Associate Jan/Feb 2014

16-17 / 28

14
J A N 2 0 1 4 F E B J A N 2 0 1 4 F E B
15
Measuring Law Enforcement Performance continued from page 14
Performance Measurements
Unequivocally, there lies a great deal of
responsibility with police departments. In
addition to those great responsibilities are in-
herent risks that police officers engage in on
a daily basis. The mere fact that officers must
confront volatile situations puts them and
their respective agencies in a position of deal-
ing with inherent risk.
These inherent risks are typically covered
under the law and by departmental policy and
procedure. One of the problems is that law
enforcement agencies may not be frequenting
their policies and procedures to coincide with
recent case law, or not revising policies and
procedures to reflect more current best practic-
es. The other issue at hand is law enforcement
agencies typically do not assess whether these
policies and procedures are being adhered to.
Consider the Los Angeles Police Department
(LAPD), and the ubiquitous Rampart Scandal.
At the end of the day when the LAPD con-
ducted its own Board of Inquiry, and when the
consent decree was implemented, there were
some things that were quite evident. First, the
LAPD had policies and procedures to address
most of the issues they found, notwithstand-
ing, some of these policies and procedures did
not reflect the realities of their current opera-
tions. Second, and perhaps the more profound
issue, was that personnel were simply not fol-
lowing policies and procedures. In fact, when
one looks at the investigations and consent de-
crees by the US DOJ on various law enforce-
ment agencies, most, if not all, indicate issues
with a gap in policy and procedure, or not fol-
lowing policy and procedure; hence, not mea-
suring compliance. Some of the typical issues
include, but are not limited to, articulation of
reasonable suspicion and probable cause on
arrest reports, search warrant’s administrative
and operational aspects, use of force investiga-
tions, handling of confidential informants, jail
operations, property/evidence rooms, and in-
ternal complaint investigations.
A law enforcement performance audit
practice is developed to assess internal con-
trols within police operations, specifically the
high-risk areas. The criteria for such internal
controls may come from the law, such as in
the case of assessing whether arrest reports ar-
ticulate reasonable suspicion for detention of
an individual, or policies and procedures that
may provide for the handling of evidence. Yet
in other instances, the performance audit itself
may point out that policies and procedures
may be lacking, ambiguous, or contradicting,
thus exposing the department to liability.
Research has indicated a myriad of man-
ners in which law enforcement agencies at-
tempt to ‘look’ at their own operations. Here,
‘audit’ is defined under the purview of the US
Government Accountability Office, General-
ly Accepted Government Auditing Standards
(§2.10, 2011) as:
...audits that provide findings or conclu-
sions based on an evaluation of
sufficient, appropriate evidence against
criteria. Performance audits provide
objective analysis to assist management
and those charged with governance
and oversight in using the information to
improve program performance and opera-
tions, reduce costs, facilitate decision making
by parties with responsibility to oversee or
initiate corrective action, and contribute to
public accountability.
The practice of conducting a law en-
forcement performance audit is accomplished
by reaching out to the professional audit
world and utilizing actual auditing standards
to conduct an audit that is systematic, and
takes a disciplined approach. Organizations
such as the International Law Enforcement
Auditors Association, Institute of Internal
Auditors, and the Association of Local Gov-
ernment Auditors are extremely helpful in
furthering professional law enforcement per-
formance audits. The other key component is
the focus on risk, and compliance with poli-
cies and procedures, directly related to law
enforcement operations.
The LAPD, in measuring how they
implemented the mandates of the consent
decree (2001 – 2009), established an internal
audit division. This division was encompassed
Law Enforcement Agencies Under Purview of the US Department of Justice
Law Enforcement Agency Investigation Memorandum of Agreement Consent Decree
City of Inglewood, CA 12/28/09 – –
City of Yonkers, NY 06/18/09 – –
City of Austin, TX 12/23/08 – –
Orange County, FL 08/20/08 – –
City of Easton, PA 11/26/07 – –
City of Warren, OH 03/02/06 – –
US Virgin Islands 10/05/05 – 03/23/09
City of Beacon, NY 06/21/05 – –
City of Alabaster, AL 11/09/04 – –
City of Bakersfield, CA 04/12/04 – –
Prince George’s County, MD 01/22/04 – –
City of Cleveland, OH 06/19/03 – –
City of Portland, MN 03/21/03 – –
City of Schenectady, NY 03/19/03 – –
City of Miami, FL 03/13/03 – –
City of City of Detroit 11/12/02 – 06/12/03
District of Columbia 06/13/01 06/13/01 –
City of Los Angeles, CA 05/08/00 – 06/15/01
City of Columbus, OH 07/21/98 04/12/02 –
City of Pittsburgh, PA 01/17/97 – –
City of Steubenville, OH Unk – 09/03/97
City of Buffalo, NY Unk 09/19/02 –
City of Villa Rica, GA Unk 12/23/03 –
City of Cincinnati, OH Unk 04/12/02 –
Village of Mt. Prospect, IL Unk 01/22/03 –
State of New Jersey Unk – 12/30/99
Note: It is unknown (Unk) whether investigations preceded in the latter six cities prior to entering into a memorandum of agreement/consent decree.
