseofficersregarding



77

thefactsoftheevent.TheCROwillcontinue,unlessextendedfurther,untilconclusionoftheGrand Juryor, if noGrand Jury is convened,until adisposition isdeterminedby theDistrictAttorney.ComplianceLabel PartialCompliance Methodology ReviewedCRO’sfor2016Q4OIS


During the fourthquarter of 2016, therewasoneofficer-involved shooting (OIS).We

reviewedthecasefileforthisincident.Atotalof11CRO’swereissuedrelatedtotheOIS.TherewasonewitnessofficerwhowasnotissuedaCRO,thoughthisofficerisemployedbyGreshamPoliceDepartmentandwasassignedtotheTransitDivisionbasedoutoftheCentralPrecinct.WespokewithPPBregardingthenon-PPBemployeeandthepotentialforissuingaCRO.PPBstatedthattheyhavenoauthoritytoissueaCROtoanon-employee.WeagreethatPPBhasnolegalauthoritytodirecttheactionsorcommunicationofsomeonewhoisnotemployedbythem.However,wesuggestPPBcraftanon-bindingstatementfornon-employees,urgingthenecessityto“safeguardtheintegrityoftheinvestigation”(quotationfromPPB’sCROform).LanguagefromthecurrentCROformmaybealteredsothatthemessageremainswithouttheformbeingamandate. The non-employee would not be required to sign the form – rather, it is just aninformation sheet. An alternate possibility would be to read language at the end of a non-employeewitness interviewthatagainwouldbenon-binding.Wemakethesesuggestions inorderforPPBtodocumenttheireffortsinsuchsituations,giventhepossibilitythatinformationcanbeeasilytransmittedthroughnon-PPBemployeewitnesses.AlthoughnotrequiredbytheletterofPar.125,webelievethistypeofagreementcertainlyfitswithinthespiritofit.

Todeterminetheimmediacywithwhichwitnessandinvolvedofficerswereseparated,weusethetimewherethemedicalunitarrivedon-sceneasareferencepoint.Webelievethispoint in time is a good indication ofwhen a scenemight be considered “secure” andwhensupervisorsoughttobeginperformingtheirpost-shootingresponsibilities.IntheQ4OIS,BOECrecordsindicatethatmedicalwascalledinfromtheirstagingpositionat12:35AMandarrivedon-sceneat12:36AM.

At12:39AM,BOECrecordsindicatethatallofficerson-sceneweredirectedtoreporttoaparticularSergeantsothatadeterminationofwhowasawitnessandwhowasinvolvedcouldbemade.AsupplementalreportfromthatSergeantstatesthatafterdeterminingwhowouldbedesignatedaswitnessofficers,theywereseparatedandassignedanuninvolvedofficertostandwiththem.Wefoundtwosupplementalreportsfromuniformedofficersindicatingtheyactedas “companion officers.” One supplemental report related to the companion officer for theinvolved member. The second supplemental report related to the companion officer for awitnessmember.AlthoughthecasebookforthisOISindicates11witnessofficersand1involvedofficer,thereareonlytwosupplementalreportsfromcompanionofficers.WerecommendPPBinstructallcompanionofficerstocompletereportsinordertocomprehensivelydocumenttheseparationofwitness/involvedofficers.

Atapproximately3:40AM, theDetectiveDivisionbegan interviewingwitnessofficers.CRO’sareissuedimmediatelyafterthecompletionofDetectiveDivisioninterviews.Basedon



78

thedocumentationprovidedinthecasebook,thefirstCROwasissuedat4:10AMandthefinalCROwasissuedat6:06AM.Thus,allCRO’swereissuedbetween4and6hoursafterthescenecouldbeconsidered“secure.”Aswehavesaidinpreviousreports,consideringthetimeneededto arrive on-scene and gather a rudimentary understanding of the occurrence and peopleinvolved, and conduct Detective Division interviews, we believe this meets the criteria for“immediately”issuingCROs.

TheCRO formused in theOISdoesnot reflect the changeswe recommended inourpreviousreportsothatthelanguagemightbeconsistentwiththelanguageoftheSettlementAgreement. In our previous report, we suggested a language change to, “The CRO will berescinded upon the conclusion of the Grand Jury or, if no Grand Jury is convened, until adisposition is determined by the District Attorney. In the event the Detective DivisioninvestigationisstillongoingattheconclusionoftheGrandJuryorDistrictAttorneydisposition,theCROwillremainineffectuntiltheconclusionoftheDetectiveDivisioninvestigation.”

COCLRecommendations

• Requirereportsfromallcompanionofficers• RevisewordingofCROrescindingtocomplywithPar.125


• COCLreviewofCRO’sfor2016Q2OIS


126.PPBshallcontinuetorequirewitnessofficers to lethal forceevents togiveanon-scenebriefing to any supervisor and/or member of the Detective Division to ensure that victims,suspects,andwitnessesare identified,evidence is located,andprovideany information thatmaybe required for the safe resolutionof the incident,oranyother informationasmayberequired.ComplianceLabel PartialCompliance Methodology ReviewOfficerInvolvedShootingcasefiles;InterviewPPBpersonnel


Forthe2016Q4OfficerInvolvedShooting,thecasefileidentifies11“witnesspersonnel.”

Ofthosewitnessofficers,thecasebookisnotclearonthenumberwhogaveanon-scenebriefingtosupervisors.Nor is itclearwhichsupervisorsrequestedabriefingfromwhichofficers.TheDetectiveDivisionreportindicatesthatatleasttwowitnessofficersgaveanimmediatebriefingto the Detective Division (one witness officer provided an on-scene walkthrough). WerecommendPPB comeupwitha standardizedpracticeofdeterminingwhichofficerswill berequiredtoprovideon-scenewalkthroughs,as it isunclearwhyonlyonewitnessofficerwasasked to provide one.We also recommend PPB explicitly documentwhich officers providedbriefingstowhichsupervisors.



79

ThecasefilealsocontainstranscriptsofinterviewsforallwitnessofficersbytheDetectiveDivision(includingtheGreshamPDofficer).WethereforeconsiderPPBcomplyingwithPar.126inthisrespect.However,wecontinuetobelievethattheterm“witnessofficer”isinconsistentlyusedforOISevents.Directive1010.10definesa“witnessofficer”asa“memberwhoobservesorhasfirsthandknowledgeoftheeventssurroundinganin-custodydeathortheuseofdeadlyphysicalforcebyanothermember,andotherthanobservingtheincident,didnotusedeadlyphysicalforce.”

In the Q4 OIS, we identified at least one officer who would seemingly meet thisdescription.Thisofficerwaspositionednearthesubjectandreportedthathe/she(1)observedthesubjectexittheresidencemultipletimes,(2)observedthesubjectpotentiallyattemptingtocreatea“Molotovcocktail,”(3)observedthesubjectexittheresidencewitha“longgun”(whichultimatelyledtotheinvolvedofficerusinglethalforce),and(4)observedthesubjectpositiononthesidewalkaftertheuseoflethalforce.Attheexacttimeoftheuseoflethalforce,thisofficerwastakingshelterbehindawallduetothesubjectholdingthe“longgun”andtheofficer’sdesiretonotbeexposed.Althoughthisofficerdidnotwitnesstheexactmomentwhenlethalforcewasused,webelievehis/heroverallobservationswouldbeconsidered“firsthandknowledgeoftheevents”andthereforetheofficershouldhavebeenconsideredawitnessofficerregardlessofwhetherhe/shewitnessedtheexactmoment.

COCLRecommendations

• PPBshouldbeconsistentinitsclassificationofwitnessofficersandconsiderbroadeningthedefinitiontogainamorecompleteunderstandingoftheeventsthattranspired.


• COCLreviewofOIScasefile


127. InagreementandcollaborationwiththeMultnomahCountyDistrictAttorney,PPBshallrequestthatinvolvedofficersinlethalforceandin-custodydeatheventsprovideavoluntary,on-scenewalk-throughandinterview,unlesstheofficerisincapacitated.ComplianceLabel PartialComplianceMethodology ReviewOfficerInvolvedShootingcasefiles;InterviewPPBpersonnel


Inthe2016Q4OIS,theoneofficerwhowasidentifiedas“involved”wasaskedtogivean

on-scenewalk-through and interview. The officer declined. Related to this,wemaintain ourpreviousrecommendationthat,inthecontextofcommunitytrust,PPBoughttoencouragetheuseofvoluntarypublicsafetystatementswheneverpossible,withtheunderstandingthatafullinterviewwill occur later.AlthoughweunderstandpotentialGarrity legal concernswith thispractice,werefertoa2016COPSOfficeReport(“Officer-InvolvedShootings:AGuideforLaw



80

Enforcement Leaders”): “Agencies need not grantGarrity use immunity automatically, sincerespondingtoquestionsandprovidinganystatementarepartofanofficer’sroutinejobduties,justasisthefilingofanincident,arrest,orotherreport.”Therefore,apublicsafetystatementisappropriateinthisinstance.

Wehavenotbeenprovidedevidencetodemonstratesatisfactionoftherequirementfor“agreementandcollaborationwiththeMultnomahCountyDistrictAttorney.”ThePPBmaintainsthat theDA’swillingness tobepresentduringanyon-scenewalk-through,onacase-by-casebasis,issufficienttomeettherequirementof“agreementandcollaboration.”IfPPBcanprovideuswithdocumentationoftheDA’scommitment,wewouldconsiderthemtobeinsubstantialcompliancewiththisparagraph.

COCLRecommendations

• Resolvetheissueofwhatconstitutes“agreementandcollaboration”

• EncouragetheuseofvoluntarypublicsafetystatementsComplianceRatingBasedOn

• COCLreviewofOIScasefilesections

C.ConductofIAInvestigations


128.Currently,bothIPRandPPB’sPSDhaveauthoritytoconductadministrativeinvestigations,providedthatIPRinterviewofPPBOfficersmustonlybeconductedjointlywithIA.Within120daysoftheEffectiveDate,theCitywilldevelopandimplementaplantoreducetimeandeffortconsumedintheredundantinterviewofwitnessesbybothIPRandIA,andenablemeaningfulindependent investigation by IPR, when IPR determines such independent investigation isnecessary.ComplianceLabel PartialCompliance Methodology Reviewedproposalforaccountabilityprocess


OurassessmentofPar.128tiesinwiththedialogueandplanningprocessdiscussedin

Par. 121. The proposal related to the 180-day timeline also includes sections related to“meaningful independent investigation by IPR.” See our assessment of Par. 121 for updateswhichoccurredinthethirdandfourthquarterof2016.

Wealsobelievethatuntilarevisedaccountabilityproposalisproffered,IPRfacesbarriersto enabling meaningful independent investigation. One such barrier is training for IPRinvestigatorswhichwillensurequalityinvestigationscomparablewithPPB’sInternalAffairs.Wehave spoken with IPR about training for investigators to “enable meaningful independent



81

investigation.”IPRinformsusthattrainingforinvestigatorsislikelytooccurinAprilof2017and,ifso,wewillprovideourimpressionsofthetraininginournextreport.

COCLRecommendations

• EngageinchangesrelatedtoPar.121


• COCLreviewofaccountabilityprocessproposal


129.TheCityandPPBshallensurethatallallegationsofuseofexcessiveforcearesubjecttofulland completed IA investigations resulting in findings, unless there is clear and convincingevidencetoIPRthattheallegationhasnobasisinfact.ComplianceLabel PartialCompliance Methodology ReviewedSOP#19


PPB operates under SOP #19 (“Case Intake and Assignment”) as it relates to this

paragraph.InSOP#19,thelanguageoftheAgreementisincludedunderthesection“Assignmentfor Investigation by IA.” However, Directive 0330.00 has yet to be revised to include thislanguage.

Areviewofallallegationsofexcessiveforcefor2016withintheAIMdatabaserevealedtwoinstanceswhereIAdeclinedtoinvestigateanallegation.Althoughtheseoccurredinthefirstandsecondquarterof2016,wedidnotreviewtheminour lastreportandthereforereviewthemhere.

Inoneinstance,theallegationofexcessiveforcewasinitiatedthroughInternalAffairsasthe result of a tort claim. Upon reviewing Mobile Audio Video (MAV) associated with theincident,IAdeterminedtheallegationwasnotsupportedbythevideo.Afterwatchingthevideo,IPRagreedwithIA’sdecisionandfurtherinvestigationwasdeclined.AlthoughIAwastheentitywhichdeclinedtoinvestigatetheforceallegation,itwasdonewiththeagreementofIPRthattheevidenceshowedtheallegationhadnobasisinfact.HadIPRnotbeenconsultedwewouldhavefoundthistobeagainstthespiritoftheAgreement.ForfutureinstanceswhereacaseisinitiatedthroughIAandanallegationinvestigationisdeclined,werecommendPPBcontinuethepracticeofconsultingIPRandmemorializethisinSOP#19andDirective0330.00.

