Office of Inspector General  City of New Orleans                                A Performance Audit of the New Orleans Police Department’s  Uniform Crime Reporting of Forcible Rapes  A&R13PAU002                      E. R. Quatrevaux  Inspector General        Issued May 14, 2014          A Performance Audit of the New Orleans Police Department’s (NOPD) Uniform Crime  Reporting (UCR) of Forcible Rapes  A&R13PAU002    Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. 4    I. Background ......................................................................................................................... 6  II.       Objectives, Scope and Methodology .................................................................................. 7    NOPD UCR Reporting Findings ............................................................................................ 9    A. UCR Findings Related to NOPD Practices and Policy Violations    Finding #1:  UCR offenses were misclassified by NOPD.    Finding #2:  Offenses were misclassified to a miscellaneous offense instead of  unfounded (UNF).    Finding #3:  The  NOPD  did  not  provide  the  reason  for  the  signal  and/or  disposition change on an incident or supplemental report.    Finding #4:  The  NOPD  incident  reports  were  not  completed  by  officers  prior  to ending their tour of duty.    Finding #5:  NOPD  supervisors  did  not  review  incident  and/or  supplemental  reports in a timely manner.    Finding #6:  Certain evidence was not remitted to Central Evidence & Property  (CE&P).        B. Findings Related to the NOPD’s Compilation of Its UCR Data  Finding #7:  The NOPD did not report the highest offense on the hierarchy list  to the UCR Program.    Finding #8:  The  NOPD  did  not  maintain  supporting  documentation  for  2010  and  2011  Part  I  offenses;  therefore,  the  data  was  unable  to  be  audited.     Finding #9:  The NOPD excluded forcible rapes with a disposition of “Report to  Follow” (RTF) in its UCR data.    Finding #10:  The NOPD excluded forcible rapes with a disposition of UNF from  its UCR data.    III. The City of New Orleans  Office of Inspector General    AR13PAU002         Page 2 of 30   NOPD UCR Reporting‐ Forcible Rape  Performance Audit      IV.   NOPD UCR Reporting Observations  ................................................................................. 23      Observation #1:  The  NOPD  lost  its  ability  to  report  arrest  data  involving  Part  II  offenses to the UCR Program.      Observation #2:  The NOPD discontinued its practice of posting quarterly UCR data  on its website after the website was consolidated into a City wide  site.       Observation #3:  The NOPD backdated two supplemental reports instead of using  the date the report was written.     V. VI. VII. Conclusion  ........................................................................................................................ 25    Appendices ........................................................................................................................ 26  Appendix A: Glossary of Terms  Appendix B. Part I Offense Hierarchy  Appendix C. Return A – Monthly Return of Offenses Known to Police    Official NOPD Comments .................................................................................................. 30  The City of New Orleans  Office of Inspector General    AR13PAU002         Page 3 of 30   NOPD UCR Reporting‐ Forcible Rape  Performance Audit      EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR Program) is  a  voluntary  nationwide,  cooperative  statistical  effort  of  city,  county,  state,  tribal,  and  federal  law  enforcement  agencies  reporting  data  on  crimes  brought  to  their  attention.  The  FBI  administers the UCR Program and continues to assess and monitor the nature and type of crime  committed  in  the  United  States.  The  UCR  Program’s  objective  is  to  generate  reliable  information for use in law enforcement administration, operation, and management.1   The Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted a performance audit of the New Orleans Police  Department’s  (NOPD)  Uniform  Crime  Reporting  process  for  the  period  June  1,  2010  through  May 31, 2013. Forcible Rape was selected for testing based on the FBI’s 2012 published crime  statistics.  The  data  revealed  that  forcible  rape  in  New  Orleans  was  43%  lower  than  24  other  cities  with  the  highest  crime  rates.  This  report  is  issued  to  offer  recommendations  and  observations  concerning  the  NOPD’s  internal  policies  and  procedures  and  the  accuracy  of  its  data  reported  to  the  UCR  Program.  Similar  conditions  to  those  cited  in  this  report  were  also  identified by the United States Department of Justice2.    UCR data quality guidelines, published by the FBI, provided policy and procedural guidance to  law  enforcement  agencies  to  maximize  the  quality,  objectivity,  utility,  and  integrity  of  the  information. The NOPD violated these guidelines.   The following conditions were noted:   The  NOPD  misclassified  46%  of  the  offenses  tested  to  sexual  battery,  miscellaneous  offense or Unfounded (UNF) rather than forcible rape.   The  NOPD  misclassified  forcible  rape  offenses  to  miscellaneous  offense  instead  of  assigning a disposition of Unfounded (UNF).   The NOPD UCR Specialist did not report the highest offense on the hierarchy list to the  UCR Program for multiple‐offense situations.   The NOPD violated the Louisiana Public Records Law.   The NOPD did not report all forcible rapes with a disposition of “Report to Follow” (RTF)  and UNF to the UCR Program.   The  NOPD  did  not  corroborate  signal  and/or  disposition  changes  with  supporting  documentation.   The NOPD did not complete incident reports prior to ending their tour of duty.    The  NOPD  backdated  police  reports  to  a  date  prior  to  the  date  the  reports  were   written.   NOPD supervisors did not review incident and/or supplemental reports timely.   The NOPD did not remit evidence to Central Evidence & Property.                                                            1 “Crime in the United States, 2009” U.S. Department of Justice‐ Federal Bureau of Investigation; September 2010. www.fbi.gov.     “Investigation  of  the  New  Orleans  Police  Department”  U.S.  Department  of  Justice‐  Civil  Rights  Division;  March  2011.  www.justice.gov.  and  “United  States  of  America  vs.  City  of  New  Orleans  (Case  2:12‐cv‐01924‐SM‐JCW)”  Consent  Decree  Regarding the New Orleans Police Department; July 2012.   The City of New Orleans  AR13PAU002         NOPD UCR Reporting‐ Forcible Rape  Office of Inspector General  Page 4 of 30   Performance Audit  2       In addition, the NOPD discontinued its practice of posting its quarterly UCR data on its website  and the reporting of Part II arrest data to the UCR Program.    The recommendations in this report, if adopted, should improve the NOPD’s internal controls  over crime reporting as well as the reliability of its data reported to the UCR Program.    Note: All responses from the NOPD in the body of this report are direct statements.   The City of New Orleans  Office of Inspector General    AR13PAU002         Page 5 of 30   NOPD UCR Reporting‐ Forcible Rape  Performance Audit      I. BACKGROUND  The Uniform Crime Report (UCR) is the official data on crime in the United States, published by  the FBI. Law enforcement agencies across the United States voluntarily provide the data to the  FBI  who  then  compile  the  crime  statistics  from  the  UCR  data  and  publish  the  information  annually.  The  purpose  of  UCR  is  to  provide  a  common  language  which  transcends  local  and  state laws.  For reporting purposes, criminal offenses are divided into two major groups: Part I offenses and  Part II offenses. Participating law enforcement agencies submit information on the number of  Part  I  offenses  in  order  to  measure  the  level  and  scope  of  crime  occurring  throughout  the  nation on an annual basis. Part I offenses are serious offenses that occur with regularity and are  more  likely  to  be  reported  to  police.  There  are  eight  Part  I  UCR  offenses:  murder  and  non‐ negligent  manslaughter,  forcible  rape,  robbery,  aggravated  assault,  burglary,  larceny‐theft,  motor vehicle theft, and arson (Appendix B). For Part II offenses, participating law enforcement  agencies only provide arrest data.   The  UCR  Program  relies  upon  the  voluntary  participation  of  the  nation’s  law  enforcement  agencies.  The  integrity  and  accuracy  of  UCR  data  rests  upon  the  efforts  of  individual  law  enforcement  agencies.  The  New  Orleans  Police  Department  (NOPD),  the  primary  law  enforcement agency in Orleans Parish, voluntarily participates in the UCR Program.   The NOPD compiles offense data for all Part I offenses3 from its Electronic Police Records (EPR)  and  reports  the  information  to  the  Louisiana  Commission  on  Law  Enforcement  (LCLE)  on  a  quarterly basis. UCR offense data does not include who reports or who investigates the offense.  The data depicts what crimes have been reported and the location of the offense.   Data  reported  to  the  LCLE  should  include  all  offenses  reported  or  known  to  police.  Actual  offenses  and  false  or  baseless  complaints  for  each  crime  are  required  to  be  included  in  UCR.  The  LCLE  reviews  the  reported  UCR  data  and  provides  the  data  to  the  FBI  for  its  annual  publication.                                                              3  This compilation excludes arson, a Part I UCR crime.  The City of New Orleans  Office of Inspector General    AR13PAU002         Page 6 of 30   NOPD UCR Reporting‐ Forcible Rape  Performance Audit      II. OBJECTIVES, SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY  The objective of the audit was to determine whether Part I forcible rape offenses were properly  classified and reported to the UCR Program.  The performance audit was conducted for the three‐year period June 1, 2010 through May 31,  2013  in  accordance  with  the  Principles  and  Standards  for  Offices  of  Inspector  General4  (the  Green Book) and Generally Accepted Governmental Auditing Standards5 (GAGAS or the “Yellow  Book”).  To accomplish the objectives, sample selections were chosen for testing. A risk‐based sampling  methodology  was  used.  The  sampling  population  was  composed  of  aggravated  rape,  simple  rape, sexual battery, unfounded (UNF) and miscellaneous signals in which the rape squad was  dispatched because the CAD system could not produce a population of calls for service by initial  signal. The tested signals were selected from the computer aided dispatch system (CAD) located  at  the  NOPD  Communications  District.  The  exceptions  identified  in  the  testing  are  not  projectable into the entire population of reported forcible rapes.    The following procedures were performed on the sampled items:  1) Obtained all incident and supplemental reports;  2) Obtained the 911 audio and any evidence and/or related documentation;  3) Determined whether the items were properly classified and reported based on the  evidence obtained;  4) Determined  whether  the  NOPD  complied  with  its  internal  policies  related  to   classifying and reporting offenses; and  5) Determined  whether  Part  I  offense  data  was  accurately  reported  to  the  UCR  Program.  A finding indicated a material or significant6 weakness in controls or compliance that was not  detected or corrected by the NOPD in the normal course of performing its duties.   