IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, vs. CITY OF CLEVELAND Defendant. I. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO.: 1:15-CV-01046 JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR. MEMORANDUM PROVIDING BASELINE ASSESSMENT REPORT INTRODUCTION The Consent Decree (the “Decree”) requires the Monitor to conduct qualitative and quantitative “outcome assessments” to measure whether implementing the reforms that the Decree requires ultimately results in safe, effective, and constitutional policing. The Monitoring Team’s First Semiannual Report introduced the importance of the assessments: [T]he Decree requires that the Monitor assess whether the implementation of the Consent Decree’s reforms is contributing to the necessary outcomes of ensuring safe, effective, and constitutional policing consistent with Cleveland’s values. Ultimately, these ‘outcome measurements’ explore whether implemented changes are having the actual effects across the Cleveland community that they are intended to have. A notable feature of the Cleveland Consent Decree is its express inclusion of a host of specific outcome assessments that the Monitor must evaluate and track over time . . . . Dkt. 65 at 70. Accordingly, the outcome measures, both qualitative and quantitative, aim to gauge, document, and tell the story of reform across the Division and the City of Cleveland over time. To do so, the Monitoring Team must first establish and capture baseline assessments to which future improvements will be measured. The specific outcome measures to which the United States and City of Cleveland agreed in the Consent Decree address a host of areas, including: use of force; crisis intervention; stops, searches, and arrests; bias-free policing and community engagement; recruitment; officer training; officer assistance and support; supervision; civilian complaints; and internal investigations, and discipline. Running four pages in the Consent Decree, outcome measures related to these nine major areas are broken down into many particular measures, with each often associated with many sub-parts. In total, there are some approximately 471 discrete data points that the Consent Decree requires the Monitoring Team to assess annually. To understand whether the Consent Decree is “result[ing] in constitutional policing,” Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 367, the Monitoring Team needs to understand where the City and Cleveland Division of Police (“CPD” or the “Division”) were when work on the Consent Decree began in earnest. Following the outline of paragraph 367, collecting appropriate baseline data for the quantitative items will allow the Monitoring Team and Court to understand whether the Consent Decree’s provisions are having the intended effect in the real world. Review of these data will occur annually and, in the case of the biennial survey, Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 366, on alternate years. Although this report focuses on establishing baselines for quantitative measures, the Monitoring Team will soon begin reviewing qualitative measures of use of force investigations and reviews, the prevalence of training deficiencies, the availability and use of officer assistance and support services, the number of citizen complaint allegations supported by the preponderance of the evidence, and various supervisory responses that occurred in calendar year 2015. Given the substantial amount of work and volume of discussions that the quantitative 2 measures, which constitute a significant majority of the outcome measurements outlined in the Decree, have required among the Parties and Monitoring Team, the Parties and Monitor previously agreed to provide the Court with the results of the baseline quantitative outcome measurement process before proceeding with the second phase of the baseline process, which will address those qualitative assessment areas. In October 2015, shortly after being appointed, the Monitoring Team made a comprehensive request for various information, files, and data to the City and CPD. The intent of this document request was both to establish a working knowledge of the Division and to identify sources for data required by the consent decree. As part of its organizational structure, the Monitor established an Outcome Measurement Team, which began in November 2015 to assemble and review quantitative data submitted by the Division and other parts of the City. The Outcome Measurement Team identified a number of challenges associated with that request, and, ultimately, a number of one-on-one meetings were held with several units and individuals in the CPD, the City, and the Office of Professional Standards (“OPS”) to collect and understand the data. The Outcome Measures Team has been able to secure, clean, analyze and now report on a number of the quantitative data points called for in paragraph 367 of the Decree. The remainder of this report describes, in more general terms, the efforts and challenges associated with the collection of data for calendar year 2015, the limitations of the data received in some areas that leave the Monitoring Team currently unable to establish a definitive baseline measure, and plans for improving data collected and the data collection process moving forward. Exhibit A constitutes a compendium of the specific data points and measures that the Monitoring Team was able to assemble. Although this report will, in some instances, highlight