Inthesecondinstance,theallegationofexcessiveforcewas initiatedthroughIPRandforwardedontoIAafteraninitialIPRreview.AlthoughIAinvestigatedotherforceallegationswithinthecomplaint,oneforceallegationwasdeclinedbecauseofficerreportsandstatementsfromthecomplainantindicatedthattheallegedofficerdidnothavephysicalcontactwithhim.In this instancetoo, IPRwasconsultedandapproved IAdecliningtheallegation.Although IA



82

consultedwith IPR in this instance,we feel thedismissal is inconsistentwith theSettlementAgreement. At least initially, IPR felt the allegation hadmerit on its face and therefore theallegationshouldhavebeenfullyinvestigated.Itislikely,basedontheinformationfromPPB,that theofficerwouldhavebeenexoneratedof theallegationand so therewasnoneed todeclinetheinvestigation.Thisissimilartoa2015casewhichDOJcommentedonintheirsecondassessment report. Related to that case, DOJ commented “Portland Police Bureau had theevidenceneededtoreachafinding.Instead,theofficerwasleftunderthepallorofanunresolvedallegation.”WebelievethesamemaybesaidforthiscaseandrecommendPPBre-opentheallegation,performaninvestigation,andprovideareasonablefinding.

COCLRecommendations

• Re-openallegation,performaninvestigation,andprovideareasonablefinding


• COCLreviewofAIMdata• COCLreviewofSOP#19• COCLreviewofPPBDirective0330.00


130. The City and PPB shall continue to expressly prohibit all forms of retaliation, includingdiscouragement, intimidation, coercion, or adverse action, against any person who reportsmisconduct,makesamisconductcomplaint,orcooperateswithaninvestigationofmisconduct.ComplianceLabel PartialCompliance Methodology ReviewedDirective310.20;ReviewedHRAdminRule2.02;Reviewed

HRAdminRule11.03

ComplianceAssessmentPPBDirective310.20isconsideredpartofthe“300series”ofpolicyreview.Duringthe

thirdandfourthquarterof2016,the300serieswasnotreviewedandthereforePPBpolicystilldoes not “expressly prohibit all forms of retaliation, including discouragement, intimidation,coercion,oradverseaction,againstanypersonwhoreportsmisconduct,makesamisconductcomplaint, or cooperates with an investigation of misconduct.” Directive 310.20 expresslyprohibitsPPBmembersfromretaliatingagainstacommunitymemberforfilingamisconductclaim(2.1.1.2).However,itdoesnotexpresslyprohibitretaliationagainstanotherPPBmemberforreportingmisconductanddoesnotspeaktotheaspectofcooperatingwithaninvestigationofmisconduct.

We believe this can be easily remedied during the revision of 310.20 by altering thelanguageofsubsection1.1tosay,“…thePoliceBureauprohibitsmembersfromengaginginanyform of retaliation (including, but not limited to, discouragement, intimidation, coercion, oradverse action) against othermembers, employees of the City, or communitymember. The



83

prohibitionappliestoadverseresponsestoclaimsofharassmentordiscrimination,reportsofmisconduct,complaintsofmisconduct,cooperationwithanyinvestigationthereof,oranyothersimilaraction.”

We note that in 2016, PPB initiated a total of 7 retaliation investigations coveringretaliationagainstPPBmembersaswellascommunitymembers.Theretaliationinvestigationscoveredofficersofvarious ranks.However,weagreewithDOJ that retaliation investigationshave not always been opened when appropriate (see DOJ’s second annual complianceassessmentreport).PPBshouldensurethatallclaimsofretaliationaresufficientlyinvestigated(includingfindings)asrequiredbyoverallaccountabilitysystemchanges.

AstotheCity’sresponsibilitytoexpresslyprohibittheactionidentifiedinPar.130,weweredirected toHumanResourceAdministrationRule 2.02 (“ProhibitionAgainstWorkplaceHarassment,Discrimination,andRetaliation”).AlthoughHRAdminRule2.02containslanguagewithinthespiritofPar.130(“Conductthatwouldlikelydeteranindividualfromreportingorsupporting a claim…Examples of retaliation towards an individual include demotion,suspension…failingtotreat impartiallywhenmakingemploymentrelateddecisions…shunningbyco-workers.”),theruleisspecifictosexualharassmentanddiscriminationagainstprotectedclasses.Thusthefocusof2.02isnotnecessarilyrelatedtoPar.130.

TheCityalsohasHRAdminRule11.03(“DutytoReportUnlawfulorImproperActions”)whichcontainssomeadmonitionagainstretaliation(“TheCitywillnottolerateanyretaliationagainstanemployee for filinga complaintor reportunder this ruleor for cooperating inaninternalorexternalgovernmentinvestigation”).However,theadmonitiondoesnotcontainthelevel of detail found within Par. 130. Furthermore, 11.03 speaks to retaliation against Cityemployeesandleavesoutaprohibitionofretaliationagainstcommunitymembers.

Thus, as it relates to misconduct complaints and any person (to include communitymembers)whoreportsmisconductormakesacomplaint,wedonotfindwheretheCityhasanexpressedprohibition.WerecommendtheCityresolvethisissue.

COCLRecommendations

• ReviseDirective310.20tofullycomplywithPar.130• CityshouldcreatepolicyrelatedtoPar.130


• COCLreviewofDirective310.20• COCLreviewofHRAdminRule2.02• COCLreviewofHRAdminRule11.03



84


131.COCLSummary.Paragraph131 states that “TheCityandPPB shall retainPoliceReviewBoard procedures currently utilized for purposes of investigation andmaking recommendedfindingsonadministrativecomplaints,exceptasoutlinedbelow.”ThesubsectionsofPar.131refer to PRBmembership, rotation of CRCmembers serving on the PRB, requirements andqualificationsforPRBmembers,provisionsforremovingcommunitymembersorCRCmembersservingonthePRB,termlimitsforCRCmembersservingonthePRB,andtherequirementforCRCmemberstorecusethemselvesfromtheCRCifpartofthePRBhearingthecase.(Fordetailsandexactlanguage,seetheSettlementAgreement).ComplianceLabel PartialCompliance Methodology ReviewedDirective336.00;ReviewedCityCode3.20.140


No changes to PPB Directive 336.00 nor City Code 3.20.140 have occurred since our

previous reports. PPB indicates in the Quarterly Summary Report that changes to theaccountabilityprocesswoulddictatechangestopolicy.WewillawaitresolutionofthechangestotheaccountabilityprocessbeforewecanascribeSubstantialCompliancewiththisparagraph.

Inpreviousreports,wehavequestionedwhetherPRBmembersarerequiredtosubmittoongoingqualification(e.g.attendingannualin-serviceorparticipatinginannualride-alongs).WespokewithPPBrepresentativeswhoinformedusthatalthoughPRBmembersarenotsubjecttoongoingqualification,theyareprovidedopportunitiestorefreshthemselvesonPPBpractices.WhenevernewPRBmembersarerequiredtoreceiveBureautraininginaccordancewithPar.131(d)(ii),existingPRBmembersareinvitedtoparticipateaswell.WeareinformedthatsomeexistingPRBmemberstakeadvantageoftheopportunitywhileothersdonot.Inaddition,PRBmembers are alwayswelcome to participate in ride-alongs. Furthermore, PRBmembers areprovidedthemostrecentversionofpoliciesrelatedtothecasetheyarehearingandmayreceiveclarificationonhowtheydifferfrompreviousversionsofpolicytheymayhaveseeninpreviouscases.Thus,asitrelatestoongoingqualification,webelievePPBaffordstheopportunityforPRBmemberstoremainfamiliarwithBureauoperations.

COCLRecommendations



• PriorPPB/CityincorporationofsomeaspectsofPar.131



85


132.Bymajorityvote,thePRBmayrequestthatinvestigationsofmisconductbereturnedtoitsinvestigatingentity,i.e.PSDorIPR,tocompletetheinvestigationastofactualmattersnecessaryto reach a finding regarding the alleged misconduct. The investigating entity must makereasonableattemptstoconducttheadditionalinvestigationorobtaintheadditionalinformationwithin10businessdaysorprovideawrittenstatementtothePRBexplainingwhyadditionaltimeisneeded.ComplianceLabel PartialCompliance Methodology ReviewedPPBDirective336.00;ReviewedCityCode3.20.140


WehavenoindicationthatacasewasreturnedbyPRBinthethirdorfourthquarterof

2016.WhilePPBDirective336.00containstheprovisionsofthisparagraph,CityCode3.20.140does not. The changes to City Code for Par. 132 need not await revisions to the overallaccountability process since those revisions are related to 3.21.120. There is no reasonwhy3.20.140cannotberevisedtobeincompliancewithPar.132.WerecommendtheCitymakethenecessaryrevisionsassoonaspossible.

COCLRecommendations

• ReviseCityCode3.20.140tobeconsistentwiththerequirementsoftheSettlementAgreement.


• COCLreviewofPPBDirective336.00


133.COCLSummary:Paragraph133statesthat,“Ifanofficer’suseofforcegivesrisetoafindingofliabilityinaciviltrial,”PPBshallberequiredtotakevariousactions.ThesubsectionsofPar.133includerequirementsforfindingsofliabilityincludingEISdocumentation,re-evaluationforspecialized units, automatic IA investigations, review of previous IA investigation if onewasalreadycompleted,andapublishedsummaryifIAinvestigationdidnotreachthesamefinding.(Fordetailsandexactlanguage,seetheSettlementAgreement).ComplianceLabel PartialCompliance Methodology ReviewedSOP#42




86

WereviewedPPBStandardOperatingProcedures(SOPs)relatedtotherequirementsofPar.133.Specifically,wereviewedPPBSOP#32(“CivilLiabilityandTortClaims”)whichrequirestheIALieutenanttoconfirmthatanEISentryhasbeenmade(Par.133,subsection1)andthatanevaluationoftheofficer’sfitnesstoparticipateinspecializedunitshasbeenconducted(Par.133, subsection 2). SOP #32 also contains other requirements if an IA investigation had notpreviouslybeen initiatedor ifan IA investigationdidnotreachaSustainedfinding (Par.133,subsections3-5).WhileSOP#32requiresthatanIAinvestigationbeopened(ifnotpreviouslydone),itdoesnotcontaintheSettlementAgreement’srequirementthattheciviltrialfindingscreate a “rebuttable presumption that the force used also violated PPB policy, whichpresumptioncanonlybeovercomebyspecific,credibleevidencebyapreponderanceof theevidence.”WerecommendSOP#32berevisedtoincludethispresumption.

We also reviewed PPB SOP #42 (“Evaluation ofMembers Fitness to Participate in AllCurrentandProspectiveSpecializedUnitswhentheUseofForceResultsinaFindingofLiabilityin a Civil Trial”) which contains the procedure for the above referenced evaluation of themember.WefindtheprocedureoutlinedbyPPBtobesufficientlycompliantwiththeintentofPar.133.

Therewerenofindingsofliabilityinthethirdorfourthquarterof2016.However,therewasafindingofliabilityagainstPPBinSeptemberof2014andupdatestoPPB’sprogressinthatcaseoccurredwithinthisreport’stimeframe.TherewerethreeofficersinvolvedwiththeuseofforcethatledtothefindingofliabilityagainstPPB.Theinvestigationresultedinanallegationagainst one officer being Sustained and allegations against the other two officers beingNotSustained.

InSeptemberof2016,theinvestigationoftheofficerswascompleted.Asaresultoftheadministrative investigation, allegations of excessive force against two officers were NotSustainedby theRUManager. Foroneof theofficers,wediscussedwithPPB twopiecesofevidencefoundwithinthecasefilethatappeartocallintoquestionthefindingofNotSustained.First,theofficerindicatedthatupondeliveringafive-secondECWcycle,he/shewaitedandgavethesubjectmorecommands toputhishandsbehindhisback.However, theECWdownloadindicatedthatapproximately1secondpassedbetweenthefirstandsecondfive-secondcycles.TheversionsofDirective1051.00(Taser)and1010.20(PhysicalForce)thatwereineffectatthetimeof thiseventdidnotexpressly requireanofficer to re-evaluate theneed for continuedforce, attempthandcuffingduringor between Taser cycles, or issuewarningsbetweeneachapplicationofforce(asdoestheproposedrevised1010.00policy).WespokewithPPBabouttheseconcerns.PPBindicatedthattherewasnoexplicitrequirementinthe1051.00or1010.20directives for the officer to provide a warning in-between each Taser cycle or attempthandcuffing. PPBalso indicated that their investigation led themtobelieve that the subject“flailing” ledtheofficer todeterminethatasecondTasercyclewas justifiedandthatsuchadeterminationcouldbemadeinthe1secondtimeframe.Whiletheofficerwasnotfoundout-of-policybasedonthedirectivesenactedatthetimeofoccurrence,thedirectiveshassincebeenrevisedtorequireofficerstoallowtimeforthesubjecttocomplywiththeofficer’sinstructions,reassessandissuesubsequentwarningsin-betweenTasercycles,andattempttohandcuffin-betweencycles.