Findings in a performance audit can be any one or a combination of the following:  1) Significant deficiencies in internal control;  2) Fraud and illegal acts;  3) Violations of contracts and grant agreements and/or  4) Abuse.  The audit included findings, observations, and recommendations related to the accuracy of the  NOPD’s UCR Reporting.   Computer‐processed  data  was  provided  and  relied  on  during  testing,  which  provided  information on NOPD calls for service and police records for the period tested.                                                           4  Published by the Association of Inspectors General, May 2004 Revision.     Published by the General Accounting Office (GAO), July 2007 Revision.  6  Significance is a “judgment call” by the auditor and is usually based upon the frequency and magnitude of the deficiency.   The City of New Orleans  AR13PAU002         NOPD UCR Reporting‐ Forcible Rape  Office of Inspector General  Page 7 of 30   Performance Audit  5       Although  a  formal  reliability  assessment  of  the  computer‐processed  data  was  not  performed,  the auditors determined that hard copy documents were reasonable and generally agreed with  the information contained in the computer‐processed data.   No errors were found that would preclude the use of the computer‐processed data to meet the  audit’s objectives or that would change the findings in this report.    The City of New Orleans  Office of Inspector General    AR13PAU002         Page 8 of 30   NOPD UCR Reporting‐ Forcible Rape  Performance Audit      III. NOPD UCR REPORTING FINDINGS      A. UCR Findings Related to NOPD Practices and Policy Violations  Finding # 1:   Background:  The  NOPD  was  required  to  categorize  and  record  offenses  in  the  NOPD’s  Electronic  Police  Report  System  (EPR)  based  on  the  most  serious  statutes  of  the  state.7  The  accuracy of the NOPD’s UCR data was dependent on the accuracy of the information input into  its  EPR  by  its  officers.  UCR  requires  its  participants  to  record  all  known  and  Part  I  offense  counts, not the findings of a court, coroner, or jury or the decision of a prosecutor.     Each quarter the NOPD generated a report in EPR to determine the Part I forcible rape offenses  with a disposition of “Report to Follow” (RTF).   Offenses included on the list generated in EPR  were  reviewed  in  accordance  with  the  FBI’s  definition  of  forcible  rape  to  determine  if  they  should  be  reported  to  the  UCR  Program.  When  officers  misclassified  the  signal  and/or  disposition  within  24  hours  after  the  initial  call  for  service,  the  EPR  system  was  unable  to  determine that a forcible rape occurred and these misclassifications were not captured in the  NOPD’s crime data reported to the UCR Program.     Condition:  Forty‐one of the 90 (46%) offenses tested were misclassified. Miscellaneous (signal  21)  and  unfounded  misclassifications  were  not  captured  by  the  NOPD  in  its  reporting  to  the  UCR Program. See Table 1 below.    Table  1:  Number  of  Forcible  Rape  Offenses  Misclassified  and  Not  Reported  to  the  UCR  Program     No. of Items      Misclassified    Items Misclassified  and Not  %  of  Total  Tested  Reported  (90)  (A): Items misclassified to sexual battery instead of a Part I offense.  7  8%  (B): Items misclassified to miscellaneous offense instead of a Part I  or Part II offense.  (C): Items misclassified to UNF  Total number of items improperly reclassified (sum of A ‐ C)  20  22%  14  41  16%  46%    Criteria: “Forcible rape8, as defined in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, is the  carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Attempts or assaults to commit rape  by force or threat or force are also included; however, statutory rape (without force) and other  sex offenses are excluded.”   “The refusal of the victim to cooperate with prosecution, or the failure to make an arrest does  not unfound a legitimate offense.                                                           7  “Classifying Crimes” New Orleans Police Department Information Technology Division, Data System Section.   Crime in the United States, 2010; US Department of Justice‐Federal Bureau of Investigation; September 2011.  The City of New Orleans  AR13PAU002         NOPD UCR Reporting‐ Forcible Rape  Office of Inspector General  Page 9 of 30   Performance Audit  8       Also, the findings of a coroner, court, jury, or prosecutor do not unfound offenses or attempts  that law enforcement investigations establish to be legitimate.”9     Louisiana law defines simple rape as “a rape committed when the anal, oral, or vaginal sexual  intercourse  is  deemed  to  be  without  the  lawful  consent  of  a  victim  because  it  is  committed  under any one or more of the following circumstances:     (1) When the victim is incapable of resisting or of understanding the nature of the act by  reason of a stupor or abnormal condition of mind produced by an intoxicating agent or  any cause and the offender knew or should have known of the victim’s incapacity.  (2) When  the  victim,  through  unsoundness  of  mind,  is  temporarily  or  permanently  incapable of understanding the nature of the act and the offender knew or should have  known of the victim’s incapacity.  (3) And  when  the  female  victim  submits  under  the  belief  that  the  person  committing  the  act is her husband and such belief is intentionally induced by any artifice, pretense, or  concealment practiced by the offender.”10   Aggravated rape is defined as “a rape committed upon a person sixty‐five years of age or older  or where the anal, oral or vaginal sexual intercourse is deemed to be without lawful consent of  the victim because it is committed under any one or more of the following circumstances:     (1) When  the  victim  resists  the  act  to  the  utmost,  but  whose  resistance  is  overcome  by  force. (2) When the victim is prevented from resisting the act by threats of great and immediate  bodily harm, accompanied by apparent power of execution. (3) When the victim is prevented from resisting the act because the offender is armed with  a dangerous weapon. (4) When  the  victim  is  under  the  age  of  thirteen  years.  Lack  of  knowledge  of  the  victim’s  age shall not be a defense. (5) When two or more of the offenders participated in the act. (6) And when the victim is prevented from resisting the act because the victim suffers from  a physical or mental infirmity preventing such resistance.”11    Cause: The NOPD did not classify items properly.      Effect: Forcible rape data submitted to the UCR Program was not accurate.                                                            9  “Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook”, United States Department of Justice. 2004.   La. R.S. 14:43.  11  La. R.S. 14:42.  The City of New Orleans  AR13PAU002         Office of Inspector General  Page 10 of 30   10   NOPD UCR Reporting‐ Forcible Rape  Performance Audit      Recommendation: NOPD should require that officers and supervisors receive adequate training  on forcible rape incident reporting. Supervisors should also review reports to ensure that items  are properly classified and the elements of the offense are met.     NOPD should report all known offenses, regardless of the victim’s willingness to cooperate, and  ensure that the offense is submitted to the UCR Program.     NOPD Comments and Corrective Action: “Under certain situations, NOPD would be prohibited  from  complying  with  the  auditor’s  recommendation  that  “NOPD  should  report  all  known  offenses, regardless of the victim’s willingness to cooperate…”, as this comes into conflict with  State  law  (refer  to:  RS  40:2109.1;  Procedures for  Rape  Victims;  Emergency  Rooms  of  Licensed  Hospitals; Immunity). The approach to handling sexual assaults must be victim‐centered… Even  though a formal report was not filed with police, the NOPD Sex Crimes Unit does take physical  possession of the rape examination kit and logs it into Central Property & Evidence under a ‘21X’  incident  number  should  the  victim  decide  to  file  a  formal  report  at  a  later  time.  This  is  ‘best  practices’  under  these  circumstances  and  still  provides  an  opportunity  for  victims  to  come  forward after receiving needed support services, such as counseling.    In  March  of  this  year,  NOPD  received  additional  guidance  from  LCLE  regarding  UCR  classifications under the category of unfounded.  We are in the process of evaluating procedural  and data processing requirements associated to this new information, as well as overall FBI UCR  Program changes scheduled for later this year.  Completion projected for mid‐2014 when new  UCR guidelines on reporting take effect.”    OIG  Comment:  Although  the  NOPD  agreed  to  evaluate  the  procedural  and  data  processing  requirements, the NOPD believes that it should not report all known offenses, regardless of the  victim’s willingness to cooperate.  Reporting a known offense to the LCLE does not violate state  law  because  the  LCLE  only  receives  a  total  count.    The  LCLE  has  no  knowledge  of  the  victim  identity, location of the incident, etc.     Reporting all known offenses is further supported by the following:    1. NOPD’s policy;  NOPD  Policy  34412  states,  “When  an  employee  responds  to  a  call  for  service…the  employee  is  required  to  document  the  activity  as  appropriate.  The  fact  that  a  victim  does not desire prosecution is not an exception to documentation.”     2. The FBI’s UCR Handbook;   The  FBI’s  UCR  Handbook13  states,  “…the  refusal  of  the  victim  to  cooperate  with  prosecution  or  the  failure  to  make  an  arrest  does  not  unfound  a  legitimate  offense.  Also,  the  findings  of  a  coroner,  court,  jury,  or  prosecutor  do  not  unfound  offenses  or  attempts that law enforcement investigations establish to be legitimate.”                                                           12  “Report Preparation”, New Orleans Police Department Procedure Manual. 2012.   “Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook”, United States Department of Justice. 2004.  The City of New Orleans  AR13PAU002         Office of Inspector General  Page 11 of 30   13   NOPD UCR Reporting‐ Forcible Rape  Performance Audit        3. The Department of Justice’s Investigation of the New Orleans Police Department14  (DOJ  Report).  The DOJ Report states, “Departments must include reports of forcible rape or  attempted forcible rape in their UCR data irrespective of whether the victim cooperates  or an arrest is made.”      The  OIG  also  disagrees  with  NOPD’s  “best  practice”  of  initially  classifying  a  potential  sexual  assault  as  a  “21x”  (miscellaneous  offense).  Classifying  sexual  assaults  as  a  21x  is  not  a  best  practice.    The  DOJ  Report  also  identified  this  issue.    It  states,  “…the  Department  likely  had  diverted many complaints of possible sexual assault from being fully investigated by classifying  them  as  non‐criminal  “Signal  21s,”  the  Department’s  code  for  miscellaneous  complaints…Our  review  determined  that  NOPD  has  used  the  Signal  21  code  far  more  expansively,  effectively  shutting down investigation for a significant proportion of possible sex crimes.”     Finding # 2:   Background:  Unfounded  (UNF)  offenses  get  reported  to  the  LCLE  on  a  Schedule  A.  (See  Appendix C). Reporting of unfounded offenses does not affect the number of rapes reported to  the  UCR  Program.  