the key measures, 3 metrics, or data identified, Exhibit A sets forth, area by area and data point by data point, whether there is data or sufficiently accurate data for the data point to be considered a “baseline.” The baseline measure is intended to serve simply as a benchmark against which data for subsequent time periods will be compared to gauge change or progress. As such, the Monitoring Team does not, at this time, make any qualitative determinations about whether any of the numbers, rates, percentages, or other data are positive, negative, or otherwise. Indeed, progress and trends over time will be the primary indicia that institutional reform is taking hold within the CPD and is making a lasting and meaningful impact on Cleveland’s neighborhoods and communities. II. NATURE OF THE DATA CONSIDERED A. The Initial Data Request Process: CPD responded to the Monitoring Team’s initial data request by both emailing and uploading hundreds of documents for review to a cloud-based file-sharing account created for the Cleveland Police Monitoring Team. Initially, this was an effective method of sharing and organizing data and information. However, a Division-issued desktop computer with access to the file sharing environment was infected by malware – compromising the Dropbox and posing challenges for users connected to the file share. The Monitoring Team discontinued use of the file sharing environment and has been reluctant to reengage with it moving forward. Key Insights: The malware virus illustrates, to at least some relevant extent, the challenges and insufficiencies within CPD and the City with respect to computing and information technology infrastructure. The City and CPD should ensure that CPD computers have sufficient security and anti-virus protection to guard against viruses and other external threats. 4 B. Method of Data Collection Process: Because no single CPD system tracks all of the data associated with the Consent Decree’s outcome measurements and no individual person or unit was familiar with precisely whether CPD or the City tracked the necessary information or, if it was tracked, precisely where the information may be housed, the Outcome Measurement Team first needed to familiarize itself with the several units in CPD from whom data would likely be supplied. In a “treasure hunt” of sorts, the Team began with the City’s IT Department and the CPD Crime Analysis Unit. Both of these units had good insights into the flow of work and the data that are available. The Team then met with units responsible for the underlying work for which data points are needed. Once the appropriate person or persons were identified as sources of data and the required information was collected, the Outcome Measurement Team shared spreadsheets summarizing the information with the relevant parties or entities within the City. It should be noted that, in almost all instances, the data initially submitted required substantial cleaning, synthesis, and organization. Key Insights: Overall, CPD and the City’s infrastructure poses a challenge to the Division’s ability to easily track and retrieve data about its core functions. In nearly all instances, we found archaic and rudimentary processes – very often relying on manual, pen-andpaper entries in log books; duplicative efforts; and electronic data maintained on local workbooks and spreadsheets and not part of a shared, departmental system. Some of the data named in the Consent Decree are not currently being collected at all (e.g., stops, searches and seizures). Consequently, no baseline can be established. Other data are not centrally available nor expected to be collected and, as such, difficult to assemble (e.g., the 5 number and type of community partnerships). The nature of the specific challenges that the Outcome Measurement Team encountered will be discussed in greater detail below. The Division has been exceptionally open and receptive to the Outcome Measurement Team. In turn, the Team has communicated a desire to become a resource for the Division as it considers data collection for day-to-day management purposes, as well as for compliance with the Consent Decree. In some instances, the Division has been receptive to the Team’s assistance in terms of structure, data vocabulary, and the facilitation of connections across the City to enhance retrieval of relevant data. In the Team’s meetings, it has endeavored, where appropriate, to provide technical assistance about ways to modify and improve the data collection to be more responsive to the expectations of the Consent Decree and to more broadly assist CPD supervisors in the ongoing management of the Division. III. SUMMARY OF BASELINE MEASURES This section highlights each of the key categories of baseline data requested in the Consent Decree and discusses the process, challenges, and key insights from the data collection endeavor. The format (e.g., number and lettering) is directly taken from the Consent Decree. Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 367. For example, subsection A, “Use of Force,” below corresponds to paragraph 367, part (A) of the Consent Decree. To adhere to the Consent Decree’s organizational scheme, the report deviates somewhat from separate numbering and lettering of sub-parts of the reports sections. For each measure requested, we will explain whether the data were included in the baseline, whether the data were excluded and why, as well as any limitations of the data reported. 