Second, the officer indicated during a debriefing that he/she was unaware that (1)subjectscouldbehandcuffedduringaTasercycleand(2)thathe/shecouldholddowntheTaser



87

trigger toprovideacontinuouscurrent.Thedebriefing found that“Itappeared that [officer]learnedvaluablefeaturesoftheTaserimmediatelyfollowingtheevent.”WespokewithPPBtoask whether the investigation should have considered Directive 315.30 (UnsatisfactoryPerformance) and amember’s responsibility to “maintain sufficient competency to properlyperformtheirdutiesandassumetheresponsibilitiesoftheirpositions.”PPBinformedustheydidnotreviewtheavailabletrainingatthetimeoftheoccurrenceandthereforecouldnotmakeadeterminationastowhethertheofficerwouldhavebeentrainedonthe“valuablefeaturesoftheTaser”orwhethertheofficerviolatedtheirresponsibilityto“maintainsufficientcompetencyto properly perform their duties and assume the responsibilities of their positions.”Furthermore,PPBindicatedthatitwouldbedifficulttodeterminetheexacttrainingtheofficerwouldhavereceivedastheydidnothaveanadequateLearningManagementSystem(similartowhatisrequiredinPar.81).Thus,wedonotbelievePPBhasthesystemsinplaceforthisaspectoftheaccountabilitysystem.

Forthethirdofficer,anallegationofexcessiveforcewasSustainedbytheRUManager.InNovemberof2016,theRUManagerrecommendedaonetotwoweeksuspensionwithoutpay. The casewas then referred to thePoliceReviewBoard. InDecemberof 2016, thePRBagreedthattheallegationagainsttheofficershouldbeSustained.However,becausetheofficernolongerworksasaswornemployee,thePRBdidnotrecommenddiscipline(thoughindicatedtheywouldhaverecommendeda1-daysuspensionwithoutpayhadtheofficerstillbeenaswornmember).

ForthetwoofficerswhereallegationswereNotSustained,weviewedtheEISrecordsforbothofficersshowingthat(1)thecivilliabilityfindingwasenteredintoEIS(October2014)and(2)anemployeereview(May2015)occurredconsistentwithSOP#42.AstheIAinvestigationwasinitiatedafterthefindingofliability,subsections4and5ofPar.133arenotapplicable.

FortheoneofficerwhereanallegationofexcessiveforcewasSustained,weviewedtheEISrecordforthatofficershowingthecivilliabilityfindingwasenteredintoEIS(October2014).AstoPPB’sresponsibilitiesundersubsection2ofPar.133,theofficerwasnolongeraswornmemberatthetimeandthereforenoemployeereviewwasconducted.AstheIAinvestigationwas initiated after the finding of liability and the investigation reached a sustained finding,subsections4and5arenotapplicable.

COCLRecommendations

• ReviseSOP#32• Revisesystemstoensureallaspectsofaninvestigationarein

place.ComplianceRatingBasedOn

• COCLreviewofSOP#42• COCLreviewofSOP#32• COCLreviewofIAcase• COCLreviewofPRBfindings• COCLreviewofEISentries



88

D.CRCAppeals


134.TheCityshallexpandthemembershipoftheCRCto11members,representativeofthemanyanddiversecommunitiesinPortland,whoareneutral,unbiased,andcapableofmakingobjectivedecisions.ThequorumofCRCmembersnecessarytoactmayremainat itsexistinglevel.ComplianceLabel SubstantialCompliance Methodology ReviewedCityCode3.21.080


WemaintainthatCityCode3.21.080isinsubstantialcompliancewiththisparagraph.We

haveattendedCRCmeetings,reviewedCRCminutes,andhavespokenwithCRCrepresentatives.Basedonourreview,webelievetheCRCmembersare“neutral,unbiased,andcapableofmakingobjectivedecisions.”WewillcontinuetomonitorthecompliancewiththisparagraphandthefunctioningoftheCRCasabody.

ThechangestotheoverallaccountabilityproposalincludesthepotentialforthenumberofCRCmemberstoexpandto15andhavingrotating,5-7memberpanelshearcases.Webelievetheseproposed changes are stillwithin the intent of this paragraph, provided the individualpanelsarerepresentativeofthediversityrequiredoftheCRCasawhole.

COCLRecommendations



• COCLreviewofCityCode3.21.080


135. The City and PPB agree that the CRC may find the outcome of an administrativeinvestigationisunreasonableiftheCRCfindsthefindingsarenotsupportedbytheevidence.136. In its review process for purposes of the appeal, the CRC may make one request foradditional investigationor informationtotheinvestigatingentity, i.e.PSDor IPRatanypointduring its review. The investigating entity must make reasonable attempts to conduct theadditionalinvestigationorobtaintheadditionalinformationwithin10businessdaysorprovidea written statement to the CRC explaining why additional time is needed. The request foradditionalinvestigationorinformationmaycontainmultiplepointsofinquiry,butnofollow-up



89

requestswillbepermitted.Theadditionalrequestmaybevotedonbyaquorum,themembersvotingmusthavereadtheCaseFileinordertovote,andanyrequestwithmultiplepointsofinquirymustbeprioritized.ComplianceLabel SubstantialCompliance Methodology ReviewPSF-5.03;ReviewCRCminutes


UndertheCity’swebsite,CharterCodeandPolicies,PSF-5.03relatedtoCRC,thechanges

werecommendedinourpreviousreporthavebeenincorporated.TheCityhasbroughtPSF-5.03intocompliancewiththewordingoftheAgreement.

WereviewedtheminutesforCRCmeetingsduringthethirdandfourthquarterof2016.Basedonourreview,nocasesweresentbackbytheCRCforadditionalinvestigation.Thus,therewas no opportunity for us to observe whether the investigating entity (IPR or IA) providedresponsewithin10days.

The City and PPB have substantially complied with these paragraphs based on thechangestocode,thoughhaveanongoingobligation.Alsorelatedtothisparagraph(aswellasothers),wecontinuetorecommendIPRprovideaquarterlyorsemi-annualreportsimilartotheformatprovidedbyPPB.

COCLRecommendations

• RelevantCityagenciesshouldprovidetheCOCLwithdatatheykeeprelevanttocompliancewiththeseparagraphs.


• COCLreviewofCharterCodeandPolicyCodePSF-5.03• COCLreviewofCRCminutes

E.Discipline


137.Within 60 days of the Effective Date, PPB and the City shall develop and implement adisciplineguidetoensurethatdisciplineforsustainedallegationsofmisconductisbasedonthenature of the allegation and defined, consistent, mitigating and aggravating factors and toprovidedisciplinethatisreasonablypredictableandconsistent.ComplianceLabel PartialCompliance Methodology ReviewDirective338.00andcorrespondingDisciplineGuide;Review

CorrectiveActionRecommendationForm;ReviewrevisedSOP#34




90

Directive338.00anditscorrespondingDisciplineGuidehaveyettobejointlyreviewed

by COCL, PPB, and DOJ. This is considered part of the “300 series” and is scheduled to bereviewedinthenearfuture.Atthistime,wehavenonewrecommendations.Uponthe jointreviewofDirective338.00,wewillrevisitthecompliancelabelassociatedwiththisparagraph.

PPBhasprovidedevidencethatthedisciplineguideisbeingusedwhendeterminingtheappropriatedisciplineforofficers.Wereviewedtheevidenceforthethirdandfourthquarterof2016andfoundthemtobecompletedinamannerconsistentwiththeintentofthisparagraphby specifying the recommendation, the reason for the recommendation, the violationsassociatedwiththecomplaint,andacorrectiveactionhistoryfortheemployee.AsDOJpointsoutintheirsecondannualcomplianceassessmentandaswehaveseeninourworkwiththeForceAudit,disciplinedoesnotalwaysoccurwhenminorinfractionsrepeatedlyoccur(asisthecase with deficient report writing). We believe this will be resolved with the continuedimprovementoftheForceAuditdatacollection.

COCLRecommendations

• EngageinreviewofDirective338.00• Enhancedisciplineguidetoincluderemediesforrepeatedminor

infractionsComplianceRatingBasedOn

• COCLReviewofCorrectiveActionRecommendations

F.CommunicationwithComplainantandTransparency


138.Within180daysoftheEffectiveDate,theCityshallenhanceitsexistingwebsitetoensurethatcomplainantcanfileandtrackhisorherowncomplaintofofficermisconduct.139.Within120daysoftheEffectiveDate,theCityshallreviewitsprotocolstoensurethattheCityshareswithcomplainantsrequesteddocumentationabouthisorherowncomplianttotheextentpermittedbylaw.140.TheCityshallensurethatIPRprovideseachcomplainantatrackingnumberuponreceiptofthecomplaint,informseachcomplainantofthecomplaintclassification,assignment(precinctorIA) and outcome of the compliant (sustained, unproven, etc.) in writing (whether mail,email/text,orfax),includinginformationregardingwhethertheCitytookanycorrectiveaction.TheCityAttorney’sOfficeshalldeterminewhetherdisclosuresregardingcorrectiveactionarerequiredonacase-by-casebasisconsistentwithOregon’sPublicRecordsLaw.ComplianceLabel PartialCompliance Methodology ReviewIPRwebsite;ReviewedIPRpolicy;Reviewedfindingsletters



91


WecontinuetoseeevidenceofIPRconformingwithpartsofPars.138and139.Werefer

thereadertoourpreviousreportforIPRprogresstothisdate.However,wehavecontinuedourdialoguewithIPRaboutre-introducingasatisfactionsurveyforcomplainantstoensuretheyaresatisfiedwiththecomplaintprocessandthereceiptofinformation.Communitymemberswithwhomwehavespokenwereverysupportiveofthisidea.WehaveopenedadialoguewiththeCityAuditorandIPRdirectorregardingthesurvey.ThedatacollectedfromthiseffortwillhelpsubstantiatewhethertheCity’swebsitehasbeensufficientlyenhanced(Par.138).

WehavespokenwiththeCityAttorney’sofficeregardingtheirresponsibilityinPar.140to“determinewhetherdisclosuresregardingcorrectiveactionarerequiredonacase-by-casebasis.”WhenarequestforcorrectiveactionisreceivedandthereisambiguityastowhetherPublicRecordsLawwouldrequiredisclosure,theCityAttorney’sofficeprovidesanopiniononthematter.Thisisoftendoneinformally(eitherbyphoneoremail).Ifthedecisionisthattherequestdoesnotmeetthe“publicinterest”criteriaofdisclosure(ORS192.501),therequestingpartycanappeal.Ininstanceswherethereisanappeal,theCityAttorney’sofficewouldissueaformal response which is documented in the public records request database(https://www.portlandoregon.gov/66961).

TheCityAttorney’sofficehasindicatedthattherearenospecificcriteriasetoutinORS192.501 thatwould requiredisclosure.ORS192.501 states “The followingpublic recordsareexempt from disclosure….unless the public interest requires disclosure in the particularinterest.”TheCityAttorney’sofficeindicatedthatsincethelegislationisvague,thedecisiontodisclose is often directed by case law. The City Attorney’s office stated that if (1) the eventinvolvedahigherrankingofficerand(2)theallegationwasofaseriousnature,thencaselawsupportstheactofdisclosure.WeconsidertheseprotocolsfordisclosurearesufficienttomeettherequirementsofPar.140.

COCLRecommendations

• ContinuetoworkwithCOCLtodevelopandintroduceanewcomplainantsatisfactionsurvey


• COCLreviewofIPRpolicy• COCLreviewofcomplainttrackingwebpage• COCLreviewoffindingslettertocomplainant• InterviewofCityAttorney



92

IX.COMMUNITYENGAGEMENTANDCREATIONOFCOMMUNITYOVERSIGHTADVISORYBOARD


141.To leverage the ideas, talent,experience, andexpertiseof thecommunity, theCity, inconsultationwithDOJ,shallestablishaCommunityOversightAdvisory Board(“COAB”),within90 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement. The COAB shall be authorized to: (a)independentlyassesstheimplementationofthisAgreement;(b)makerecommendationstothePartiesandtheCOCLonadditionalactions;(c)advise theChiefandthePoliceCommissioneronstrategiestoimprovecommunityrelations;(d) providethecommunitywithinformationontheAgreementanditsimplementation;(e) contributetothedevelopmentandimplementationofaPPBCommunityEngagementand OutreachPlan(“CEOPlan”);and(f)receivepubliccommentsandconcerns.142.Membership of the COAB shall be comprised of fifteen (15) voting members, five (5)advisorymembers,andtheCOCL.(SeeSettlementAgreementforspecificselectioncriteria).143.The15votingmembersofCOABare independentoftheCityandPPB andshallnotbecurrentlyemployedbytheCity.Membersmustagreetoserveforaminimumofatwo-yearterm,andmaybereappointedforoneadditionalyear.TheCOABmaycreateanexecutivecommitteeor other subcommittees, as appropriate, to accomplish the tasks designated to it under thisAgreement.TheCityshallprovide administrativesupportsothattheCOABcanperformthedutiesandresponsibilities identifiedinthisAgreement.144.TheCOABshall report to theCOCL. TheCOCLwill chair theCOAB, presideoverCOABmeetings, takeandcount votes, andperformsuchother activitiesas arenecessaryfor theefficientoperationoftheCOAB.IftheCOCLdeterminesthata COABmemberisnolongerfittoserve on account of misconduct, the COCL shall consult with DOJ prior to removing suchmember.FollowingtheremovalofaCOAB member,analternativeshallbeselectedfromthesamepoolofapplicantsastheremoved COABmember.145 (See Settlement Agreement for description of selection process for five communitymembers)ComplianceLabel PartialCompliance Methodology InterviewCitypersonnelandCOABmembers;Observeand

participateinCOABprocess



93

ComplianceAssessmentGiventhatthisisanassessmentofPPB’sandtheCity’scompliancewiththeSettlement

Agreement,wewillonlycommenthereonspecificissueswhicharetheresponsibilityoftheseentities.