This  information  is  used  by  the  FBI  to  determine  if  the  rapes  reported  are  statistically within norms.       Condition:  Incidents  initially  classified  as  forcible  rape  were  misclassified  to  a  miscellaneous  offense  instead  of  a  forcible  rape  unfounded.    Fourteen  of  the  90  (16%)  incidents  were  not  properly  classified  in  accordance  with  the  rules  and  guidelines  established  in  the  FBI’s  UCR  Handbook.     Criteria: Per the FBI’s UCR Handbook, "Occasionally, an agency will receive a complaint that is  determined through investigation to be false or baseless. In other words, no crime occurred. If  the investigation shows that no offense occurred nor was attempted, UCR Program procedures  dictate that the reported offense must be unfounded… Agencies must still record all such Part I  offenses and then score them as unfounded on the current month's Return A."    “City, county, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement agency participants must classify and  score  offenses  from  the  records  of  calls  for  service,  complaints,  and/or  investigations.  Since  these crime statistics are intended to assist law enforcement in identifying the crime problem,  participants  must  record  offense  counts,  not  the  findings  of  a  court,  coroner,  or  jury  or  the  decision of a prosecutor.”15    Cause: The NOPD did not classify items in accordance with the FBI’s UCR Handbook16.    Effect: Data submitted by the NOPD to the LCLE was not accurate.                                                           14  Dated March 16, 2011.    “Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook”, United States Department of Justice. 2004.  16  Ibid.   The City of New Orleans  AR13PAU002         Office of Inspector General  Page 12 of 30   15   NOPD UCR Reporting‐ Forcible Rape  Performance Audit        Recommendation:  The  NOPD  should  terminate  use  of  the  signal  for  “miscellaneous  offense”  when classifying offenses; and the signal for all offenses should correlate to the type of offense  per  the  call  for  service.  If  an  offense  is  determined  to  be  false  or  baseless,  the  item’s  signal  should not be adjusted; however, the disposition of the item should be changed to UNF.      NOPD Comment and Corrective Action: “The UCR Handbook states “Classifying is determining  the proper crime categories in which to report offenses in UCR. The classification of the offense  is based on the facts of an agency’s investigation of a crime. ...  Similarly,  when  investigating  potential  sexual  offenses,  if  a  detective  determines  that  the  incident as described by the complainant does not meet the definition of a rape, that detective  cannot  classify  that  incident  as  a  rape.    This  classification  process  is  in  adherence  with  the  requirements of the UCR Handbook, which require that reported classifications be based upon  investigations…    These incidents were classified as 21, or Miscellaneous, because the results of the investigation  precluded a classification of rape…   In  March  of  this  year,  NOPD  received  additional  guidance  from  LCLE  regarding  UCR  classifications under the category of unfounded.  We are in the process of evaluating procedural  and data processing requirements associated to this new information, as well as overall FBI UCR  Program changes scheduled for later this year.  Completion projected for mid‐2014 when new  UCR guidelines on reporting take effect.”    OIG  Comment:  Although  the  NOPD  agreed  to  evaluate  the  procedural  and  data  processing  requirements, the NOPD still believes the classification of the offense is based on the facts of an  agency’s investigation of a crime which contradicts UCR guidelines.    The FBI’s UCR Handbook17 states that “If the investigation shows that no offense occurred nor  was  attempted,  UCR  Program  procedures  dictate  that  the  reported  offense  must  be  unfounded…  Agencies  must  still  record  all  such  Part  I  offenses  and  then  score  them  as  unfounded on the current month's Return A." The LCLE agreed with the OIG on this matter and  advised  the  NOPD  that  corrective  action  is  needed  to  remedy  the  discrepancies  in  reporting  related to unfounded offenses.     The NOPD should have been aware of this condition prior to March of 2014 because the DOJ  Report  and  the  2012  Consent  Decree  Regarding  the  New  Orleans  Police  Department  (2012  Consent Decree) documented similar conditions.                                                              17  “Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook”, United States Department of Justice. 2004.  The City of New Orleans  AR13PAU002         Office of Inspector General  Page 13 of 30     NOPD UCR Reporting‐ Forcible Rape  Performance Audit      The  DOJ  Report  states,  “In  situations  where  investigators  determine  that  a  report  is  false  or  baseless  –  meaning  that  the  evidence  shows  no  crime  occurred  or  was  attempted  –  the  department may designate a report as “unfounded”….      Departments must still include these reports in their UCR statistics for Index Crimes, under the  category  of  unfounded  crimes…we  concluded  that  the  Department  likely  had  diverted  many  complaints of possible sexual assault from being fully investigated by classifying them as non‐ criminal “signal 21s,”…Our review determined that NOPD has used the Signal 21 code far more  expansively, effectively shutting down investigation for a significant proportion of possible sex  crimes.”18     The 2012 Consent Decree states “During the first year of this Agreement, neither patrol officers  nor detectives shall code reported sexual assaults in a miscellaneous or non‐criminal category  without the express written approval of the ISB Special Victim Section Commander and the ISB  Criminal Investigations Division Commander. Following this period, patrol officers shall not code  reported sexual assaults in a miscellaneous or non‐criminal category….”19     Finding # 3:   Background:  The  NOPD  Policy  Manual  permitted  platoon  supervisors  to  “change  the  dispositions,  locations,  etc.,  of  any  item  numbers  within  24  hours  of  the  item  being  closed  (marked  up20).  After  24  hours,  a  Change  of  Signal  or  Disposition  Form  (Form  226)  must  be  completed…”21  NOPD’s  Policy  Manual  required  that  an  incident  or  supplemental  report  was  completed to support the Form 226.     Condition:  NOPD  did  not  articulate  the  reason  for  the  signal  and/or  disposition  change  properly. Nine item numbers of the 90 selected for testing had a change in signal or disposition  after 24 hours. Six of the nine (67%) item numbers either did not have an incident report or a  supplemental report to support the signal or disposition change. See Table 2 below.     Table 2: Change of Signal and/or Disposition Form       % of Total  Description of Finding  No. of Items  Tested (9)  Signal/Disposition  change  via  Form  226  but  no  associated  4  45%  incident report   Signal/Disposition  change  via  Form  226  but  no  associated  2  22%  supplemental report  Total Number of Items   6  67%                                                            18 “Crime in the United States, 2009” U.S. Department of Justice‐Federal Bureau of Investigation; September 2010. www.fbi.gov.    “United States of America vs. City of New Orleans (Case 2:12‐cv‐01924‐SM‐JCW)” Consent Decree Regarding the New Orleans  Police Department; July 2012.   20  An incident is considered “marked‐up” once a disposition has been assigned to the item.  21   “Complaint  Signals‐Changing  of  Item  Signals  or  Dispositions  (Policy  345)”,  New  Orleans  Police  Department  Policy  Manual,  2013.  The City of New Orleans  AR13PAU002         NOPD UCR Reporting‐ Forcible Rape  Office of Inspector General  Page 14 of 30   Performance Audit  19       Criteria:  Per  Policy  34522  of  the  NOPD’s  Policy  Manual,  “Form  226  shall  be  completed  in  its  entirety  with  a  complete  explanation  of  the  reason  for  the  change.  If  the  item  number  (incident) has an associated police report (R.T.F.) then a supplemental report shall be created  containing  details  documenting  the  circumstances  associated  with  the  need  for  a  signal/disposition change.”     Cause:  NOPD  officers  did  not  comply  with  Policy  345  of  the  New  Orleans  Police  Department  Policy Manual.     Effect:  Signal  and/or  disposition  changes  were  not  corroborated  with  supporting  documentation.  Recommendation:   The NOPD should enforce compliance with Policy 345.    NOPD Corrective Action: “…For the three known incidents referenced above, immediate steps  will be taken to amend associated change forms and/or report documentation.”     OIG  Comment:  Although  the  NOPD  offered  a  corrective  action  for  the  known  incidents,  no  corrective action was offered to prevent the problem from recurring.     Finding # 4:   Condition: The NOPD incident reports were not completed by officers prior to ending their tour  of duty. Sixty‐nine of the 90 items tested contained an incident report23. Three of the 69 (4%)  incident reports were not completed until 52 to 414 days after the offense date. See Table 3  below.    Table 3: Days between Offense Date and Report Date  Days  Between  Offense  Date  and  Report  Offense Date  Report Date  Date  7/10/2012  8/28/2013  414  4/15/2013  9/1/2013  139  5/29/2013  7/20/2013  52    Criteria:  Per  Policy  34424  of  the  NOPD’s  Procedure  Manual,  “…incident  reports  shall  be  completed  and  submitted  by  reporting  officers  prior  to  ending  their  tour  of  duty.  Whenever  possible,  reports  shall  be  completed  while  the  reporting  officer  is  still  assigned  to  the  call,  so  accurate reporting times can be calculated. Failure or delay in submitting reports will result in  disciplinary action against the employee, unless the delay is authorized.”     Cause: NOPD officers violated Policy 344 of the New Orleans Police Department Policy Manual  by not completing incident reports prior to ending their tour of duty.                                                           22  Ibid.   Items found to be false or baseless do not require an incident report.  24 “Report Preparation”, New Orleans Police Department Procedure Manual. 2012.  The City of New Orleans  AR13PAU002         Office of Inspector General  Page 15 of 30   23   NOPD UCR Reporting‐ Forcible Rape  Performance Audit      Effect: NOPD increased its risk for inaccurate reporting by allowing officers to complete reports  after their tour of duty.    Recommendation:  Officers  should  complete  all  reports  prior  to  finishing  their  tour  of  duty  in  accordance with NOPD Policy 344.     NOPD  Corrective  Action:  “As  noted  above,  on  February  17,  2014,  Investigations  &  Support  Bureau  Policy  #21  was  placed  into  effect  mandating  use  of  NOPD’s  Electronic  Policy  Report  (EPR) process to record all cases.  Paragraph 15 of this policy now reads: “The SVS Commander  and  supervisors  shall  ensure  that  all  incident  reports  are  entered  into  the  EPR  system.”  This  automated  system  greatly  enhances  our  ability  to  regulate  our  overall  case  management  system.”     Finding # 5:   Condition: NOPD supervisors did not approve incident and/or supplemental reports in a timely  manner.  Sixty‐nine  of  the  90  items  tested  contained  an  incident  report25.  Five  of  the  69  (7%)  items tested were not approved until 236 to 1,085 days after the initial report was completed.  See Table 4 below.   