6 A. Use of Force Process: To assemble data on use of force, the Team met several times with members of the CPD’s IAPro Team and Crime Analysis Unit who are responsible for inputting information on use of force incidents for 2015 into IAPro, a computer platform for logging and tracking officer performance data, and analyzing these data. Other data in this section related to use of force and not directly taken from IAPro were provided by the Chief’s Office, the Internal Affairs Unit, the Case Office, and the Personnel Department. Key Insights: Currently, use of force reports are entered from a hand-written Use of Less Lethal (“ULLF”) report into the IAPro database by a member of the IAPro Team. This process initially introduced some issues with the completeness of the use of force data, with a number of use of force investigations and reviews remaining outstanding well into 2015. Additionally, there is some inconsistency across different data collection sources that make uniting the disparate sources challenging. For instance, officer badge numbers in IAPro and information collected by the Internal Affairs Unit (“IAU”) don’t match up. Names are inconsistently recorded (e.g., nick names, spelling errors). It seems that detectives and COs are not in IAPro. The dates of incidents in IAU data does not track well with the date of incident in IAPro. IAU’s database does not include “allegation.” An example of the challenges that this poses for baseline measurement purposes can be found in considering the Consent-Decree-required data on use of force policy violations by force type. Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 367(a)(1). Currently, use of force policy violations are housed in the Case Office. Although some basic information is electronic, other information is not. For instance, in order to get information on the force technique, instrument, or type used in some of the force incidents, the basic information from the Case Office needed to be matched with IAPro data by 7 badge number and officer name. However, the badge numbers reported did not always match with the officer information from IAPro. These specific issues make definitive determinations about general types of force challenging. 1. Number of UOF as compared to arrest, by force type, by district, arrest if any, race, ethnicity, age, gender of the subject; and, if indicated at the time force was used, the subject’s mental or medical condition, use of drugs or alcohol, or presence of a disability. CPD data indicate that there were 350 use of force in calendar year 2015. Majorities of subjects to whom force was applied in these incidents were black (277 subjects), were male (265 subjects), and were young (age 29 or younger) (198 subjects). Data Not Collected/Challenges: Baseline data for 2015 do not include information on the medical or mental state or presence of drugs or disability of the person on whom force was used. The use of force reporting process in place through does not uniformly collect information on the medical condition or disability of the person on whom force was used. Although CPD collects some information about whether the subject appeared to be under the influence of drugs for at least some portion of 2015, other subject conditions (such as alcohol intoxication) were not yet uniformly collected in 2015. Likewise, it does not appear that officers have received instruction as to how subject conditions may be defined or reflected on force reports. Consequently, it is impossible to discern whether, when an officer checks “drugs” on a use of force report, the notation indicates that the subject appeared to be under the influence of drugs during the force incident or whether drugs were found during or after the incident. Additionally, although CPD has collected information about whether the subjects of force are subsequently arrested, there are significant enough issues with the data to make the 8 Monitoring Team uncomfortable using it as a baseline at this time. For one thing, data is missing for some 84 (nearly 11 percent) of subjects, with the arrest type listed as “NULL” in the relevant database. For another, at least 40 cases list the arrest type as “crisis intervention.” It is unclear why so many incidents are included in the “other” catch-all category, as well as why “crisis intervention” is an arrest type rather than a feature of the subject or the incident itself. The completeness and uncertainty about the nature and level of generality of the categories used by CPD during this time period with respect to arrest type lead the collected information to not be included as a “baseline” measure at this time. Next Steps: The Division will need to ensure that IAPro and its modified reporting process is uniformly capturing information on the potential disability, mental state, and use of drugs or alcohol of subjects, as well as with respect to arrest “type” where a subject involved in a force incident was arrested. The use of a revised Use of Force reporting form and system should substantially assist in that regard. 