Duringperiodsinthethirdandfourthquarterof2016whentheCOABwasactive,theCityprovidedsupport formeetingspace,refreshments,accommodations,audio-videoneeds,andITsupport.COABmeetingsoccurredinconvenientlocationsformembersofthePortlandcommunity,locatednearlightrail,streetcar,andbusstops.InadditiontoresourcesforCOABmeetings, the City provided resources for personnel related to COAB functions, including aProgramSupportSpecialistandaMentalHealthSpecialist.

Inthethirdquarterof2016,theCity,withtheapprovalofDOJ,placedtheCOABona60-dayrecess“toevaluatethesuccessesandfailuresofthecommunityengagementandoversightprovisionsoftheagreement,”accordingtoanAugust19memofromDOJtotheCityAttorney.

Afterthe60-dayrecessexpired,norevisedplanwasprovidedandtheCOABresumedfunctioning.AlthoughtheCOABandCOCLagreedthattheyshouldoperateindependently,wecontinued to chair COAB meetings as required by the Settlement Agreement until therecommendedseparationhasbeenformallyapproved.

At the end of the fourth quarter, no revised plan of action for community input andoversightofchangesrelatedtotheSettlementAgreementhadbeensubmittedbytheCity,withthetwo-yearCOABappointmentssettoexpireearlyinthefirstquarterof2017.However,wecontinuetofindtheCityinPartialCompliancewiththerequirementsoftheseparagraphsasaresultoftheircontinuedconversationswithstakeholders.Althoughafinalizedproposalhasnotbeenreleased,theCityhasnotrefrainedfromattemptingtosatisfytheseparagraphs.However,Partial Compliance is not Substantial Complianceand theCitymust continue their efforts toprovidearevisedplanofactionforcommunityinputandoversight.

Given the importance of broad community input regarding police reform efforts ingeneral,weawaitarevisedproposalforcommunityinputandoversightofthechangesrelatedtotheSettlementAgreement.WeencourageotherstakeholderstoworkcollaborativelywiththeCitytoensurethisoutcomeandweencouragetheCitytotakeownershipandaleadershiproleinthiseffort.Additionally,wherenotboundbymediation,werecommendtheCityprovideupdates to the broader community as to the progressmade towards a revised proposal forcommunityinputandoversight.

COCLRecommendations

• CityshouldsubmitarevisedplanofactionforcommunityinputandoversightofchangesrelatedtotheSettlementAgreement

• Wherenotboundbymediation,theCityshouldprovideupdatestothebroadercommunityastotheprogressmadetowardsarevisedproposalforcommunityinputandoversight


• COCLobservationofCOABmeetings• COCLandCOABrecommendations



94


146.COCLSummary:Paragraph146statesthat,“Toensureconstitutionalpolicing, tocloselyinteractwith the community to resolveneighborhoodproblems, and to increase communityconfidence,PPBshallworkwithCityresourcesknowledgeableaboutpublicoutreachprocessestodevelopandfinalizeaCEOPlan.”ThesubsectionsofPar.146 include itemsrelatedtotheCommunity Survey, the survey of PPB members, two public hearings to gather communityfeedback on PPB community engagement plan, COAB review of PPB CEO plan, and COABsolicitationof input fromHumanRightsCommissionCommunityPoliceRelationsCommittee,including work to implement 2009 PPB “Plan to Address Racial Profiling,” and COABrecommendationsonCEOplan.(Fordetailsandexactlanguage,seetheSettlementAgreement).ComplianceLabel PartialCompliance Methodology ReviewCommunitySurveyresults;ReviewPPBInternalSurvey

results;Reviewresultsofpublichearing;InterviewCitypersonnelandCOABmembers;ObservePPBpresentationofpriorcommunityoutreachefforts


In the third and fourthquarterof 2016, theprogressof community engagementwas

stalledduringthe60-dayrecess,andweather-relatedmeetingcancellationsfurthercontributedto delays in progress. However, some activities related to gathering the perspective ofcommunitymembers did occur in the third quarter. In August of 2016, Davis, Hibbitts, andMidghall(DHM)ResearchconductedfocusgroupswithanumberofdemographicpopulationsinPortland,includingpersonswithmentalillness,youth,LGBT,andhouselesspopulations.Focusgroup questions were created in collaboration with COAB’s Community Engagement andOutreachPlanSubcommittee(CEOPS).

Subjectswererecruitedthroughphonecallstocommunitymemberswhereinscreeningquestionsrelatedtothedesiredgroupswereaskedtoidentifypotentialparticipants.Potentialsubjects were also recruited through flyers asking interested parties to contact a DHMrepresentative. If thesubjectmetthecriteria forthedesiredgroup,theywere invitedtothefocusgroupsandprovidedafinancialincentiveforparticipating.BetweenAugust15andAugust18,2016,atotalofsixfocusgroupswereheld–onefocusedonthehouselesscommunity,onefocusedontheLGBTQ+community,onefocusedonyouth,andthreefocusedonpersonslivingwithmentalillness(withsubjectsorganizedintoonegroupperPrecinct).

Theresultsofthefocusgroupsindicatedthatparticipantswere“uncomfortablewiththecurrentstateofpolicing”(DHMReport).Whileparticipantsunderstoodthedifficultyofpolicing,many felt therewas room for improvements in threemain areas: recruitment, training, andcommunity involvement. Participants also indicated that PPB does an “adequate job” (DHMReport) of performing traditional police tasks (e.g. fighting crime) but can improve oncontemporarynotionsofpolicing(e.g.respectfultreatment,interpersonalcommunication,etc.).



95

CombinedwiththeothersubsectionsofPar.146,PPBandCOABhavemadesomestridestowardstherequiredgroundworkforcraftingaCEOPlanoverthecourseofthelasttwoyears,with consultation from the COCL. A “reliable, comprehensive, and representative survey ofmembersof thePortlandcommunity”wasconducted (146a)with theabovedescribed focusgroupsconvenedtogathersupplementalperceptions.TwoiterationsofthePPBorganizationalsurveyhavealsooccurredinordertogatherofficerperspectives(146a).TheCOABandPPBhavereviewedtheresultsofthesurveys,inaccordancewithPar.146(e).TheCOABandPPBheldtwopublic meetings to “gather public input on PPB’s outreach efforts” (146b). A communityengagementworkshopoccurred,allowingtheCOABto“reviewPPB’spriorcommunityoutreachefforts”(146c)andgatherfurthercommunityperspectives.AninitialconsultationbetweentheCOABandtheCPRCoccurredinaccordancewithsubsection(d)(thoughamorein-depthmeetinghasyettooccurduetothesuspensionofCRPCactivity).

Althoughthesestridesweremade,norecommendationstotheChiefregardingtheCEOPlanhasbeenmadetodate.PPBcontinuestoengagethePortlandcommunityinavarietyofways outside the requirements of Par. 146 (see our prior Outcomes Assessments). WerecommendthatPPBcontinuethesecommunityengagementeffortsandincorporatethemintoanoverallCEOPlanoncearevisedplanforcommunityinputissubmittedbytheCity.

COCLRecommendations

• CityshouldsubmitarevisedplanofactionforcommunityinputandoversightofchangesrelatedtotheSettlementAgreement


• COCLobservationofCOABmeetings• COCLreviewofcommunitysurveyresults• COCLobservationofCommunityEngagementWorkshop


147.PPBshallcontinuetocollectappropriatedemographicdataforeachprecinctsothatthePrecinctCommander, togetherwith theCOAB,maydevelopoutreachandpolicingprogramsspecificallytailoredtotheresidentsoftheprecincts.148. PPB shall continue to require that officers document appropriate demographic dataregardingthesubjectsofpoliceencounters,includingtherace,age,sex,andperceivedmentalhealthstatusofthesubject,andprovidesuch informationtotheCPRCtocontributetotheiranalysisofcommunityconcernsregardingdiscriminatorypolicing.InconsultationwiththeCOABandCPRC,PPBshallconsiderenhancementstoitsdatacollectionefforts,andreportonitseffortsto enhance data collection to the DOJ by no later than December 31, 2013, and quarterlythereafter.ComplianceLabel PartialCompliance Methodology ReviewedPrecinctdemographicstablescompiledbyPPB;Reviewed

demographicdataforpoliceencounters



96


PPB provided demographic tables for different Precincts as part of their supporting

documents in2016Q4. Thedemographics collected continue to includeelements related torace/ethnicity,gender,age,economicstatus,disability,education,andhousing.WemaintainourpositioninpreviousreportsthatthedemographicscollectedaresufficienttosatisfythefirstpartofPar.147.However,nomeetingsoccurredbetweenthePrecinctCommandersandCOABto “develop outreach and policing programs specifically tailored to the residents of theprecincts.”

Whileawaitingaresolutiontoarevisedplanofactionforcommunityinputandoversight,werecommendPPBandPrecinctCommandersengageindiscussionswithcommunityleadersandgroupsforeachPrecinctintheabsenceofCOAB.AlthoughPPB’sabilitytointeractwiththeCOABmaybehinderedatthismoment,thereisnothingpreventingPPBfromengaginginthespiritofPar.147,evenifinformally.

Although PPB currently collects demographic data regarding the subjects of policeencounters,PPB’sabilitytosatisfytherequirementsofPar.148continuedtobehinderedbytheCPRCbeinginactive.AswithPar.147,weencouragePPBtoconsiderwaystosatisfythespiritofPar.148intheabsenceofCPRC.

COCLRecommendations

• PPBshouldsatisfyitsobligationsunderPars.147and148inpreparationformeetingswithCPRC.


• COCLreviewofPrecinctdemographicdata• COCLreviewofdemographicsofpoliceencounters


149. The COAB, COCL, PPB, and DOJ will jointly develop metrics to evaluate communityengagementandoutreach.ComplianceLabel PartialCompliance Methodology Reviewedpriorevaluations


In the third and fourth quarter of 2016, only the focus groups provided metrics on

evaluating communityengagementandoutreach. Therehavebeennumerousevaluationsofcommunityengagementoverthelasttwoyears(communityfocusgroups,communitysurvey,PPBsurvey),andtheseevaluationshave largelyservedasbaselinedata,prior tovariousPPBreforms.NeithertheCOABnorPPBincorporatedthebaselineevaluationsintoarecommendedCEOPlanforPPB,andPPBdidnotissueafinalCEOPlan.WeviewthemetricsidentifiedinPar.



97

149asmeasuring thesuccessful implementationof theCEOPlan,showingchanges fromthebaselinedata.GiventhatnoCEOPlanhasbeenrecommendedorimplementedbytheendof2016,nofurtherprogressonthisparagraphhasbeenmade.AstheCOABappointmentsweresettoendinearly2017,PPBwillbeleftwithoutinputonaCEOPlanfromthecommunity.COCLRecommendations

• DeterminethefutureofcommunityengagementinordertoobtaincommunityinputonPPB’sCEOPlan

• Continuetomonitorcommunityengagementandpolice-communityrelationsthroughcommunityandpolicesurveys


• Priorevaluationsofcommunityengagement.


150. Annually, PPB shall issue a publicly available PPB Annual Report, which shall include asummaryofitsproblem-solvingandcommunitypolicingactivities.AdraftoftheAnnualReportshallbereviewedbytheCOABbeforethereportisfinalizedandreleasedtothepublic.Oncereleased,PPBshallholdatleastonemeetingineachprecinctareaandataCityCouncilmeeting,annually, to present its Annual Report and educate the community about its efforts incommunitypolicinginregardtotheuseofforce,andaboutPPB’spoliciesandlawsgoverningpedestrian stops, stops and detentions, and biased-free policing, including a civilian’sresponsibilitiesandfreedomsinsuchencounters.ComplianceLabel PartialCompliance Methodology Reviewed“PPBAnnualProgressReport2015”;InterviewedPPB

Personnel

ComplianceAssessmentPPBhadissuedtheirannualreportinthesecondquarterof2016and,consistentwiththe

recommendationinourlastreport,hasmadeitpubliclyavailableontheirwebsite.However,thereportwhichcontains“asummaryofitsproblem-solvingandcommunitypolicingactivities”isalludedtoonthewebsiteas“DOJAnnualProgressReport”despitethetitleofthereportbeing“PortlandPoliceBureauAnnualProgressReport2015.”WeunderstandwhyPPB labels their“DOJQuarterlyUpdates”assuch,sincetheyidentifyandrespondtoeachsubstantiveparagraphof the Settlement Agreement. However, wemaintain that the annual report should not beassociated with DOJ and doing so only serves to undermine the lack of PPB ownership oforganizationalchanges.Thecurrentadministrationbelievesintheimportanceofthesereformsonthewhole,andtherefore,deservesitsownreport.