Table 4: Days between Report Date and Supervisor Approval Date Days  Between  Report  Date  and  Approval  Report Date  Approval Date  Date  9/14/2010  9/3/2013  1,085  9/23/2010  8/29/2013  1,071  3/8/2011  9/3/2013   910  11/27/2011  9/4/2013   647  1/16/2013  9/9/2013   236    Criteria: Per Policy 34426 of the NOPD’s Policy Manual, “Supervisors shall ensure all reports are  completed and reviewed in a timely manner. Failure or delay in reviewing reports will result in  disciplinary action against the Supervisor.”     Cause: NOPD officers violated Policy 344 of the New Orleans Police Department Policy Manual  by not reviewing incident and/or supplemental reports timely.    Effect:  NOPD  supervisors  created  an  opportunity  for  inaccurate  reporting  by  not  reviewing  reports timely.   Recommendation: NOPD supervisors should review all incident and/or supplemental reports in  a timely manner in accordance with NOPD Policy 344.                                                             25  Items found to be false or baseless do not require an incident report.  “Report Preparation”, New Orleans Police Department Procedure Manual. 2012.  The City of New Orleans  AR13PAU002         Office of Inspector General  Page 16 of 30   26   NOPD UCR Reporting‐ Forcible Rape  Performance Audit      NOPD  Corrective  Action:  “We  have  reviewed  all  five  incidents  listed  under  this  finding  and  concur…Use  of  the  Electronic  Police  Report  (EPR)  has  now  gone  live  department‐wide.    This  automated  system  has  greatly  enhanced  this  agency’s  ability  to  closely  monitor  procedural  requirements related to managerial performance.”     Finding # 6:   Background: “The Central Evidence and Property Section is responsible for the intake, storage,  and disposition of the evidence and property entrusted into the care of the New Orleans Police  Department…Evidence is stored in a variety of manners utilizing best practices with the latest  technology and equipment, and may subsequently be tested by the Crime Lab and/or brought  to Court for trial.”27   For  all  items  submitted  to  Central  Evidence  and  Property  (CE&P),  officers  received  a  CE&P  receipt with a corresponding reference number. Any evidence submitted to CE&P was listed on  the “Attachments” page of the police report with the corresponding reference number.    Condition: Sixty‐nine of the 90 items tested contained an incident report28. Five of the 69 (7%)  items cited evidence in the incident report that was not submitted to CE&P. Three of the five  items were maintained by NOPD but never submitted to CE&P. The NOPD could not produce  evidence for the remaining two items. See Table 5 below.  Table 5: Evidence not Submitted to CE&P    Explanation  Evidence was maintained by NOPD but never  submitted to CE&P  Evidence  was  neither  maintained  by  NOPD  nor submitted to CE&P  Total  Number  of  Items  w/  Evidence  not  Submitted to CE&P  No.  of  Items  Not    Submitted  to  % of Total Tested (69)  CE&P  3  4%  2  3%  5  7%    Criteria: Per the NOPD’s Operations Manual, “property or evidence29 received by any employee  of the New Orleans Police Department shall be delivered to the Evidence and Property Division  as soon as possible, however, no later than the end of the employee’s tour of duty.     If property is delivered to the Evidence and Property Division after the employee’s tour of duty  ends, it shall be accompanied by an interoffice correspondence specifying the reasons for the  delay  in  processing.  The  correspondence  shall  be  approved  by  the  employee’s  Commanding  Officer or in their absence the employee’s immediate supervisor.” 30                                                          27 “Central Evidence and Property Section”, www.nola.gov   Items found to be false or baseless did not require an incident report.  29  Evidence is the documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.   30 “Property and Evidence Control”, Ch. 84.1, New Orleans Police Department Operations Manual, 2004.  The City of New Orleans  AR13PAU002         NOPD UCR Reporting‐ Forcible Rape  Office of Inspector General  Page 17 of 30   Performance Audit  28         Cause: NOPD was not in compliance with the NOPD Operations Manual.  Effect: NOPD reclassified incidents based on evidence that was not properly submitted to CP&E.  NOPD  could  not  support  the  misclassifications  of  certain  forcible  rapes  by  not  securing  evidence.  Recommendation: No incident or supplemental report should be approved until the evidence  noted in the report has been submitted to CE&P. Supervisors should not approve any incident  or  supplemental  reports  that  do  not  include  the  CE&P  receipt  for  the  supporting  documentation cited in the officer’s report.    NOPD  Corrective  Action:  “Four  of  the  five  incidents  cited  under  this  finding  have  been  determined  to  be  in  violation  of  NOPD  policy  regarding  the  processing  and  handling  of  evidence…As to these specific cases, the incident that did not violate policy was in relation to cell  phone records. This documentation is considered much like any other paper document, in that it  is made a part of the report which is considered an acceptable practice. In two of the remaining  cases,  audio/video  evidence  was  located  within  the  case  file  associated  to  the  incident.  These  items have now been logged into CE&P with the involved members counseled.     As  to  the  remaining  two  cases,  the  investigator  was  unable  to  locate  CD’s  containing  audio/video evidence and/or statements taken and formal disciplinary action has already been  initiated.  However, these cases have since been reviewed by veteran supervisors specializing in  sexual  assault  investigations  and  we  would  respectfully  disagree  that  cases  were  reclassified  based  in  the  OIG’s  ‘effect’  statement.  The  factual  content  of  all  evidence  was  documented  in  these reports.”    OIG Comment: The OIG disagrees.  The cell phone record was not made part of the report or  submitted  to  CE&P  for  storage.  The  authentic  copy  of  the  record  was  not  safely  stored  as  evidence.  The  type  of  evidence  obtained  impacted  UCR  reporting  and  helped  determine  whether a complaint was substantiated or deemed to be false or baseless.      Although the NOPD offered a corrective action for the known incidents, no long term solution  was offered to prevent the condition from recurring.        B. Findings Related to the NOPD’s Compilation of its UCR Data  Finding # 7:   Background:  A  multiple‐offense  situation  occurred  when  several  offenses  were  committed  at  the same call for service. The FBI’s Hierarchy Rule required law enforcement agencies to report  the highest offense per the UCR hierarchy list to the UCR Program. See Appendix B.     The City of New Orleans  Office of Inspector General    AR13PAU002         Page 18 of 30   NOPD UCR Reporting‐ Forcible Rape  Performance Audit      Condition: The NOPD UCR Specialist31 did not report the highest offense on the hierarchy list to  the UCR Program.     Four of the seven (57%) multiple‐offense situations tested were assigned the lower signal which  corresponded to a lesser offense in the UCR hierarchy.    Criteria: Per the FBI’s UCR Handbook, “The Hierarchy Rule requires that when more than one  Part I offense is classified, the law enforcement agency must locate the offense that is highest  on the hierarchy list and score that offense involved and not the other offense(s) in the multi‐ offense situation.”    Cause: NOPD officers did not use the highest offense when classifying police reports; therefore,  the UCR Specialist could not locate the highest offense in the EPR system.    Effect: The UCR crime data for multiple offense situations was not accurately reported to the  UCR Program.   Recommendation:  NOPD’s  UCR  specialist  should  report  the  highest  offense  on  the  hierarchy  list to the UCR Program.     NOPD Corrective Action: “None required.”      OIG  Comment:  The  NOPD  did  not  offer  a  corrective  action  to  prevent  the  condition  from  reoccurring.     The FBI’s Hierarchy Rule required law enforcement agencies to report the highest offense per  the UCR hierarchy list to the UCR Program.  The OIG notes that a corrective action is needed to  ensure that the UCR Specialist reports all UCR data to the UCR Program, regardless of how the  officers assign a signal and disposition to the report.32     Finding # 8:   Condition:  Offense  data  reported  by  the  NOPD  in  2010  and  2011  did  not  support  the  information  provided  to  the  UCR  program.  The  NOPD  did  not  maintain  supporting  documentation for 2010 and 2011 Part I offenses; therefore, the data was un‐auditable.  Criteria:    The  Louisiana  Public  Records  Law33  required  all  records  to  be  maintained  for  a  minimum of three years.    Cause: The NOPD was in violation of the Louisiana Public Records Law.    Effect: The NOPD’s UCR data reported to the UCR Program was unable to be verified.                                                          31  The NOPD contracted retired NOPD officer compiled its UCR data.   Officers classify crimes based on the La Revised Statutes, but the NOPD UCR Specialist should report crime based on the FBI’s  UCR Handbook.  The two criteria often differ.     33  La. R.S. 44:36.  The City of New Orleans  AR13PAU002         NOPD UCR Reporting‐ Forcible Rape  Office of Inspector General  Page 19 of 30   Performance Audit  32       Recommendation: NOPD should follow Louisiana Public Records Law.     NOPD Corrective Action: “None required.”      OIG  Comment:  The  OIG  agrees  that  no  corrective  action  is  necessary  because  the  NOPD  maintained supporting documentation for its UCR data in 2012 and 2013.     Finding # 9:   Background: NOPD was required to report UCR information such as offenses known to police,  baseless complaints, and the number of actual offenses for each Part I offense. This information  was  reported  on  a  Return  A  (see  Appendix  C)  to  the  LCLE  quarterly.  The  LCLE  reports  information for the entire state of Louisiana to the FBI on an annual basis. The  Return  A  instructions  indicated  that  "Reporting  agencies  must  indicate  in  Column  2  all  actual and attempted offenses reported in their jurisdictions for the month.  Agencies must also  include  in  this  column  any  crimes  committed  in  previous  months  but  not  reported  until  the  current  month.  It  is  important  that  agencies  enter  into  this  column  all  known  offenses,  including those subsequently determined to be unfounded. Each entry made on the Return A  and tally book must be classified according to the standard UCR definition."     Condition:    The  NOPD  excluded  four  of  the  4634  (9%)  forcible  rape  offenses  from  the  actual  offense column on the Return A of its UCR data.     Criteria:  Per  the  FBI’s  UCR  Handbook,  reporting  agencies  must  subtract  the  number  of  unfounded offenses from the total number of calls for service. “The difference is the number of  actual offenses that occurred in the jurisdiction for the month in question."    Cause: The NOPD inadvertently excluded forcible rape offenses from the actual offense column  on the Return A.     Effect: The forcible rape offense data was not accurately reported to the UCR Program.     Recommendation: All Part I offenses with a disposition of RTF should be included in the offense  data reported to the UCR Program in the correct column and row on the Return A.  