Sixteenth Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police Department January 21, 2014 Page 2
This is the sixteenth quarterly report of the Monitor of the Negotiated Settlement Agreement (NSA) in the case of
Delphine Allen, et al., vs. City of Oakland, et al.,
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In January 2010, under the direction of Judge Thelton E. Henderson, the Parties agreed to my appointment as Monitor of the Oakland Police Department (OPD). In this capacity, I oversee the monitoring process that began in 2003 under the previous monitor. The current Monitoring Team conducted our sixteenth quarterly site visit from November 4, through November 8, 2013, to evaluate the Department’s progress with the NSA during the three-month period of July 1, through September 30, 2013. In the body of this report, we again report the compliance status with the remaining active Tasks of the Agreement. By the end of the seven-year tenure of the previous monitor, the Department was in full compliance with 32 of the 51 required Tasks, and in partial compliance with 16 additional Tasks. As a result, the Parties agreed to reduce the number of Tasks under “active” monitoring to the current list of 22. During this reporting period, we continue to find the Department in Phase 1, or policy compliance, with all 22 of the remaining active Tasks. With regard to Phase 2, or full compliance, we find that OPD is in compliance with 14 of the 22 remaining Tasks, and in partial compliance with eight Tasks. These overall numbers reflect a change from in compliance to partial in compliance with Task 26, Force Review Board (FRB). That Task had moved from partial to full compliance in our last report. During the last (fifteenth) reporting period, we found the Department in Phase 2 compliance with 15 Tasks, and in partial compliance with seven Tasks. The decline in compliance is a disappointment. Although we noted improvement in our previous report, we find there should be more positive movement in a core of approximately seven of the 22 Tasks. Some, such as Task 40 and 41, which address risk management; and Task 34, which covers stop data; appear to be moving forward – as a result of focused and organized efforts to solve the problems that have been obstacles to progress. In other areas, however, the attention has been less systematic; and there are concerns that remain. While we determine Task 26 (Force Review Boards) and Task 30 (Executive Force Review Boards) to be in partial compliance, we do so with the expectation that a consistent structure and review process will be maintained in those proceedings, and that progress will be made. We are concerned with the conduct of the Force Review Boards and the Executive Force Review Boards. Since the end of the reporting period in question (September 30, 2013), we have observed a new resolve on the part of the Department to address these processes. We will closely monitor if the Department’s resolve culminates in positive outcomes. Likewise, we find the Department in partial compliance with Task 20, regarding span of control; and Task 33, regarding reporting misconduct. In these areas, little progress is again noted.
Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document969 Filed01/21/14 Page3 of 87