Inthethirdquarterof2016,PrecinctCommandersheldmeetingsineachofthethreePrecinctstodiscusstheAnnualReportandengageinconversationswithcommunitymembers.OurinterviewsrevealedthatthemeetingswereconstructiveandthatbothPPBmembersandthecommunityfeltthemeetingsweresuccessful.WeechoDOJ’scommentthatsuchmeetings



98

should continue “outside the mandate of our Agreement.” However, some communitymembersdidnotfeeltheywereprovidedadequatenotificationofthePrecinctmeetings.PPBshouldreviewtheirnotificationprocesstodeterminewhetherenhancementscanbemadetoensurethatabroadrepresentationofcommunitymembersarenotified.

DespitethesuccessfulmeetingsineachofthethreePrecincts,nomeetinginfrontofCityCouncil occurred in the third and fourth quarter of 2016. City Council is required to have apresentationoftheAnnualReportandwerecommendthisoccurassoonaspossible.AstheAnnualReportwasissuedinJulyof2016,CityCouncilshouldnotdelaythemeetingsomuchthatitwouldrenderthepresentationmoot.

COCLRecommendations

• RevisePPBwebsitetoremovethelabel“DOJAnnualProgressReport”fromAnnualReport

• ReviewPrecinctmeetingnotificationprocesstodeterminewhetherenhancementscanbemade

• HoldCityCouncilmeetingtopresentreportComplianceRatingBasedOn

• COCLreviewofAnnualProgressReport


151.TheCOABmaymakerecommendationsapprovedbyamajorityofitsmembershipregardingimplementationofthetermsofthisAgreement.ComplianceLabel N/AMethodology N/A


AstheChairoftheCOAB,werefrainfrommakingcompliancedeterminationsregarding

COABresponsibilities.However,wenotethatduetovacanciesontheCOABboard,a“majorityofitsmembership”wasnotalwayspossible.Inthefourthquarterof2016,COABaltereditsownbylawstoreducethenumberofpeoplenecessaryforaquorumandmajority.

COCLRecommendations



• COABactionsandrecommendations



99


152.TheCOABshallmeetatleasttwiceperyearwiththeChief,thePoliceCommissioner,PPBPrecinctCommanders,PPBNeighborhoodResponseTeam,andarepresentativeoftheOfficeofNeighborhoodInvolvementCrimePreventiontoassessandsolicitcommentonPPB’sactivitiesinregardstocommunityoutreach,engagement,andproblem-solvingpolicing.TheCOABshallalsoprovidetheopportunityforpubliccommentateachofitsmeetingstokeepopenlinesofcommunicationwiththepublic-atlarge.ComplianceLabel Non-CompliancebutInitialStepsTakenMethodology ObservedCOABmeetings;ObservedPPBpresentationonprior

communityengagementefforts

ComplianceAssessmentNoprogresswasmadeduringthethirdandfourthquarterof2016onthesemeetings.A

meeting that would have satisfied Par. 152 was scheduled for the second quarter but wascancelled and not rescheduled during the third and fourth quarter. Given that COABappointmentsaretoexpire inthefirstquarterof2017,wedonotanticipateanymeaningfuldiscussionsbetweentheentitiesdescribedinPar.152andtheCOABinthenearfuture.Whenviewedindividually,thereasonsfordelaysinholdingthesemeetingshavebeenunderstandable,buttakentogether,theyrepresentafailuretoaccomplishthegoalsofPar.152.

COCLRecommendations

• Determinethefutureofcommunityengagement


• COCLobservationofCOABmeetings


153.ArepresentativeoftheOregonU.S.Attorney’sOfficeshallbeinvitedtoattendallCOABmeetings.ComplianceLabel N/AMethodology N/A


ArepresentativeoftheOregonU.S.Attorney’sOfficehasbeeninvitedtoattendallCOAB

meetings.Arepresentativehas,infactattendednearlyallCOABmeetings.



100

COCLRecommendations

• N/A


• N/A


154.COABshallmeetasneededtoaccomplishtheirobjectivesassetforthinthisAgreement.AllCOABmeetingsshallbeopentothepublic.Inaddition,COABshallattendquarterlymeetingswith theCOCLasprovided inPar.163.To theextent thatCOABmeetingsaresubject to theOregonPublicMeetingsLaw,orsimilarregulatoryorstatutoryrequirements,theCityshallberesponsible to give advicenecessary to theCOCL toensure compliancewith those lawsandagreestorepresentCOCLinanychallengesregardingcompliancewiththoselaws.155.TheCityshallprovideCOABmemberswithappropriatetrainingnecessarytocomplywithrequirementsofCityandStatelaw.ComplianceLabel SubstantialCompliance Methodology InterviewedDOJandCitypersonnel;ObservedCOABmeetings


TheCity’sresponsibilitiesinPars.154and155continuetobefulfilledtotheextentthat

theCOABandCOCLhaverequestedtheirassistance.UponanyindicationoflegalissuesdealingwiththeoperationoftheCOAB,identifiedbytheCOCL,COAB,ortheCity,wehaverequestedlegaladvicefromtheCityAttorney’sOffice.WehaveaskedonmanyoccasionsfortheCitytoopineonlegalmattersandtheCityAttorney’sOfficehasassistedineveryinstance.Assuch,theCityhassubstantiallycompliedwiththerequirementsoftheseParagraphs.

DependingonthefutureoftheCOABoranyothercommunityboard,wewouldexpectthe City Attorney’s Office to continue to provide relevant legal advice. Additionally, inaccordancewith Par. 154, the proposal for a revised community input and oversight boardshouldincludetherequirementthattheboardholdmeetingsthatareopentothepublic.

COCLRecommendations

• Cityshouldincludeintheirproposalforarevisedcommunityboardtherequirementthattheboardholdmeetingsthatareopentothepublic


• ObservationofCOABmeetings• RequeststotheCityAttorney’sOffice



101

X.AGREEMENTIMPLEMENTATIONANDENFORCEMENT


156. PPB shall implement immediately all provisions of this Agreement which involve thecontinuationofcurrentpolicies,procedures,andpracticesspecifictoforce,training,community-based mental health services, crisis intervention, employee information system, officeraccountability,andcommunityengagement.Exceptwhereotherwisespecificallyindicated,PPBshall implement all other provisions of this Agreement no later thanwithin 180 days of theEffectiveDate.ComplianceLabel PartialCompliance Methodology Revieweddocumentsrelatedtopolicies,procedures,practices

specifictoforce,training,community-basedmentalhealthservices,crisisintervention,EIS,officeraccountability,andcommunityengagement;InterviewedCity/PPBpersonnel;Observedmeetingsandtrainings


Aswehavecautionedinpreviousreports,substantiallyimplementingtheconditionsof

the Agreementwill take time, resources and continued commitment by the Portland PoliceBureauandtheCityofPortland.WeencouragethePPBandtheCitytoprioritizetheireffortstoimplementprovisionswhicharetimesensitive,withtheunderstandingthatwewillworkwiththemtorespectthesepriorities.DelaysinimplementationhavenotalwaysbeenthefaultoftheCity,astherearemanystakeholderswithavoiceinthisprocess.Toalargeextent,webelievethattheCityandPPBaremakingagoodfaithefforttoimplementtherecommendedchanges,althoughwemaydisagreeaboutthe levelofprogressthathasbeenachievedtodate.Whiletimelinessisimportant,wemaintainthatthequalityofworkshouldsupersedeexpeditiousness.WeencouragetheCityandPPBtoworkconscientiouslytomeetand,insomeplaces,exceedthetermsoftheAgreementinordertoimplementbestpracticesandevidence-basedpolicing(i.e.knowledgeofwhatworksinpolicing).

COCLRecommendations

• Continuetoprioritizeeffortstoimplementprovisionswhicharetimesensitive

• Continuetoworkexpeditiouslywhilemaintainingqualityofworkinthepursuitofbestpractices

• ContinuetoworkwithDOJandtheCOCLtocommunicateconcernsandexpectations


• COCLreviewofallrelateddocumentsidentifiedthroughoutthisreport



102


158.AllPPBauditsandreportsrelatedtotheimplementationofthisAgreementshallbemadepubliclyavailableviawebsiteandatPPB,IPR,CityHall,andotherpubliclocations.AuditsandreportsshallbepostedonPPB’swebsite.159. PPB shall collect and maintain all data and records necessary to facilitate and ensuretransparency and wide public access to information related to PPB decision making andactivities,andcompliancewiththisAgreement,inaccordancewiththeOregonPublicRecordsLaw.ComplianceLabel PartialCompliance Methodology ReviewedPPBwebsite;ReviewedPPBQuarterlyUpdates


Regarding Paragraph 158, the PPB posts reports, audits, and other data/information

relevant to theirwork in implementing theAgreement to theirwebsite.PPBalsoposts theirQuarterlyUpdatesforpublicreview.

Regarding Paragraph 159, there are areas that would benefit from enhanced datacollection.TheseincludethereviewofEISflags,dataonofficerinteractionswiththepublic,andtheoverall datamanagement systems.Wecontinue toworkwithPPBonhow these canbeenhancedtomeettherequirementsoftheSettlementAgreement.Withbudgetadjustments,theCOCLwilldevoteexistingCOCLresourcestoananalysisofPPB’sdatasystemsto identifylimitationsandproposecorrectiveactions.Wewillalsoprovideaplanforcollectingdatafromthe community to ensure that various segments of the community (especially personsexperiencingamentalhealthcrisisandpersonsofcolor)aretreatedwithdignityandrespect.ThisisdelineatedinourMay2017OutcomesAssessmentreport.

COCLRecommendations

• Collectadditionaldatatomonitororganizationalperformance,engagethecommunity,andincreaseaccountabilityandtransparency


• COCLreviewofinformationfoundonPPBwebsite• Assessmentofexistingdatacollectionsystems

B.PPBComplianceCoordinator




103

165. PPBwill hire an employee familiarwith the operations of PPB for the duration of thisAgreement,toserveasaPPBComplianceCoordinator.TheComplianceCoordinatorwillserveasaliaisonbetweenPPBandboththeCOCLandDOJandwillassistwithPPB’scompliancewiththisAgreement.Ataminimum,theComplianceCoordinatorwill:(COCLsummary)coordinatecomplianceactivities,maintainandprovidedocumentationtoCOCLandDOJ,assigncompliancetasks to PPB personnel, and accept primary responsibility for the collection the informationrequiredbytheCOCL.ComplianceLabel SubstantialCompliance Methodology InterviewedComplianceCoordinatorandotherPPBandCity

personnel;EvaluatedresponsestorequestsmadebytheCOCL

ComplianceAssessmentIn the thirdand fourthquarterof2016, theComplianceCoordinatorpositionwas re-

staffeddue to theprior ComplianceCoordinator takingover the role of Chief of Police. Theprevious InspectorwasnamedasthecurrentComplianceCoordinator.Despitethechange inpersonnel,theCOCLteamcontinuestobeimpressedbytheprofessionalismandcompetenceofthe Compliance Coordinator team. On the whole, they have been very responsive to ourinquiries,arrangedmeetings,providedaccesstoinformation,andassistedusinnavigatingtheorganizationalterrainofthePPB.TheComplianceCoordinatornowreportsdirectlytotheChiefof Police and thus has the authority to ensure that changes in policy, training, or otherrequirementsoftheSettlementAgreementareimplementedwithminimalresistance.

COCLRecommendations

• KeepthecurrentreportingstructurefortheComplianceCoordinatorteamtoensurecompliancewiththeSettlementAgreement


• WeeklyconferenceswithPPBComplianceCoordinator

C.AccesstoPeopleandDocuments


166.TheCOCLshallhavefullanddirectaccesstoallPPBandCitystaff,employees,facilities,anddocumentsthattheCOCLreasonablydeemsnecessarytocarryouthis/herduties.IfadocumentrequestedbytheCOCLisprivilegedattorney-clientcommunication,theCOCLshallnotdisclosethedocumentinamannerthatdestroysthatprivilegewithouttheapprovaloftheCityAttorney.TheCOCLshallcooperatewithPPBandtheCitytoaccesspeople,facilities,anddocumentsinareasonablemannerthatminimizes,totheextentpossible,interferencewithdailyoperation.InordertoreportonPPB’simplementationofthisAgreement,theCOCLshallregularlyconduct



104

reviewstoensurethatPPBimplementsandcontinuestoimplementallmeasuresrequiredbythisAgreement.TheCOCLmayconducton-sitereviewswithoutpriornoticetoPPBortheCity.ComplianceLabel PartialComplianceMethodology RequestaccesstoPPBandCitystaff,employees,facilitiesand

documents

ComplianceAssessmentIngeneral,PPBandtheCityhavebeenaccommodatingtotheCOCL’srequests,although

theyhavebeenunabletomeetsomerequests.Theyhavefollowedourrecommendationthatalldocumentsrelatedtocompliancehavebeenincludedintheircorrespondingfoldersinthesupporting documents section of the Quarterly Update reports. In instances where we feelfurtherdocumentationiswarranted,thePPBhasrespondedinatimelymanner.