NOPD Corrective Action: “We will work with the OIG in obtaining the specifics on the remaining  cases referenced in this finding and, if errors are found, will submit the necessary adjustment as  provided for under the UCR program.”      OIG Comment: The item numbers for this finding were provided to the NOPD.                                                                34  The sample size of 90 items included forty‐six 2012 and 2013 item numbers. This finding related to the forty‐six 2012/2013  item numbers. 2010 and 2011 support was not auditable because it was not maintained by NOPD.  The City of New Orleans  AR13PAU002         NOPD UCR Reporting‐ Forcible Rape  Office of Inspector General  Page 20 of 30   Performance Audit        Finding # 10:   Background:  Local  law  enforcement  agencies  report  all  Part  I  offenses  with  a  disposition  of  unfounded  (UNF)  in  order  to  assist  law  enforcement  in  identifying  the  crime  problem.  Reporting agencies must subtract the number of unfounded offenses from calls for service in  order to determine the number of actual offenses that occurred for the month.      Note: Reporting of unfounded offenses does not affect the number of rapes reported to the UCR  program.  This information is used by the FBI to determine if the rapes reported are statistically  within norms.     NOPD completed a UCR worksheet by generating a list from its EPR of all Part I offenses with a  disposition of “Report to Follow” (RTF). The NOPD then completed the monthly Return A with  the information from the NOPD’s UCR worksheet.    Condition:    The  NOPD  excluded  six  of  the  4635  (13%)  forcible  rape  offenses  tested  with  a  disposition of UNF from the Return A of its UCR data.     Criteria: Per the FBI’s UCR Handbook, "Occasionally, an agency will receive a complaint that is  determined through investigation to be false or baseless. In other words, no crime occurred. If  the investigation shows that no offense occurred nor was attempted, UCR Program procedures  dictate that the reported offense must be unfounded… Agencies must still record all such Part I  offenses and then score them as unfounded on the current month's Return A."    “City, county, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement agency participants must classify and  score  offenses  from  the  records  of  calls  for  service,  complaints,  and/or  investigations.  Since  these crime statistics are intended to assist law enforcement in identifying the crime problem,  participants  must  record  offense  counts,  not  the  findings  of  a  court,  coroner,  or  jury  or  the  decision of a prosecutor.”36    Cause: The list generated in the EPR system did not include all Part I offenses with a disposition  of UNF for the items tested.    Effect:  The  forcible  rape  data  for  UNF  offenses  was  not  accurately  reported  to  the  UCR  Program.   Recommendation: The NOPD should generate a list of all Part I offenses with a disposition of  UNF in CAD. NOPD should also report all calls for service, including those determined to be false  or baseless, to the UCR Program on the Schedule A.                                                              35     The  sample  size  of  90  items  included  forty‐six  2012  and  2013  items.  This  finding  related  to  the  forty‐six  2012/2013  item  numbers. 2010 and 2011 support was not auditable because it was not maintained by NOPD.  36  “Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook”, United States Department of Justice. 2004.  The City of New Orleans  AR13PAU002         NOPD UCR Reporting‐ Forcible Rape  Office of Inspector General  Page 21 of 30   Performance Audit        NOPD Comment and Corrective Action: “The OIG’s findings list 6 out the 90 incidents reviewed,  stating  the  NOPD  failed  to  list  a  call  for  service  incident  determined  to  be  unfounded  by  the  responding officer… It has always been the practice of the NOPD to classify crimes “based on the  facts  of  the  agency’s  investigation  of  a  crime”  as  stated  in  the  Uniform  Crime  reporting  Handbook...”     “In  March  of  this  year,  NOPD  received  additional  guidance  from  LCLE  regarding  UCR  classifications under the category of unfounded.  We are in the process of evaluating procedural  and data processing requirements associated to this new information, as well as overall FBI UCR  Program changes scheduled for later this year.  Completion projected for mid‐2014 when new  UCR guidelines on reporting take effect.”      OIG  Comment:  The  FBI’s  UCR  Handbook37  states  that  “If  the  investigation  shows  that  no  offense  occurred  nor  was  attempted,  UCR  Program  procedures  dictate  that  the  reported  offense must be unfounded… Agencies must still record all such Part I offenses and then score  them  as  unfounded  on  the  current month's  Return  A."  The  LCLE  agreed  with  the  OIG  on  this  matter and advised the NOPD that corrective action is needed to remedy the discrepancies in  reporting related to unfounded offenses. Also refer to OIG Comment in Finding 2.                                                                                37  “Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook”, United States Department of Justice. 2004.  The City of New Orleans  AR13PAU002         Office of Inspector General  Page 22 of 30     NOPD UCR Reporting‐ Forcible Rape  Performance Audit          IV. NOPD UCR REPORTING OBSERVATIONS 38  Observation #1:   Per UCR guidelines, law enforcement agencies were to report the arrest data involving Part II  offenses to the UCR Program on a quarterly basis. However, the NOPD no longer has the ability  to report the arrest data for Part II offenses to the UCR Program.     NOPD  Comment:  “NOPD  relies  on  several  other  Criminal  Justice  agencies  to  input  data  to  calculate  UCR  Part  II  arrest  information.  Prior  to  2005  this  data  was  collected  on  the  City’s  Mainframe Computer System. Since that time several agencies have created their own systems  that  are  not  accessible  to  the  NOPD  for  this  specific  purpose.  Currently  NOPD  is  working  with  these  agencies  to  gather  that  data  and  will  once  again  be  able  to  report  UCR  Part  II  information.”    Observation #2:   Prior  to  2009,  the  NOPD  posted  its  quarterly  UCR  data  on  its  website;  however,  the  NOPD  discontinued this practice after the consolidation of its information into a City wide website.    NOPD  Comment:  “…in  January  2013  the  website  also  began  making  calls  for  service  data  available  at  data  “nola.gov”.  This  raw  data  is  continually  updated  on  a  48‐hour  delay  and  provides  the  public  with  previously  unavailable  tools  for  tracking  and  monitoring  criminal  activity in New Orleans. Since it was launched 15 months ago, this dataset has been accessed  more than 25,000 times.  In addition, the NOPD still releases the quarterly reports as before and  this data is publically available…We would acknowledge that NOPD discontinued this practice,  however, it was done in support of the City’s effort to improve services to citizens by providing a  so called ‘one‐stop shop’ access to information across a broader range of agencies. ”      OIG  Comment:  The  quarterly  information  provided  on  “nola.gov”  is  a  summary  of  the  UCR  information  and  does  not  include  detailed  information  regarding  the  actual  number  of  each  Part 1 offense. The continuously updated raw data refers to 911 calls, not specific Part 1 UCR  data counts.  Observation #3:   The  NOPD  backdated  two  supplemental  reports  prior  to  the  date  the  report  was  actually  written.    Table 6: Supplemental Reports Dated Prior to the Date the Report was Created  Days  b/w  the  Supplemental  Occurrence  Date  per  the  Date  the  Report  Report  Date and the Date the  Date  Supplemental Report  was Created  Report was Created  2/21/2013  2/21/2013  9/3/2013  194  5/18/2013  5/29/2013  9/3/2013  97                                                          38   Comments and/or corrective actions are not required for Observations.  The City of New Orleans  AR13PAU002         Office of Inspector General  Page 23 of 30     NOPD UCR Reporting‐ Forcible Rape  Performance Audit      NOPD  Comment:  “The  first  item  cited  was  from  February  2013.   Records  indicate  that  the  incident  report  was  written  in  EPR  and  scanned  in  9  days  later.   A  supplemental  report  was  scanned  in  September  2013. On  the  supplemental  report,  it  appears  the  detective  mistakenly  listed  the  report  date  as  the  incident  date.   This  is  further  evidenced  by  the  fact  that  the  detective documents efforts of the investigation during the days following the incident date. Our  review indicates this appears to be a type‐o.     The second item cited was from May 2013. Records indicate that the incident report was written  in  EPR  and  scanned  in  2  days  later. A  non‐EPR  supplemental  report  was  dated  May  29th  and  scanned in August 2013. Another non‐EPR supplemental report was dated March 18, 2014, and  scanned in on March 25, 2014. At this time, we are unable to substantiate the allegation that  the report was ‘backdated’.”   OIG Comment: A list was generated by the City’s IT Department which indicated the date the  report  was  actually  created,  not  the  date  that  the  officer  documented  on  the  supplemental  report.    The  dates  the  officer  indicated  on  the  report  were  prior  to  the  date  the  report  was  actually created as revealed by the list obtained from the City’s IT Department.           The City of New Orleans  Office of Inspector General    AR13PAU002         Page 24 of 30   NOPD UCR Reporting‐ Forcible Rape  Performance Audit      V.CONCLUSION  The  report  resulted  in  ten  findings  and  three  observations.  The  ten  recommendations  to  the  findings  are  intended  to  improve  and  clarify  the  NOPD’s  internal  controls  and  reporting  practices to the UCR Program.    Forcible  rape  data  was  misclassified  by  the  NOPD.  Forty‐six  percent  (46%)  of  offenses  tested  were not captured in the crime data reported to the UCR Program.  By misclassifying the UCR  data, the actual crimes that occurred were unknown to the public and law enforcement.      NOPD  should  ensure  that  officers  are  in  compliance  with  its  policies  and  procedures.  NOPD  should  also  comply  with  the  procedural  guidance  provided  by  the  FBI  to  ensure  the  quality,  objectivity,  utility,  and  integrity  of  its  UCR  data.    To  increase  its  reporting  accuracy,  NOPD  should verify that:   Officers substantiate their signal and/or disposition changes by documenting the change  in the report.    Officers complete the incident report prior to ending their tour of duty.   Supervisors review reports in a timely manner.   Officers  submit  all  evidence  to  Central  Evidence  and  Property  (CE&P)  for  secure  processing, storage and disposition.     All electronic documents are maintained for a minimum of three years.     All  known  offenses,  including  those  found  to  be  false  or  baseless,  are  reported  to  the  UCR Program.     A  follow‐up  review  to  determine  the  status  of  the  NOPD’s  comments  in  this  report  will  be  conducted in 2016.            The City of New Orleans  Office of Inspector General      AR13PAU002         Page 25 of 30   NOPD UCR Reporting‐ Forcible Rape  Performance Audit      VI. APPENDICES    Appendix A. Glossary of Terms  1. Calls for Service: All actual and attempted offenses reported within a law enforcement  agency’s  jurisdiction.  Calls  for  service  included  all  known  offenses  and  unfounded  offenses.     