Adapted from U.S. DOJ, Civil Rights Division, Special Litigation Section, , January 30, 2011.
continued on page 15
Measuring Law Enforcement
Performance continued from page 14
by professional auditors and sworn
supervisory personnel. Together,
the division conducted mandated
audits, which were presented to
the independent monitor that
measured the compliance with the
consent decree directives. This ap-
proach proved useful to the LAPD,
and post-consent decree, the prac-
tice of internal performance audit-
ing is still utilized with an annual
audit and inspection plan in place,
and with the audits presented to the
Board of Police Commissioners.
Other large law enforcement
agencies have implemented, or are
in the process of implementing in-
ternal audit units. According the
Max Santiago, NA Session 214, for-
mer Inspector General of the Cali-
fornia Highway Patrol (CHP), the
CHP implemented a credible and
comprehensive law enforcement
performance audit and inspection
program. The CHP’s program has
allowed commanders to share best
practices with their peers through-
out the State of California and pro-
vides a mechanism to identify trends
and potential problems before they
become widespread crises.
The Los Angeles County
Sheriff’s Department is currently
in the process of implementing an
internal audit unit to measure risk,
and its operational compliance. The
sheriff’s department has three over-
arching operational responsibilities:
continued from page 8
CHAPTER CHAT
tended the FBI National Academy
in 1969 and served as New
Mexico Chapter President in
1979. Deputy Chief Lagomarsino
was residing in Albuquerque
when he passed away.
NEW YORK/E. CANADA
n Effective 11/1/2013, Daniel
Henderson, 242nd Session, was
appointed
as Chief of
Police of
the Harri-
man Police
Depart-
ment. He
retired
from the
Village
of Goshen Police Department
after 20 years to take the Chief
of Police position in Harriman.
Henderson has been serving 25
years in law enforcement.
n Anthony J. Raganella , 223rd
Session, was promoted within
the NYPD to Deputy Inspector
on December 23rd, 2013, and
remains the Commanding Officer
of the Disorder Control Unit.
NORTHWEST
n Sheriff Tom Doherty, 189th
Session, retired from Le Sueur
County Sheriff’s Office on Janu-
ary 31, 2014 after 37 years of
service.
n Undersheriff Mark Pettit,
237th Session, retired from
Ramsey
County
Sheriff’s
Office on
January
27, 2014
after 30
year of ser-
vice in law
enforce-
ment.
TENNESSEE
n The Metropolitan Nashville
Airport Authority (MNAA) an-
Ray was 85
years old.
Ray retired
from the
Seattle
Police De-
partment
in 1979 as
a Major.
He retired
from the U.S. Army Reserves after
35 years of service as a Lt. Colo-
nel. He is survived by his wife
Rosemary; his children, Kathy
King and Randy Carroll. Ray was
a graduate of the 78th Session of
the FBI National Academy (1966).
WISCONSIN
n On Dec. 5th, 2013, the Wis-
consin Chapter held their annual
holiday luncheon. Former Mil-
waukee Bucks player and MACC
Fund President, Jon McGlocklin,
was the guest speaker and is
pictured receiving an apprecia-
tive item from Undersheriff Kurt
Picknell (Chapter President).
Attention 176th Session
Graduates
2014 will mark 20 years from the
time that esteemed group of
law enforcement professionals
known as the 176th Session en-
tered the FBI National Academy!
To commemorate the experi-
ence, reunite with old colleagues,
remember the pranks and once
again share the great camarade-
rie of those wonderful people,
we are seeking to reunite at the
2014 FBI NA National Conference
in Philadelphia.
nounced that David Griswold
will join the organization as
Director of Public Safety, effec-
tive April
1. With 30
years of
experi-
ence,
Griswold
has served
as deputy
inspector
general for
the Ten-
nessee Office of Inspector Gener-
al since 2004 and previously held
several roles, including interim
director, deputy director, and
special agent in charge, at the
Tennessee Bureau of Investiga-
tion. He is a graduate of Middle
Tennessee State University and
the FBI National Academy.
n Bill Sharp, 234th Session,
was promoted to Major of the
Criminal Investigation Division of
the Rutherford County Sheriff’s
Office
n David Hailey, 248th Session,
was promoted to Captain of the
Criminal Investigation Division of
the Rutherford County Sheriff’s
Office.
TEXAS
n After 33 years of service, Judy
McDonald Pharr, 198th Session,
retired
from the
Dallas
County
Sheriff’s
Depart-
ment as
Captain.
Captain
Pharr
served as Commander of the
Resource Development Division
which included the Personnel
Section and Training Academy.
WASHINGTON
n Raymond L. Carroll (Ray)
passed away December 26, 2013.
176th Session members interest-
ed in attending a reunion at the
2014 National Convention please
contact one of the members
listed below as soon as possible!
Dan Murphy , (NYPD Retired),
;
John Samaniego, (Chief Deputy,
Shelby County AL)
;
Dan Douighty , (Ft. Lauderdale
FL-Retired), ;
BobWaites, (NSW, Australia -
Retired), .
com.au .
Mark Pettit
David Griswold
Daniel Henderson
(L-R) John McGlocklin, Kurt Picknell.
Judy McDonald Pharr
Raymond L. Carroll
continued on page 24