COCLRecommendations

• ContinuetomakeeveryeffortaccommodateCOCLrequestsinaccordancewiththeSettlementAgreement


• PPB’sgeneralaccommodationtoCOCLrequests

D.ReviewofPoliciesandInvestigations


169. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, PPB shall revise and/or develop its policiesprocedures,protocols,trainingcurricula,andpracticestoensurethattheyareconsistentwith,incorporate,address,andimplementallprovisionsofthisAgreementspecifictoforce,training,community-based mental health services, crisis intervention, employee information system,officeraccountability,andcommunityengagement.PPBshallreviseand/ordevelopasnecessaryotherwrittendocumentssuchashandbooks,manuals,andforms,toeffectuatetheprovisionsofthisAgreement.PPBshallsendneworrevisedpolicies,procedures,protocols,andtrainingcurricularegardinguseofforce,interactionswithpersonsinmentalhealthcrisisandsystemsofaccountabilitytoDOJastheyarepromulgated,withacopytotheCOCL.DOJandtheCOCLwillprovidecommentswithin45daysandwillnotunreasonablywithholdrecommendationsaboutpolicies,procedures,protocols,andtrainingcurricula.TheCOCLshallseekthetimelyinputofthe relevant members of the Training Division and patrol officers, as well members of thecommunity.IftheCitydisagreeswithDOJ’scomments,theCityshall,within14daysofbeinginformedoftheDOJ’scomments,informthePartiesinwritingofthedisagreement.Within14daysthereafter,thePartiesshallmeetandconferonthedisagreementatamutuallyagreeabletime.UponapprovalbytheParties,policies,procedures,trainingcurricula,andmanualsshallbe



105

implementedwithin30daysofagreementortheCourt’sdecision.PPBshallprovideinitialandin-servicetrainingtoallofficersandsupervisorswithrespecttonewlyimplementedorrevisedpoliciesandprocedures.PPBshalldocumentemployeereviewofandtraininginneworrevisedpoliciesandprocedures.170.TheChief shallpostonPPB’swebsite finaldraftsofallnewor revisedpolicies thatareproposedspecifictoforce,training,communitybasedmentalhealthservices,crisisintervention,employeeinformationsystem,officeraccountability,andcommunityengagement,toallowthepublicanopportunityfornoticeandcomment,priortofinalizingsuchpolicies.171.TheChief’sOfficeshallcoordinateareviewofeachpolicyorprocedurerequiredbythisAgreement180daysaftersuchpolicyorprocedureisimplemented,andannuallythereafter(ona regularly published schedule), to ensure that such policy or procedure provides effectivedirectiontoPPBpersonnelandremainsconsistentwiththepurposeandrequirementsofthisAgreement.ComplianceLabel PartialCompliance Methodology EngagedinpolicyreviewwithPPBandDOJ


PPBcontinuestopostdirectivesupforUniversalReviewtotheirwebsitetosolicitand

gathercommunityinputonrevisions.ThejointreviewofdirectivesbyCOCL,PPB,andDOJhasbeenslowbutdeliberate.Wecontinue tomakeprogresson reviewing, revising,andpassingdirectives, though progress needs to speed up, so that appropriate training and otherorganizationalchangescanbeintroduced.

Onlyafewpolicieshavereceivedfinalapprovalafternearlytwoyears.WerecommendthatthePartiesmeettoagreeonarevisedprocessthatwillacceleratepolicyreview.TheCOCLhasofferedtotakeamoredirect leadershiproleinthepolicyreviewprocessandcoordinateeffortswithDOJ.

COCLRecommendations

• Partiesshouldrevisitthepolicyreviewprocess


• COCL,PPB,andDOJjointpolicyreview


172.PPBshallapplypoliciesuniformlyandholdofficersaccountable forcomplyingwithPPBpolicyandprocedure.ComplianceLabel PartialCompliance



106

Methodology Revieweddirectivesandaccountabilitymechanisms

ComplianceAssessmentOur evaluation of Par. 172 is found within various provisions assessed in previous

sections.Wewillcontinuetoevaluatewhetherpoliciesareuniformlyappliedandofficersareheld accountablewhen they violatepolicies. This requiresnew formsof documentation andmeasurementsystemsasdescribedinthisreportandinaseparateOutcomesreportpreparedbytheCOCL.Somenewformsofdocumentationandmeasurementsystemsrecommendedbythe COCL have been implemented in some fashion; others have yet to be implemented.However,progressisbeingmadeandwewillcontinuetomonitorsuchprogress.

Wenotethattheprocessofuniformlyapplyingpolicyandholdingofficersaccountablerequirestheincorporationofacompletesystemoforganizationalmanagement.Soundpoliciesshouldleadtosoundtraining(appropriatelymeasured).Soundtrainingshouldleadtoofficersdemonstratingsoundtacticsandcommunicationtechniquesonthestreet(alsoappropriatelymeasured). Behavioronthestreetshouldthen informpolicy, training,andofficerdecisions.Apartfromhavingthesesystemssetinplace,PPBneedstoensurethattheculturaltoneoftheBureau reinforces these processes. We have measured the cultural tone in organizationalsurveys(seeourOctober2015andNovember2016OutcomesAssessments)andimplorePPBtocontinuemeasuringtheculturaltonetodeterminewhetherthereisorganizationalbuy-infortheoperationstheyareengaginginandthereformstheyareintroducing.

Self-monitoringsystemsmustbeestablishedthatencourageself-regulationandpreventofficers from acting inways that could harm communitymembers or themselves and coulddamagethereputationoftheBureau.Insuchanenvironment,officerswillbeinclinedtostepinbeforeanotherofficerengagesinproblematicbehavior(peer-intervention).Andwhenpolicyviolations occur, PPB command and the community at large should be confident thatinterventionswilloccur,whethertheybecounseling,discipline,orsomeotherresponse.Suchsystems of self-monitoring are essential for achieving organizational accountability and forgainingoverallcompliancewiththeSettlementAgreement.

COCLRecommendations

• Seecompliancerecommendationsmadeinprevioussectionsregardingpoliciesandaccountability


• Preponderanceofdocumentsandsystemsofaccountabilitypreviouslyaddressedinthisreport



107

E.CityReportsandRecords


176. Beginning with the COCL’s first quarterly report, as set forth in paragraph 166 of thisAgreement,PPBshallprepareastatusreportnolaterthan45daysbeforetheCOCL’squarterlyreportisdue.ThePPBComplianceCoordinatorshallleadtheeffortinpreparingthisstatusreportandshallprovidecopiestotheCOCL,DOJ,andthepublic.PPB’sreportshalldelineatethestepstakenbyPPBduringthereportingperiodtocomplywitheachprovisionofthisAgreement.177.PPBshallmaintainallrecords,asapplicable,necessarytodocumenttheircompliancewiththetermsofthisAgreementandalldocumentsexpresslyrequiredbythisAgreement.ComplianceLabel SubstantialCompliance Methodology ReviewedPPBQuarterlyUpdatereportsandcorresponding

documents

ComplianceAssessmentPPBhasconsistentlyprovidedtheQuarterlyUpdatereportsrequiredinPar.176ofthe

Agreement. These status reports contain the delineation of “steps taken by PPB during thereportingperiodtocomplywitheachprovisionofthisAgreement.”

PPB has also maintained relevant records related to their compliance efforts anddocumentsexpresslyrequiredbytheAgreement.

COCLRecommendations



• COCLreviewofprovideddocuments

F.Enforcement


190.AllPPBofficersandpersonsrelatedtotheimplementationofthisAgreementshallsignastatementindicatingthattheyhavereadandunderstandthisAgreementwithin90daysoftheeffectivedateof thisAgreement.Suchstatementshallbe retainedbyPPB.PPBshall require



108

compliancewiththisAgreementbytheirrespectiveofficers,employees,agencies,assigns,orsuccessors.ComplianceLabel PartialCompliance Methodology ReviewedExcelsheetsofnewhires;Reviewedpriorconfirmation

emailsforofficersreadingSettlementAgreement

ComplianceAssessmentInourpreviousreport,werecommendedthatPPBprovideaprintoutfromtheintranet

showingthedatethateachemployeereadandacknowledgedtheSettlementAgreement.Thistypeofdocumentationismoreformalandmoreeasilyauditedthanathird-partystatement.WehavenotyetreceivedthistypeofdocumentationandrecommendthatPPBprovidethissothatwemightseeevidencethatallemployeeshavereadandunderstoodtheAgreement.

COCLRecommendations

• Provideintranetprintoutsshowingreview


• COCLpriorreviewofconfirmationemails



109

Inadditiontotheaboveassessedparagraph,thereareanumberofparagraphsthatwouldrequireustoevaluateourownworkortheresponsibilitiesofDOJ.Asourchargeistoreportfindings“relatedtoPPB’scompliancewiththisAgreement,”werefrainfromassessingoursorDOJ’sexecutionofresponsibilities.However,forthepurposeofrecordmaintenance,weincludeherethelanguageofthoseparagraphor,intheinstanceoflongsections,asummaryofthelanguage.

157:Withregard toanyprovision thatprovides forDOJ’s reviewandapproval, includingreviewofallpoliciesthatmustberevised,approvalwillbegrantedinatimelyfashionprovidedthatthePPB’sactionreasonablysatisfiestherequirementsandstandardssetforthintherelevantprovision(s).

160:(COCLSummary)Par.160requirestheCitytoselectaCOCL.ItalsoidentifiestheoverallresponsibilityoftheCOCL,theindependenceoftheCOCL,andtheCity’srequirementtoprovideadministrativesupporttotheCOCL.

161: InordertocollectdataandreportonPPB’s implementationofeachsubstantiveprovisionofthisAgreement,theCOCLshallconductthereviewsspecifiedintheparagraph173ofthisAgreementandsuchadditionalreviewsregardingtheimplementationofthisAgreementastheCOCL,theCity,orDOJdeemsappropriate.BasedontheCOCL’sreviewsandcommunityinput,theCOCLshallmakerecommendationstotheCityregardingmeasuresnecessarytoensurefullandtimelyimplementationofthisAgreement.

162/163/164:(COCLSummary)Pars.162and163requirestheCOCLtoconductthereviewsreflectedinthis report, specifying methodology, compliance assessment, and recommendations for compliance.Drafts of COCL’s reports are to be provided to the Parties and the COAB for comment. COCL is alsorequiredtoholdTownHallsandgathercommunitycommentstoourreports.Par.164thenrequiresCOCLtoconsiderthecommentsandmakeappropriatechangespriortoissuingafinalreport.ThePartiesmaysubmitCOCL’sreportstotheCourtandCOCL’sreportsmaybeusedtoevidencecompliancebeforetheCourt.

167:(COCLSummary)Par.167requirestheDOJtohavefullanddirectaccesstoallPPBandCitypersonnelanddocuments.Par.167alsoprovidesforwhenexceptionsmaybemadeandhowexceptionsmayberemedied.

168:Allnon-publicinformationprovidedtotheCOCLorDOJbyPPBortheCityshallbemaintainedinaconfidentialmanner.NothinginthisAgreementrequirestheCitytodisclosedocumentsprotectedfromdisclosurebytheOregonPublicRecordsLawtothirdparties.

173/174:(COCLSummary)Pars.173and174detailtheSemi-AnnualOutcomeAssessmentrequiredoftheCOCL. SuchOutcomeAssessmentswillmeasurewhether the City and PPB have created systems andresources for responding to persons in mental health crisis, competent accountability and oversightsystems, effective training for officers to deliver service to persons in mental health crisis, propermanagementofuseofforce,androbustsystemsofcommunityengagement.Pars.173and174alsothetypeofdatawhichmayinformtheOutcomeAssessments.

175:(COCLSummary)Par.175requiresDOJtoconductacomprehensiveassessmentofPPBandtheCity’scompliancewiththeSettlementAgreement.Par.175alsoallowsformodificationstotheAgreementifnecessary,providedtheCityagreeswiththemodification.



110

178 – 189: (COCL Summary) Pars. 178-189 provide requirements for the Settlement Agreement’senforcement, including provisions related to jurisdiction, termination, enforcement, additionalconsiderations in required changes, process for non-compliance or misinterpretation of Agreementprovisions,discussionofAgreementamendments,anddefenseoftheAgreement.