2. Change  of  Signal  or  Disposition  Form  (Form  226):  If  it  becomes  necessary  to  change  either  the  signal  or  disposition  of  the  item  after  24  hours,  a  Change  of  Signal  or  Disposition Form should be completed.     3. Communications  Division:  This  division  provided  citizens  with  24  hour  access  to  the  police department by answering calls for service and dispatching field units.     4. Computer Aided Dispatch System (CAD): The NOPD dispatch system was operated and  maintained by the NOPD Communications Division.     5. Disposition:  “A  valid  identifier  which  was  added  to  the  item  at  the  time  it  was  closed39”40     6. Electronic  Police  Report  System  (EPR):  The  NOPD’s  electronic  records  system  used  to  complete police reports and track offenses.41     7. Hierarchy Rule: The FBI’s guidelines that determined how Part I offenses were classified,  scored  and  reported.42  The  Hierarchy  Rule  required  that  the  most  serious  offense  (signal) be used on the police report regardless of the number of offenses noted.       8. Item  Number:  A  unique  alpha  numeric  identifier  assigned  to  all  calls  for  service  generated through CAD.     9. Louisiana  Commission  on  Law  Enforcement  (LCLE):  The  mission  of  the  LCLE  was  to  improve  the  operations  of  the  criminal  justice  system  and  promote  public  safety  by  providing  progressive  leadership  and  coordination  within  the  criminal  justice  community. Local law enforcement agencies throughout the State of Louisiana reported  offense  data  to  the  LCLE  on  a  quarterly  basis.  The  LCLE  reported  the  data  to  the  FBI  annually for compilation in its UCR.                                                              39  An incident is considered “closed” when a signal and disposition has been assigned to it.    “Complaint  Signals‐  Changing  of  Item  Signals  or  Dispositions  (PR345)”,  Policy  345,  New  Orleans  Police  Department  Policy  Manual, 2013.  41 Ibid.    42  Refer to Appendix B for the hierarchy.   The City of New Orleans  AR13PAU002         NOPD UCR Reporting‐ Forcible Rape  Office of Inspector General  Page 26 of 30   Performance Audit  40       10. Multiple‐offense:  A  situation  in  which  numerous  offenses  were  committed  simultaneously.     11. Offense: An act that was punishable by law.    12. Part I offenses: The UCR Part I offenses included the following:    Criminal Homicide   Forcible Rape   Robbery   Aggravated assault   Burglary   Larceny‐ theft   Motor vehicle theft   Arson    13. Part II offenses: Offenses which were not categorized as a Part I offense.     14. “Report to Follow” (RTF): The disposition category used when an officer determined a  police report must be written for the incident.43     15. Return A: The reporting form required by the LCLE to submit the following:    Offenses reported or known to police   Number of actual offenses reported or known to police;   Number of unfounded complaints;   Total offenses cleared by arrest or exceptional means; and   Number of clearances involving only persons under 18 years of age.     16. Signal:  The  alpha  numeric  identifier  assigned  to  an  item  number  that  identified  the  particular type of incident.     17. Unfounded  (UNF):    The  disposition  category  used  when  an  officer  arrived  on  a  scene  and the reported incident does not appear to have occurred.44   18. Uniform  Crime  Report  (UCR):  Official  data  on  crime  in  the United  States  published  by  the FBI.                                                                    43 “Crime Data of the City of New Orleans” Louisiana Legislative Auditor; October 23, 2013. www.lla.state.la.us/  Ibid.  The City of New Orleans  AR13PAU002         NOPD UCR Reporting‐ Forcible Rape  Office of Inspector General  Page 27 of 30   Performance Audit  44       Appendix B. Part I Offense Hierarchy45       Rank  Part I Offenses   Criminal Homicide  1    1a.  Murder and Non‐negligent Manslaughter     1b.  Manslaughter by Negligence     Forcible Rape  2  2a.  Rape by Force  2b.  Attempts to Commit Forcible Rape  Robbery  3  3a.  Firearm  3b.  Knife or Cutting Instrument  3c.  Other Dangerous Weapon  3d.  Strong‐arm (Hands, Fists, Feet, etc.)  Aggravated Assault  4  4a.  Firearm  4b.  Knife or Cutting Instrument  4c.  Other Dangerous Weapon  4d.  Hands, Fists, Feet, etc. (Aggravated Injury)  Burglary  5  5a.  Forcible Entry  5b.  Unlawful Entry‐ No Force  5c.  Attempted Forcible Entry  Theft  6  6a.  Larceny‐ theft (except motor vehicle theft)  Motor Vehicle Theft  7  7a.  Autos  7b.  Trucks and Buses  7c.  Other Vehicles  Arson46  8  8a‐g.  Structural  8h‐i.  Mobile  8j.  Other                                                          45 “Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook”, United States Department of Justice. 2004.   Arson is not reported by NOPD.  The City of New Orleans  AR13PAU002         Office of Inspector General  Page 28 of 30   46   NOPD UCR Reporting‐ Forcible Rape  Performance Audit      Appendix C. Return A – Monthly Return of Offenses Known to Police   Classification of Offenses  Criminal Homicide  1a. Murder and Non‐negligent  Manslaughter  1b. Manslaughter by Negligence  Forcible Rape  2a. Rape by Force  2b. Attempts to Commit Forcible Rape  Robbery  3a. Firearm  3b. Knife or Cutting Instrument  3c. Other Dangerous Weapon  3d. Strong‐arm (Hands, Fists, Feet, etc.)  Aggravated Assault  4a. Firearm  4b. Knife or Cutting Instrument  4c. Other Dangerous Weapon  4d. Hands, Fists, Feet, etc.   (Aggravated Injury)  4e. Other Assaults– Simple, Not  Aggravated  Burglary  5a. Forcible Entry  5b. Unlawful Entry‐ No Force  5c. Attempted Forcible Entry  Theft  6a. Larceny‐ theft   (except motor vehicle theft)  Motor Vehicle Theft  7a. Autos  7b. Trucks and Buses  7c. Other Vehicles        The City of New Orleans  Office of Inspector General    2  Offenses  Reported or  Known to Police  (Include  “Unfounded”  and Attempts)  3  Unfounded,  I.E.,  False or  Baseless  Complaints      4  Number of  Actual Offenses  (Column 2  minus   Column 3)  (Include  Attempts)                                                                                                                                                      AR13PAU002         Page 29 of 30             NOPD UCR Reporting‐ Forcible Rape  Performance Audit      VII. OFFICIAL NOPD COMMENTS  City  Code  Ordinance  2‐1120  section  (8)(b)  “Prior  to  concluding  an  audit  or  evaluation  report,  which  contains  findings  as  to  the  person  or  entity  which  is  the  subject  of  the  audit  or  evaluation, the Office of Inspector General shall provide the affected person or entity with an  Internal  Review  Copy  of  the  report.  Such  person  or  entity  shall  have  30  days  from  the  transmittal date of the report to submit a written explanation or rebuttal of the findings before  the  report  is  finalized,  and  such  timely  submitted  written  explanation  or  rebuttal  shall  be  attached to the finalized report.”    An  Internal  Review  Copy  of  this  report  was  distributed  to  the  NOPD  on  March  10,  2014  to  provide  an  opportunity  to  comment  on  the  report  prior  to  the  public  release.  The  comments  were initially due on April 9, 2014. Several additional discussions were requested by the NOPD  and a new due date of May 7, 2014 was given. NOPD comments were received on May 7, 2014  and  are  included  in  the  body  of  this  report  below  each  finding  and  appended  in  its  entirety  behind this Section.              The City of New Orleans  Office of Inspector General    AR13PAU002         Page 30 of 30   NOPD UCR Reporting‐ Forcible Rape  Performance Audit  CITY OF NEW ORLEANS DEPARTMENT OF POLICE P.O BOX 51480 New Orleans, Louisiana 70151 Mitchell J. Landrieu “to protect and to serve” MAYOR Ronal W. Serpas, Ph.D. SUPERINTENDENT May 7, 2014 Ed Quatrevaux, Inspector General Office of the Inspector General City of New Orleans 525 St. Charles Avenue New Orleans, LA 70130-3049 RE: Uniform Crime Reporting of Forcible Rapes Dear Inspector General Quatrevaux: Thank you for giving the New Orleans Police Department the opportunity to review and comment on your report titled “Uniform Crime Reporting of Forcible Rapes.” We wish to extend our appreciation to your auditors for their patience and cooperation in our joint discussions involving police policy requirements, investigative procedures and longstanding UCR reporting practices. We would also like to recognize and thank the Louisiana Commission on Law Enforcement (LCLE) for their assistance in reviewing a random sampling of twenty (20) cases provided to them by NOPD that were subject to concerns by OIG auditors. As we believe your staff would acknowledge, LCLE auditors are the recognized experts and authority on UCR reporting by law enforcement agencies across the State and supported NOPD’s handling of these incidents in the vast majority of cases reviewed. We have attached a copy of LCLE’s letter dated April 28, 2014, from Deputy Director Robert Mehrtens citing that any discrepancies found in UCR reporting were “not intentional misclassifications” on the part of NOPD. Additionally, we agree with OIG’s auditors in acknowledging the fact that the reporting of unfounded offenses does not affect the number of actual rapes reported to the UCR program. Furthermore, we note and agree as found on page five of the report that, “the exceptions identified in the testing are not projectable into the entire population of reported forcible rapes.” We believe it is also important to note that during our administration, NOPD sex crimes detectives have been working more closely than ever with victim advocacy groups, hospital professionals, social workers and the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office on improving services to victims traumatized by sexual assault. This collaborative effort has resulted in a significant increase in the number of reportable sexual assaults, which reflects a 70% upsurge in reporting over a forty-four month period ‘pre’ and ‘post’ administration change; September 2006 to April 2010 – 342 rape cases reported compared to May 2010 to December 2013 – 582 rape cases reported. Earlier this year in an article published in the Times Picayune, Ginesse Barrett, director of the Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) program at the Interim LSU Hospital, characterized the most recent 2013 increase in reporting as “encouraging” under the first full year of consultations involving the New Orleans Sexual Assault Response Team. Page 2 Uniform Crime Reporting of Forcible Rapes 5/7/14 Following are our detailed responses to the OIG’s findings, observations, recommendations and corrective action offered by this agency, as warranted: Finding #1: NOPD should require that officers and supervisors receive adequate training on forcible rape incident reporting. Recommendation: NOPD should require that officers and supervisors receive adequate training on forcible rape incident reporting. Supervisors should also review reports to ensure that items are properly classified and the elements of the offense are met. NOPD should report all known offenses, regardless of the victim’s willingness to cooperate, and ensure that the offense is submitted to the UCR Program. Department’s Response: Training is one of the key components under the totally revamped Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) program. Detectives and supervisors assigned to the Special Victim Section (SVS) have now received in combination over 2,700 hours in specialized training related to