111

LISTOFABBREVIATIONSAAR:AfterActionReport(alsoreferredtoas940)

AMR/EMS:AmericanMedicalResponse/EmergencyMedicalService

AS:AccountabilitySubcommittee(COAB)

BHRT:BehavioralHealthResponseTeam

BHU:BehavioralHealthUnit

BHUAC:BehavioralHealthUnitAdvisoryCommittee

BOEC:BureauofEmergencyCommunications

CCO:CoordinatedCareOrganization

CEOPS:CommunityEngagementandOutreachSubcommittee(COAB)

CITraining:CrisisInterventionTraining

CIT:CrisisInterventionTeam

COAB:CommunityOversightandAdvisoryBoard

COCL:ComplianceOfficerandCommunityLiaison

CPRC:CommunityPoliceRelationsCommittee

CRC:CitizenReviewCommittee

CRO:CommunicationRestrictionOrder

DHM:Davis,Hibbitts,&Midghall,Inc.Research

DOJ:DepartmentofJustice

DSUFCS:DataSystems,UseofForce,andComplianceSubcommittee(COAB)

ECIT:EnhancedCrisisInterventionTeam

ECW:ElectronicControlWeapons

EIS:EmployeeInformationSystem



112

FDCR:ForceDataCollectionReport

HRC:HumanRightsCommission

IA:InternalAffairs

IPR:IndependentPoliceReview

LMS:LearningManagementSystem

MHCRS:MentalHealthCrisisResponseSubcommittee(COAB)

PES:PsychiatricEmergencyServices

POH:PoliceOfficerHold

PPB:PortlandPoliceBureau

PRB:PoliceReviewBoard

PSD:ProfessionalStandardsDivision

RU:ResponsibilityUnit

SCT:ServiceCoordinationTeam

SOP:StandardOperatingProcedure

TAStatement:TechnicalAssistanceStatement

TAC:TrainingAdvisoryCouncil



113

LISTOFPERSONNEL

ChiefofPolice:MikeMarshman

AssistantChiefofPolice:MattWagenknecht

AssistantChiefofPolice:MikeLeloff

AssistantChiefofPolice:ChrisUehara

ComplianceCoordinator:SteveJones

Inspector:MikeKrantz

BehavioralHealthUnit(BHU)Manager:TashiaHager

EISAdministrator:FrankGorgone

EISAdministrator:JakeJenson

TrainingManager:BobDay

Auditor:MaryHullCaballero

IPRDirector:ConstantinSevere



114

APPENDIXA

TrainingObjective Measurement Populationorsample

1. Toensurethattraineeshaveachievedormaintainedproficiencylevels

Traineesurvey:Measureknowledge,attitudes,andskillsofindividualtraineesimmediatelyaftertraining

Alltrainees;Mostclassesasresourcespermit

2. Toensurethattrainingcontentisnecessaryandistargetedtospecificdeficiencies

Traineesurvey:Measureknowledge,attitudes,andskillsofthetraineecohortsometimebeforetraining

Sampleofpotentialtrainees;Selectclasseswhereproficiencyornecessityismostuncertain

3. Toevaluatetheimpactoftrainingonproficiencylevels

Traineesurvey:Measureknowledge,attitudes,andskillsofthetraineecohortbeforeandaftertrainingContactsurvey:Measureskillsduringpolice-communityinteractions

Alltrainees1;SelectedclasseswheremeasuringimpactismostimportantCommunitymemberswhorecentlyinteractedwithtraineesfromtheseclasses,includingpersonswithamentalhealthcrisis

4. Toevaluatetheimpactoftrainingoverallontheorganization

PPBOfficersurvey:Longitudinallymeasureknowledge,attitudes,andskillsofallofficers;Contactsurvey:Longitudinallymeasureofficers’skillsduringpolice-communityinteractions

AllswornofficersinthePPB;Communitymemberswithrecentpolicecontactingeneral;

1Aminimalresearchevaluationplanwouldincludeapretestandimmediateposttestofthetrainees,butamuchstrongerplanwouldincludeacontrolgroupofofficerswhodidnotreceivethetrainingatthattime,preferablybyrandomassignment.Thiscanbedifficult,butnotimpossibleforagenciesinterestedinknowingthetrueeffectivenessoftheirtraining.



115

APPENDIXB

TECHNICALASSISTANCESTATEMENT2

Subject:EmployeeInformationSystem(EIS)

Preparedby

ComplianceOfficerandCommunityLiaisons(COCL)

for

PortlandPoliceBureau

CityofPortland,Oregon

January9,2017

2Thistechnicalassistancestatementisauthorizedbyparagraph161oftheSettlementAgreement,wherein“theCOCLshallconductthereviewsspecifiedinparagraph173ofthisAgreementandsuchadditionalreviewsregardingtheimplementationofthisAgreementastheCOCL,theCity,orDOJdeemsappropriate”(emphasisadded).



116

WeissuethisTechnicalAssistanceStatementtotheCityofPortlandandthePortlandPoliceBureau(PPB)regardingtherequirementssetforthinSectionVIIoftheSettlementAgreement(EmployeeInformationSystem) and specifically paragraphs 116 through 119. This Technical Assistance Statement providesguidanceonhowtheuseofPPB’sEmployeeInformationSystemmightbeexpanded.

In2017,weencouragethePPBtogivemoreattentiontotheSettlementAgreement’sstipulationthatEISbe able to “moreeffectively identify at-risk employees, supervisors, and teams to address potentiallyproblematic trends in a timely fashion” (Par. 116). This TA Statement ismeant to assist the PPB byarticulatingsomestepsthatcanbetakentohelpachievethisgoal.

FocusOnPerformanceRatherThanPrediction

Inthepast,wehaveindicatedEIScanbeusedtopredictwhichofficersaremorelikelythanotherstoexperienceanadverseeventwithintheircareer.Althoughwestillmaintainthatpredictionispossible,wearenotinterestedatthistimeincontinuingadebateaboutthissubjectattheriskofbeingdistractedfromtheprimarybenefitofEISsystems.Hence, forthe immediatefuture,werecommendthatEISbeusedasaperformance-basedevaluationtoolthatcanbeappliedattheindividual,supervisor,andunitlevel.Werecommendthatoverthenextyear,PPBinvestinenhancingtheprocessesforreviewingflags,creatinganinterventionstrategy,andmonitoringofficerperformance.

Inthefuture,westillurgePPBtoconsiderhowEIScanserveasausefultooltoidentifyandassistofficerswhoareat-riskofcostlybehaviors.WeencouragethePPBtotakebothaquantitativeandqualitativeapproachtoEIS.Fornow,werecommendthatEISbeconceivedasaSARAmodelofproblemsolving(seeWalker&Archbold, 2014) for evaluating officer performance. Thismodel has four stages: Scanning(identifying problematic behavior), Analysis (evaluating identified officers and selecting officers forintervention),Response (initiating intervention toaddress theproblematicbehavior), andAssessment(post-interventionreview).Hereweintroducethisframeworkanduseitasaheuristicdevicetoillustratethe process and provide examples from other agencies that demonstrate the utility of EIS not yetdevelopedbythePPB. WeofferthiswiththeassumptionthatPPBisinterestedinbestpracticesandevidence-basedpolicing,whichmayexceedtherequirementsof theSettlementAgreement. Ineithercase,theseprinciplesandpracticescanbeinstructive.

Scanning: The scanning step should use the data currently available to PPB to locate officerswhoseperformancecouldbeimproved.Wehavepreviousstatedourpositionthatthecurrentthresholdsfoundin Par. 118 of the Settlement Agreement are insufficient to identify potentially problematic behaviorpatternsasthesethresholdsaretoohigh.However,thisisanempiricalquestion,andifPPBisabletoidentifyareasonablenumberofofficerswiththesethresholds,thentheEISprocesscanmoveforward.Ifnot, the thresholds should be lowered or expanded to help identify officers that are shown to haveconcerningperformancepatterns.WeencouragethePPBtoarriveatasetofthresholdsthatdoesnotgrosslyover-identifyorgrosslyunder-identifyagroupofofficerswhocouldbenefitfromassistance.Butwe emphasize that at the Scanning stage, PPB is expected to error on the side of over-identificationbecause the next step, Analysis, is designed to screen out officers who are not appropriate for



117

intervention.Under-identificationisamuchlargerproblematthisphase–aproblemforwhichthereisnomethodofrecovery.

Consistentwiththislineofthought,expandingtherangeofvariablescanassistwiththescanningprocessand identify other sources of patterns.We believe the following factors should be considered whenidentifying officers, supervisors, or groups that would benefit from supplemental instruction. ThesefactorshavebeengleanedfromEISapproachesinSeattle,Albuquerque,Phoenix,aswellasresearchbyMerrickBobb,SamuelWalker,andRobertWorden.

Variablesforconsiderationarelistedbelow,butothersmaybeimportantinthePPBworkenvironment.Fordevelopingadditionalthresholds(aswellasdevelopingvariablesfortheAnalysissectionbelow),wesuggestPPBengageinatwo-stepprocesstoensurethatallfactorsarebeingconsidered.ThefirststepistoconveneagroupofindividualsfromalllevelsofPPBtobrainstormaboutpossiblefactorsassociatedwithwhatisconsidered“problematicbehavior,”especiallyduringinteractionswiththepublic.Thisfocusgroup approach shouldbebasedonofficers’ experiential knowledge, i.e. street experience, not bookknowledge. Thesemeetingsshouldgiveattentiontoboththeproblematicoutcomesandfactors thatcontributetotheseoutcomes.

We also encourage PPB to continue to work with Dr. Worden to use quantitative data to identifycontributing factors to problematic behavior. This requires looking at a range of variables over anextendedperiodoftime(singlevariablesoverashort-termperiodwillnotbeproductive).WeencouragePPBtothinkaboutthefullbodyofknowledgethatisavailableabouteachofficerandengageinanalysesthatwillassistadministratorsandsupervisorsbyidentifyingclustersofvariablesthatarecorrelatedoverseveralyears.Byusingbothaqualitativeandquantitativeapproach,PPBcanbeconfidentthattheyarecapturing theuniverseof contributing factors. AsEIS’smaycontain “as fewas fiveorasmanyas25indicators”(WalkerandArchbold,2014)therangeofvariablesconsideredvarieswithdatasystemsandresources.

WeaskthatPPBindulgeCOCLinattemptingtoexaminewhetherthecurrentEISdata(orothersourcesofdata)canbeusefulinidentifyingcorrelates.Wearerecommendingaone-timecollectionofdataonthepartofPPBusingthebelowlistedvariables(thatareavailable)forthetimeperiodJanuary1,2005through December 31, 2009 (five years) to determine whether they correlate with (1) sustainedcomplaints,(2)thefilingofalawsuitbetweentheyears2010andthepresent,or(3)higherratesofuseofforce.TheCOCLiswillingtoassistPPBwiththeseanalyses.

Afterdevelopingatentativeplanforthresholds,weaskthatthePPBdiscussthesewiththeCOCL,andthencompileadataset toseewhetherofficer,supervisor,andgrouptrendscanactuallybe identifiedwithoutthenumberofflagsbeingoverbearingfortheEISAdministrators.Thegoalofthescanningstepistostrikeabalancebetweenidentifyingtoomanyofficers(thusstrainingresourcesattheresponsestep)andtoofewofficers(thuslimitingEIS’sabilitytohelpofficersinneedofassistanceandprotectthePPBfromcostlyevents).Thus,thethresholdswilllikelyrequiremodificationandcontinuousmonitoringifthesystemistobelegitimateandworktothebenefitofPPB.

- Force(Overallaswellaswithinshift/precinct)o Numberofincidentso Numberofout-of-policyincidentso Numberof“justifiedbutconcerning”



118

o Ratioofforcetoarrests- ForceInjuries

o Ratioofforceeventstosubjectinjurieso Ratioofforceeventstoofficerinjuries

- Complaints(Overallaswellaswithinshift/precinct)o Numberofcomplaintso TypeofComplaint(e.g.CriminalMisconduct)o Numberofsustained/SIO/mediationcomplaintso Ratioofcomplaintstointeractions

- VehicleorFootPursuitso Numberofincidents

- SickLeaveo Numberofsickleavetime

- Numberofinteractions(Overallaswellaswithinshift/precinct)o Totalnumberofcallsforservicerespondedto

- Resistingarrestcharges(Overallaswellaswithinshift/precinct)o Ratiotoallarrests

As noted earlier, a single variable is not very likely to be a reliable picture of an officer’s overallperformance. Thus, the PPB should consider a combination of factors to identify officers whoseperformanceisatypicalacrossanumberofvariables.Forinstance,anofficerusingforcein20%ofhisorherarrestsORanofficerwhousesforceatthe3xtherateofotherofficersinthesameshiftaresinglevariableflags.However,itmaybejustasproblematicifanofficerusesforcein15%ofhisorherarrestsANDusesforceat2xtherateofotherofficersinthesameshift.Thesecondofficerwouldnotreceiveaflag,thoughthebehaviorpatternacrosstwovariablesmightbeappropriateforareviewnonetheless.Asanotherexample,WalkerandArchbold(2014)providethefollowingscenario:

“Resistingarrestchargesfiledbyanofficer…,meanwhile,areseenbymanyexpertsasadevice bywhich officers cover their own use of force by charging the citizenwith anoffensethatwouldjustifytheuseofforce.Criminalsuspectsdoresistarrestandeventhebestofficerswillfileresistingarrestcharges,butanEIScanidentifyapatternwhereanofficerisfilingamuchhigherrateofsuchchargesthanpeerofficers,andwherethereareotherindicatorsofpotentialproblems”(emphasisadded).

InanefforttohelpthePPBcontinuetoencouragegood,constitutionalpolicing,wesuggestalsolookingatofficerswhoare themostproactiveonthe force. Inotheragencieswhichrewardsproductivitybycount,officerswhoaremostproactivemaybecuttingcornersto"getahead"andberecognized.Officersthat are several "standarddeviations"above similarpeerofficers (tousea statistical concept)on thenumberoftrafficstops,numberofsearches,numberofcitations,andnumberofarrestsareworthyofacloserlook. Wehaveobservedinothercities,andthemediahasreported,individualswhoareoverlyaggressiveonsomeoftheseindicators.Especiallyimportantiswhetherstopsandsearchesarejustifiedconstitutionallyandwhethertheyareindicativeof"goodpolicing."Bodycameras,in-carcameras,andwitnessesareusedmoreofteninthecurrentenvironmenttoassesswhethertherewasprobablecauseorreasonablesuspicion.Also,thepercentoftimesthatcontrabandisfoundafterasearch,relativetopeerofficers,couldbesuggestiveofapatternofdecisionmakingthathasquestionableconstitutionality.Inthefinalanalysis,thePPBshouldcontinuetobeinterestedinencouragingallofficerstostaywithinthe



119

limits of policy and the constitution, and thereby ensure the stability of their own careers and thelegitimacyofthePPBwithinthePortlandcommunityofstakeholders.

Analysis: During the Analysis stage, PPB should examine the underlying conditions that may havecontributedtoaparticularofficerbeingflaggedintheScanningstage,anddeterminewhetherornotaninterventionisneeded.Wehavepreviouslystatedourpositionthattheofficer’ssupervisorandtheshiftorprecinctcommandershouldbepartofthereviewprocessastheyhavemorefirst-handknowledgeoftheinvolvedissues.PPBhasindicatedthatapproximately90%offlagsarenotforwardedforsupervisoryreviewbasedontheevaluationoftheEISAdministrator.PPBhasalsoindicatedthattheyhaveformalizedthe EIS Administrator’s decision-making (through a revised SOP) to ensure consistency across similarofficercircumstancesandqualityequaltothatoftheofficer’simmediatesupervisor.

Forthemoment,wesuggesttheEISAdministratoreliminatestheportionofflagswhereitisveryclearthatstatisticalanomaliesledtotheflag.Suchdeclinationsshouldbedocumentedsystematically,usingalistofreasonsfordisposingofsuchcasesandbeingabletoshowthatdeclinationsareconsistentacrosslike circumstances. Where such statistical anomalies are not present,we suggest the decision as towhetheraninterventionisnecessarycomesfromoutsidetheEISAdministrator.

Onewayofdeterminingwhetheranofficerrequiresinterventionistohavetheirdirectsupervisorreviewthe officer’s performance data. Seattle’s EIS policy requires the supervisor to conduct an “EarlyInterventionAssessments”whendeterminingwhetheran intervention isnecessary. This issomewhatsimilartowhatPPBcurrentlydoes,thoughitisthesupervisor(nottheEISAdministrator)whodetermineswhetheritisafalsepositiveornot.

Anotherway tomake the determination for intervention is to use a panel. The Los Angeles CountySheriff’sincorporateaPerformanceReviewCommittee(PRC)tomakesuchadetermination.ThePRCiscomprised of three commanders on a rotating basis who review flagged officers’ performance. ThenumberofPRCmembersinotheragenciesvaries.InSeattle,therearesixmembers(withthepotentialforaseventh).InPhoenix,ameetingoffiveconstitutesaquorum(thoughweareuncertainaboutthetotalnumberofmembers).Forbothasupervisorydecisionandapaneldecision,wefindprosandcons,thoughpresentthemtoPPBaspotentialpathstoconsider.

Whateverthemethodchosen,thereviewofanofficer’sperformancehistoryshouldincludeananalysisofwhyathresholdwasbrokenandthusadecisionastowhetheraninterventioniscapableofimprovingtheofficer’sperformance in the future. Thus, somesourcesof reviewmay includepastperformanceevaluations,traumaticevents,high-stresscalltypes(e.g.suicide,domesticabuse,childharm),andotherpotential explanatory considerations. These considerations are notmeant as a vehicle toexcuse theofficer’sperformancebutratherasapointertowhatmaybethemosteffectivepathtowardscorrectingthebehavior.

Wealsowanttoemphasizethatexplanatoryfactorsmayincludesituationalandenvironmentalvariablesthatarenotuniquetotheindividualofficer,andtherefore,donotwarrantindividualintervention,butperhapscallforgrouporagencylevelintervention,ornointervention.AnalysisbythePPB,theCOCLorDr. Worden may determine, for example, that situational risk is the primary driver of problematicbehavior,whetherthebehaviorisexcessiveforce,citizencomplaints,orlawsuits.Highadrenalinefoot



120

andvehiclepursuits, forexample,may result inhigher levelsofunjustified force, regardlessofofficercharacteristics.Suchinformation,however,canbeextremelyvaluabletothePPB,asitmaysuggestthatcertaintypesofincidentsrequireextratrainingandpolicyadjustments.Also,interventionmaybeneededforcertainhigh-riskassignments,suchasgangortacticalunitsthataremorelikelytohavecontactwithlesscompliantindividuals.Thisisthetypeofriskinformationthatcanberesultofafull-functioningEISprogramthatreliesonbothqualitativeandquantitativedata.

Response:Ifthereviewprocessdoesnoteliminateacaseasafalsepositive,thenthenextstepintheSARAmodel is todeterminetheappropriate interventionfortheofficer. Wehave lookedatacoupleagencies’policiesrelatedtointerventionsandtrackingandincludethemhereforPPB’sreview.Intermsofdetermininganappropriate intervention,weagainbelievethe immediatesupervisorshouldhaveacentral role in this process. In Seattle, a “mentoring plan” is proposedby the immediate supervisor,though it issentthroughthechainofcommandforapproval. Webelievethatsending it throughtheentirechainofcommandispotentiallytoomanysteps(similartotheissueswiththe940process)andmaytakeawayfromthepersonalizedaspectofthementoringplan.Inotheragencies,thePerformanceReview Committee determines the intervention. Although this controls for consistency acrossinterventions,thislacksthepersonalinsightofasupervisor.InPhoenix,theplanandpersonnelinvolvedvariesbyintervention,thoughthisispotentiallyconfusingasitcreatessomewhatofamatrix.

We suggest that the creation of an intervention plan should be the responsibility of the immediatesupervisor, subject to review by a Performance Review Committee. As EIS is not designed to bedisciplinary,itdoesnotseemnecessarytoinvolvetheentirechainofcommand(aswouldadisciplinaryproceedingoradeterminationofpolicyviolation).Ifthesupervisorbelievesthataninterventionisnotnecessary, thisdecisionshouldbereviewedbyeither theEISadministratorsoraPerformanceReviewCommittee.However,wewouldrecommendlookingatSeattleandPhoenix’spoliciesastheyrelatetocraftingappropriateinterventionsthatinvolveothersintheprocess.

The intervention should “identify specific performance issues to be addressed, identify specificmethods/trainingsthatwillbeutilizedtoaddresstheidentifiedperformanceissues,andidentifyspecifictimeframesforcompletingassignedtasksortraining”(SeattleEISPolicy).Althoughtheinterventionisdevelopedbytheimmediatesupervisor,itshouldbereviewedbythePerformanceReviewCommitteetoensure“uniformityandconsistencyinthetreatmentofsimilarly-situatedofficers”(SeattleEISPolicy)andthatitisconsistentwiththegoalsofthePPBandEIS.Theinterventionshouldalsobeconsistentwiththefindingsoftheperformancereviewinordertoprovideindividualizedassistancetotheofficer.Finally,theintervention should not only focus on direct contributors to the officer’s negative performance but,wheneverpossible,onindirectcontributorsaswell(e.g.underlyingpersonalproblems)

AssessingResults:

After reviewing the EIS protocols from several agencies,we suggest PPB also utilize the PerformanceReviewCommitteeasameanstomonitorofficerprogresstowardssatisfactionoftheinterventionplan.Asthedeterminationofadherencetointerventionplansmayvaryacrosssupervisors,welookatPRC’sasa mechanism for consistency here too. The officer’s supervisor should provide updates to the PRC



121

indicatingtheirownimpressionsastowhethertheofficerhasadheredtothementoringplanandwhetherthesupervisorhasseenanychangesintheofficer’sbehavior.Someagenciesrequireabi-monthlystatusreportfromtheofficer’simmediatesupervisor,documentingtheprogressoftheofficer.Otheragenciesonly require reports once a month. PPB should establish a monitoring policy that is reasonable forcommandstaff.

ThePRC,uponreviewingthestatusreportsfromtheofficer’simmediatesupervisor,shouldmakeafinalrecommendation as to whether the officer has completed the mentoring plan. In the agencies wereviewed, the recommendation is made to the appropriate Assistant Chief who makes a finaldetermination.Again,PPBshouldconsiderwhetherthislevelofreviewisnecessaryorwhetherthePRC’sdeterminationissufficientinlightofthecompositionofthePRC.

Asanevidence-basedlearningorganization,thePPBshouldestablishwaystoevaluatetheeffectivenessofitsEISinterventionsandmakeadjustmentsasneeded.Inadditiontoindividualinterventions,thePRCshouldlookattrendsin interventions, includingwhethercertaininterventionsaremoreeffectivethanothers. Furthermore,thePRCshouldevaluatethresholdstodeterminewhetheranymodificationsareneedbasedonpreviousofficerswhohavebeenflagged.Thisisin-linewiththeeffectivemonitoringofEIStomaintainorganizationallegitimacyandutility.

Summary

In summary,we understand that PPB seeks to be in compliancewith the SettlementAgreement andbelieves that the thresholds and review process currently used complywith the terms. Although thethresholdsmay be in compliance (to be determined after a review of the actual data), the intent ofparagraph116hasnotbeenachievedfromourperspective.Theadequacyofthecurrentreviewprocessisunknownbecauseofalackofdocumentation,butonitsface,doesnotappearsufficientinlightofbestpractices.Also,asystemofinterventionhasnotbeenestablishedtoourknowledgewhichistheprimarygoal of EIS systems. As such, we see no evidence that officers who could truly would benefit fromsupplementalinstructionandguidancearereceivingit.

Ineveryagencywehaveobserved,officersandsupervisorareabletoidentifyindividualswhoputthemandtheagencyatriskintermsofsafety,careersecurity,lawsuits,andpublictrustandlegitimacy.Suchofficersarenothidden,undetectableemployees,or“randomnoise”inPPBrecords;theycanbeidentifiedusingEIS, supportedbyobservant supervisors andpeers. WehaveprovidedPPBanexpanded list ofvariables which research suggests may help to identify them, but PPB should rely on both officerexperienceinthefieldandrecordstoachievethisgoal.ByonlystickingwiththethresholdsidentifiedintheSettlementAgreementbecausethat’sallPPBis“requiredtodo,”itisunlikelythattheseofficerswillbegiventheopportunitytoimprovetheirperformance.

WerecognizethattheEIS,asarticulatedhere,hassignificantimplicationsforfirst-linesupervisors.Wehavemaintainedallalongthatsupervisorsmuststepupandplayanimportantroleinevaluatingtheiremployees and assessing whether an intervention is necessary and most appropriate for particularofficers.A9%referralratedoesnotgivesupervisorsthecourtesytheydeservetoweighinonwhetheranofficer they superviseonadailybasisneedsadditional support. Of course, if thePPBcreates theexpectation(andrequirement)thatfirst-linesupervisorsandtheirbossesengagefullywiththeirofficers



122

asmentorsandcoaches(andsometimes,disciplinarians),thiswilllikelyinvolveadditionaltraining.Inthefuture, itmayalso requiremorecareful attention to theprocessofpromotionandwhether the rightindividualsarebeingselectedforthesecriticallyimportantpositions.

Wehaveprovideddirectionforinterventionplanstoimprovetheperformanceofofficers,whileatthesametimeprovidingasuggestionforensuringconsistencyacrossofficers.Hopefully,PPBwillestablishaprocessofdevelopingnewandimpactfulinterventionsforofficersatrisk.Forexample,weencouragethePPBtolookattheNewOrleansPoliceDepartment’sPeerinterventionprogram,wherebypeersaretrainedtointervenewhenanofficerisabouttoengageinproblematicbehavior.Thismayreducesomeoftheburdenonfirst-linesupervisorsandencouragemoreinformalsocialcontrolatthepeerlevel,asitshould be. (From ride-alongs, we discovered that the PPB gang unit effectively practices this type ofinterventioninpart).

Finally,wehaveprovidedPPBwithsuggestionsforreviewingtheeffectivenessofinterventionplansbothattheindividuallevelaswellastheorganizationallevel.WehavearguedthatEISshouldnotbeviewedasafixedprocessbutratheronethatneedstobeperiodicallyupdatedinachievemaximumeffectivenessforindividualsandmaximumbenefitfortheorganization.

Ateachstepoftheprocess,wehaveincludedotheragenciesthathavetakensimilarsteps.WeencouragePPBtogobeyondtheseexamplesandproposenewideastailoredtoPortland.

PPBhasaskedus toprovidethemwithdirectionas tohowthecurrentsystemmightbeenhancedtosatisfytheSettlementAgreement.Thisdocumentattemptstoberesponsivetothatrequest,providingbothaframeworkandsomemethodsofimplementation.WeexpectthatthePPBwillagreewithsomerecommendationsanddisagreewithothers. ForareaswherethePPBstaffdisagree,weaskthattheysuggestalternativeoptions.WhileourconsultationcancontributetoEISprogressin2017,PPB’sprogramshouldbeheavilyinfluencedbythecreativethinkingofcivilianandswornpersonnelwithintheBureauandbestpracticesinthefieldofpolicing.