sexual assault investigations. In 2013 alone, detectives and supervisors in SVS underwent professional instruction related to: • • • • • • Clearance Methods for Sexual Assault Cases Effective Report Writing: Using the Language of Non-Consensual Sex Dynamics: What Does Sexual Assault Really Look Like? Victim Impact: How do Sexual Assault Victims Respond? Interviewing the Victim: Techniques Based on the Realistic Dynamics of Sexual Assault False Reports: Moving Beyond the Issue to Successfully Investigate Sexual Assault As to classification, we strongly feel that NOPD maintains precedence in this area. Expert analysis of the Louisiana Revised Statutes and informed interpretation of complicated FBI UCR guidelines requires years of experience and training. An outsider’s view should not and cannot supplant the understanding of those with decades of experience, training and knowledge of rape investigations and UCR classification. We believe this is evidenced by the random review of just twenty (20) cases where LCLE supported NOPD’s assessment in an overwhelming majority of investigations being examined by OIG auditors. Under certain situations, NOPD would be prohibited from complying with the auditor’s recommendation that “NOPD should report all known offenses, regardless of the victim’s willingness to cooperate…”, as this comes into conflict with State law (refer to: RS 40:2109.1; Procedures for Rape Victims; Emergency Rooms of Licensed Hospitals; Immunity). The approach to handling sexual assaults must be victim-centered. For the 1st Quarter of 2014, the SANE Program operated by Interim LSU Hospital treated a total of fifty (50) victims of sexual assault with forty-three (43) incidents reported to police and seven (7) incidents going unreported at the victim’s request. Even though a formal report was not filed with police, the NOPD Sex Crimes Unit does take physical possession of the rape examination kit and logs it into Central Property & Evidence under a ‘21X’ incident number should the victim decide to file a formal report at a later time. This is ‘best practices’ under these circumstances and still provides an opportunity for victims to come forward after receiving needed support services, such as counseling. Page 3 Uniform Crime Reporting of Forcible Rapes 5/7/14 Corrective Action: In March of this year, NOPD received additional guidance from LCLE regarding UCR classifications under the category of unfounded. We are in the process of evaluating procedural and data processing requirements associated to this new information, as well as overall FBI UCR Program changes scheduled for later this year. Completion projected for mid-2014 when new UCR guidelines on reporting take effect. ________________________________ Finding #2: Offenses were improperly misclassified to a miscellaneous offense instead of unfounded (UNF). Recommendation: The NOPD should terminate use of the signal for “miscellaneous offense” when classifying offenses; and the signal for all offenses should correlate to the type of offense per the call for service. If an offense is determined to be false or baseless, the item’s signal should not be adjusted; however, the disposition of the item should be changed to UNF. Department’s Response: The UCR Handbook states “Classifying is determining the proper crime categories in which to report offenses in UCR. The classification of the offense is based on the facts of an agency’s investigation of a crime. When a complaint operator receives a call, they take steps to determine the need for a police officer. This cursory inquiry by the complaint operator does not constitute a police investigation. Moreover, it would be inappropriate for the department to classify crimes merely based on the wording used by a complainant on this initial phone call. Complainants often report incidents in colloquial terms, and this language may not be an accurate description of the alleged events. For example, complainants occasionally call police and report that they were robbed or that a robbery has occurred. After an investigation, officers may determine that the incident described by the complainant does not meet the legal definition of a robbery, but was in fact a theft or burglary. It cannot be said in such circumstances that the complainant falsely alleged a robbery, and it would not be appropriate to classify such incidents as an unfounded robbery. The complainant reported an incident and simply lacked sufficient legal knowledge to accurately identify the alleged crime. Similarly, when investigating potential sexual offenses, if a detective determines that the incident as described by the complainant does not meet the definition of a rape, that detective cannot classify that incident as a rape. This classification process is in adherence with the requirements of the UCR Handbook, which require that reported classifications be based upon investigations. The following are several examples taken from the OIG’s sample that demonstrate how officers investigating a potential sexual assault ultimately end up determining that not only no assault occurred but that no assault was even alleged. December 2010 - The victim called police operators and said she was “violated” in a swingers club. However, she described a consensual sex scenario to the detective. The rape standard was not met; therefore it was marked up a 21 RTF (Miscellaneous – Report To Follow). Since the victim’s description of events did not establish a rape, the incident could not be classified as a rape. This incident was reviewed by LCLE and they concurred with NOPD’s classification of this incident. Page 4 Uniform Crime Reporting of Forcible Rapes 5/7/14 January 2011 - This case was referred by a school because a 4 year old had blood in her diaper. The child never alleged sexual abuse and according to medical findings, no sexual assault occurred. No rape allegations were ever made by any party, and therefore it was marked up a 21 RTF. LCLE also concurred with NOPD’s classification of this incident. February 2012 - The victim called police and said the window was open in her hotel and she felt “wet and open”. Detectives investigated and determined that no sexual assault occurred. The rape standard was not met; therefore it was marked up a 21 RTF. The LCLE again concurred with NOPD’s classification of this incident. July 2013 - In this case the victim stated she could not remember anything, but if she had sexual intercourse with anyone it was consensual. The rape standard was not met; therefore it was marked up a 21 RTF. In this case, it was determined that no crime occurred. The LCLE concurred with NOPD’s classification of this incident. In the remaining handful of cases, the department believes there is sufficient evidence to determine that rape could not be established. In these cases, notwithstanding the language used by a complainant during the initial call to 911, no rape actually occurred. These incidents were classified as 21, or Miscellaneous, because the results of the investigation precluded a classification of rape. There is no evidence to suggest that these cases were misclassified in an effort to downgrade crime stats or underreport sexual assaults; they were in fact property reported “based on the facts of an agency’s investigation of a crime.” These are only a few examples of the reports that underpin the OIG finding, and yet the LCLE agreed with the NOPD’s police investigation AND not a phone conversation with a dispatcher that resulted in a Computer Aided Dispatch Call for Service. Corrective Action: In March of this year, NOPD received additional guidance from LCLE regarding UCR classifications under the category of unfounded. We are in the process of evaluating procedural and data processing requirements associated to this new information, as well as overall FBI UCR Program changes scheduled for later this year. Completion projected for mid-2014 when new UCR guidelines on reporting take effect. _______________________________ Finding #3: The NOPD did not provide the reason for the signal and/or disposition change on an incident or supplemental report. Recommendation: The NOPD should enforce compliance with Policy 345. Department’s Response: Policy 345 states, in part: “Form 226 shall be completed in its entirety with a complete explanation of the reason for the change. If the item number (incident) has an associated police report (RTF) then a supplemental report shall be created containing details documenting the circumstances associated with the need for a signal/disposition change.” While we do agree there are three (3) incidents cited under this recommendation warranting further review by NOPD, it also appears that OIG auditors Page 5 Uniform Crime Reporting of Forcible Rapes 5/7/14 have misinterpreted written report requirements under this policy. If there is an associated police report to the incident, then a supplemental report shall be executed. In the case where an item was simply marked up inadvertently as an RTF where the disposition should have been Necessary Action Taken (NAT), then there would be no police report associated with the incident and the disposition can be changed through explanation provided using Form 226. Corrective Action: For the three known incidents referenced above, immediate steps will be taken to amend associated change forms and/or report documentation. _______________________________ Finding #4: The NOPD incident reports were not completed by officers prior to ending their tour of duty. Recommendation: Officers should complete all reports prior to finishing their tour of duty in accordance with NOPD Policy 344. Department’s Response: We agree, and with SVS detectives now fully transitioned to our automated Electronic Police Report (EPR) system since February of this year, similar problems associated to the timely submission of incident reports can be quickly recognized and addressed by supervisors. However, it is important to note that while the policy referenced above does include this prior to ‘end tour of duty’ (ETOD) requirement, it also provides for exceptions under circumstances that would unavoidably prohibit compliance (i.e. – An officer receiving an report call near the end of a shift would be authorized to submit only a face sheet concerning the incident and would be allowed to complete the full report upon his next return to duty). We believe the excerpt taken from NOPD policy could mislead someone into believing there are no exceptions, which we’re certain was not the intention. Additionally, this ETOD requirement does not apply to supplemental reports. Corrective Action: As noted above, on February 17, 2014, Investigations & Support Bureau Policy #21 was placed into effect mandating use of NOPD’s Electronic Policy Report (EPR) process to record all cases. Paragraph 15 of this policy now reads: “The SVS Commander and supervisors shall ensure that all incident reports are entered into the EPR system.” This automated system greatly enhances our ability to regulate our overall case management system. _______________________________ Finding #5: NOPD supervisors did not review incident and/or supplemental reports in a timely manner. Recommendation: NOPD supervisors should review all incident and/or supplemental reports in a timely manner in accordance with NOPD Policy 344. Department’s Response: We have reviewed all five incidents listed under this finding and concur. However, we have come a long way since 2010 and 2011, the report dates involving four of these incidents. Over the past several years, the NOPD has dedicated significant resources in transitioning to a fully automated Page 6 Uniform Crime Reporting of Forcible Rapes 5/7/14 Electronic Police Report, a system specifically designed to improve quality control management. With this system, EPR updates are provided bi-weekly to NOPD Districts/Divisions to improve our ability in monitoring the supervisory review process. Some might even consider this progress. Corrective Action: Similar to our previous statement, use of the Electronic Police Report (EPR) has now gone live department-wide. This automated system has greatly enhanced this agency’s ability to closely monitor procedural requirements related to managerial performance. _______________________________ Finding #6: Certain evidence was not remitted to Central Evidence & Property (CE&P). Recommendation: No incident or supplemental report should be approved until the evidence noted in the report has been submitted to CE&P. Supervisors should not approve any incident or supplemental reports that do not include the CE&P receipt for the supporting documentation cited in the officer’s report. Department’s Response: Four of the five incidents cited under this finding have been determined to be in violation of NOPD policy regarding the processing and handling of evidence. However, all five incidents were in fact reported to the UCR program as “unfounded” offenses supported through an investigation with reasons for this determination documented in an official police report based on evidentiary video gathered and/or statements provided. In fact, one of these cases cited was actually a ‘dual’ reporting scenario, with rape reported as unfounded, however, the incident was determined to be an aggravated assault where an arrest was made and reported as a founded offense under the correct UCR category. Corrective Action: As to these specific cases, the incident that did not violate policy was in relation to cell phone records. This documentation is considered much like any other paper document, in that it is made a part of the report which is considered an acceptable practice. In two of the remaining cases, audio/video evidence was located within the case file associated to the incident. These items have now been logged into CE&P with the involved members counseled. As to the remaining two cases, the investigator was unable to locate CD’s containing audio/video evidence and/or statements taken and formal disciplinary action has already been initiated. However, these cases have since been reviewed by veteran supervisors specializing in sexual assault investigations and we would respectfully disagree that cases were reclassified based in the OIG’s ‘effect’ statement. The factual content of all evidence was documented in these reports. _______________________________ Finding #7: NOPD’s UCR specialist did not report the highest offense on the hierarchy list to the UCR Program. Recommendation: The NOPD should review all multiple offense situations and verify that the highest offense per the hierarchy list is reported. Page 7 Uniform Crime Reporting of Forcible Rapes 5/7/14 Department’s Response: NOPD does not rely on the UCR hierarchy schedule to classify a police report; nor should it. We use the Louisiana Criminal Code of Procedure to determine the most serious offense and report to the UCR program accordingly. We believe the OIG’s auditor’s earlier statement under Finding # 1: “Background: The NOPD was required to categorize and record offenses in the NOPD’s Electronic Police Report System ( EPR) based on the most serious statutes of the state” – is accurate. Corrective Action: None required _______________________________ Finding #8: The NOPD did not maintain supporting documentation for 2010 and 2011 Part I offenses; therefore, the data was unable to be audited. Recommendation: NOPD should follow Louisiana Public Records Law. Department’s Response: In 2010 and 2011, NOPD relied on the City of New Orleans’ Mainframe Computer System for Uniform Crime Reporting. All UCR reports were manually entered into this system and a UCR return “A” form was generated by the computer. In 2012, NOPD started using their Electronic Police System for UCR reporting. This allowed NOPD to generate an excel spreadsheet that listed every UCR report by item number. The auditors requested the excel spreadsheet for the 2010-2011 data, an item that was never produced for or used by NOPD in UCR calculations during that timeframe. NOPD did offer copies of the computer generated reports from the Mainframe; however, the auditors, to our knowledge, never viewed those reports. Since the item requested by the auditor did not exist, we do not believe NOPD would be in conflict with State law. Corrective Action: None required _______________________________ Finding #9: The NOPD excluded forcible rapes with a disposition of “Report to Follow” (RTF) in its UCR. Recommendation: All Part I offenses with a disposition of RTF should be included in the offense data reported to the UCR Program in the correct column and row on the Return A. Department’s Response: The OIG’s finding cites 4 offenses that were excluded from the actual offense column on Return A. Although there have been several back and forth iterations of this report involving the shifting of items for one finding to another, we believe that at least one incident still being cited under this finding from 2010 was reported correctly to the UCR, not as an unfounded rape, but as an actual rape. Page 8 Uniform Crime Reporting of Forcible Rapes 5/7/14 Corrective Action: We will work with the OIG in obtaining the specifics on the remaining cases referenced in this finding and, if errors are found, will submit the necessary adjustment as provided for under the UCR program. _______________________________ Finding #10: The NOPD excluded forcible rapes with a disposition of UNF from Column 2 in its UCR. Recommendation: The NOPD should generate a list of all Part I offenses with a disposition of UNF from CAD. NOPD should also report all calls for service, including those determined to be false or baseless, to the UCR Program on Schedule A. Department’s Response: The OIG’s findings list 6 out the 90 incidents reviewed, stating the NOPD failed to list a call for service incident determined to be unfounded by the responding officer. These would be incidents where the responding officer was unable to locate a victim and/or where there was no evidence an actual incident occurred. It has always been the practice of the NOPD to classify crimes “based on the facts of the agency’s investigation of a crime” as stated in the Uniform Crime reporting Handbook. NOPD has never listed unverified calls for service to the UCR program. When compared with other peer cities, NOPD’s rate of “unfounded” reported incidents is comparable to those cities. Corrective Action: In March of this year, NOPD received additional guidance from LCLE regarding UCR classifications under the category of unfounded. We are in the process of evaluating procedural and data processing requirements associated to this new information, as well as overall FBI UCR Program changes scheduled for later this year. Completion projected for mid-2014 when new UCR guidelines on reporting take effect. _______________________________ Observation #1: The NOPD lost its ability to report arrest data involving Part II offenses to the UCR Program in 2004. Department’s Response: NOPD relies on several other Criminal Justice agencies to input data to calculate UCR Part II arrest information. Prior to 2005 this data was collected on the City’s Mainframe Computer System. Since that time several agencies have created their own systems that are not accessible to the NOPD for this specific purpose. Currently NOPD is working with these agencies to gather that data and will once again be able to report UCR Part II information. Page 9 Uniform Crime Reporting of Forcible Rapes 5/7/14 Observation #2: The NOPD abandoned its practice of posting its quarterly UCR data on its website after its website was consolidated into a City wide site. Department’s Response: In 2010, to streamline the City’s online presence, all City information was consolidated on a central City website. In addition to hosting annual NOPD UCR reports, beginning in January 2013 the website also began making calls for service data available at data “nola.gov”. This raw data is continually updated on a 48-hour delay and provides the public with previously unavailable tools for tracking and monitoring criminal activity in New Orleans. Since it was launched 15 months ago, this dataset has been accessed more than 25,000 times. In addition, the NOPD still releases the quarterly reports as before and this data is publically available. If anything, there is considerably more information available to the public about crime in New Orleans than ever before in NOPD history. We would acknowledge that NOPD discontinued this practice, however, it was done in support of the City’s effort to improve services to citizens by providing a so called ‘one-stop shop’ access to information across a broader range of agencies. _______________________________ Observation #3: NOPD backdated two supplemental reports instead of using the date the report was written. Department’s Response: The first item cited was from February 2013. Records indicate that the incident report was written in EPR and scanned in 9 days later. A supplemental report was scanned in September 2013. On the supplemental report, it appears the detective mistakenly listed the report date as the incident date. This is further evidenced by the fact that the detective documents efforts of the investigation during the days following the incident date. Our review indicates this appears to be a type-o. The second item cited was from May 2013. Records indicate that the incident report was written in EPR and scanned in 2 days later. A non-EPR supplemental report was dated May 29th and scanned in August 2013. Another non-EPR supplemental report was dated March 18, 2014, and scanned in on March 25, 2014. At this time, we are unable to substantiate the allegation that the report was “backdated”. _______________________________ We would like to again extend our appreciation to the Office of the Inspector General for providing this agency an opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Ronal W. Serpas Superintendent of Police cc: First Deputy Mayor & CAO Andrew Kopplin Deputy Mayor Jerry Sneed Deputy Superintendent Kirk Bouyelas File Attachment – LCLE Letter dated April 28, 2014 JOEY Wnsom Executive Boner JINDAL GOVERNOR ?tate of inui?iana Office of the Governor Iouisiana an "item {Enforcement anti ?aministratiun at ?ttiminai Siustite April 28, 2014 Renal w. Serpas Superintendent of Police New Orleans Police Department 715 S. Broad Street New Orleans, LA 70119 RE: UCR Review Dear Superintendent Serpas: Please accept this letter as a follow up to the UCR review LCLE conducted on the twenty cases you sent us, and as a follow up to the conference call we participated in with the NDPD and the New Orleans Of?ce of Inspector General. As I stated during the conference call, review of the twenty {20] cases revealed that any discrepancies found were the result of a misunderstanding of UCR regulations and not intentional misclassi?cations by NUPD of any of the cases we reviewed. Therefore, LCLE feels corrective action only is needed to remedy the discrepancies in reporting that were found during our review. i want to also offer additional training to your UCR section as a follow up to what was discussed during the conference call. Since ertMehrtens Deputy Director Louisiana Cornmission on Law Enforcement And Administration of Criminal justice P. O. Box 5155 - Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70821-5135 (225) 542-1500 - 342-134? An Equal Opportunity Employer