2. Category: Number of officers and members of the public injured; number of force complaints and disposition of complaints; force type, geographic area and demographic information as available from complainant. CPD reports that 134 officers were injured in the context of force incidents that occurred in calendar year 2015, and 112 members of the public were injured in the context of force incidents. Data Not Collected/Challenges: The required tracking of the change over time in the rate of officer and subject injuries overall, as well as the severity of such injuries, necessarily is not a part of the baseline because it focuses on the evolution of these statistics across time. 9 With respect to force complaints, currently, as the Monitor’s First Semiannual Report summarized: [T]he process used to investigate complaints of officer misconduct. . . depend[s] on the source of those complaints. Potential misconduct identified or discovered internally, by CPD personnel, has been investigated by the Division itself . . . . Complaints of misconduct from residents, or sources external to the Division, have needed to be investigated by OPS. Dkt. 65 at 49. Although the overall numbers of both officer complaints about the potential misconduct of other officers and of resident complaints about potential misconduct would appear relatively straightforward to determine, that basic information is not rigorously tracked in any data system. Without evaluating all IAU and OPS cases for 2015, which was outside the scope of our baseline inquiry and may not have definitively identified how the incident originated in any event, the Team simply cannot know with any level of confidence how internal affairs or OPS cases originated. Even if such data or information was more readily available, a number of substantive issues would prevent the taking of an accurate and reliable baseline that could be used in future years to gauge progress or change. For IAU, it is not apparent that there is a current, welldefined set of policies and process by which an officer can report the potential misconduct of another officer. Indeed, the Monitoring Team has previously noted that “members of the Monitoring Team have received different answers at different times to inquires about how, if a patrol officer believed that a colleague engaged in possible misconduct, and precisely where that officer should refer the misconduct complaint . . . . ” Dkt. 65 at 50. For OPS, this report makes clear that the substandard collection of basic information and data and the lack of rigorous, codified standards for classifying and adjudicating resident complaints makes identifying a baseline problematic. 10 Next Steps: The Division and OPS will need to establish a process for capturing how both internal affairs and OPS investigations are initiated. For IAU, this will happen as part of the Consent Decree’s process of finalizing policies, processes, and systems related to internal investigations and administrative reviews of potential misconduct. For OPS, this is already happening in the context of the Parties, Monitoring Team, and OPS “developing an emergency organizational transformation plan.” Dkt. 65 at 11. 3. Category: raw number of ECW (Taser) usage in 2015 CPD’s IAPro database reflects 44 applications of the Taser in 2015. Data Not Collected/Challenges: We cannot report on any changes in this usage in this report because these baseline numbers can only serve as a reference point for future comparisons. Next Steps: None. 4. Category: The number of uses of force found to violate policy, broken down by force type, geographic area, type of arrest, actual or perceived race, ethnicity, age and gender of the subject; and, if indicated at the time force was used, the subject’s mental or medical condition, use of drugs or alcohol, or the presence of a disability. At least as of mid-Spring 2015, there were nine (9) cases in which the use of force was found to be related to a violation of policy, training, or tactics. Of these cases, five (5) involved policy violations, two (2) involved training deficiencies, and two (2) involved tactical deficiencies. Of the five policy violation cases, two appear to have related to the failure to adhere to completing force reporting or investigation requirements in a timely manner. 11 Data Not Collected/Challenges: The issues relating to uniformly collecting information about a subject’s mental/medical condition, use of drugs or alcohol, and disability also apply to this category. Likewise, it is currently challenging to identify and aggregate information about the relative ages of officers who violate the use of force policy because the Monitoring Team’s current understanding is that such information is not readily maintained in, or accessible to, the IAPro database. The issues affecting “arrest type” data noted previously apply to this outcome measure, as well. Next Steps: The Division will need to ensure that IAPro and its modified reporting process is uniformly capturing information on the potential disability, mental state, and use of drugs or alcohol of subjects. Officer demographic information in IAPro should include an officer’s date of birth. 5. Category: The number of officers who have more than one instance of use of force in violation of policy. In calendar year 2015, no officer was found to have violated the use of force policy more than once. Going forward, and especially in light of the Consent Decree’s requirements involving the Officer Intervention Program (“OIP”), Dkt. 7-1 ¶¶ 326–36, the Monitoring Team and Parties will need to clarify whether this outcome measure should potentially reflect more than multiple policy violations in a calendar year but, instead, reflect multiple policy violations in a different time period. Data Not Collected/Challenges: None. Next Steps: The Division will need to ensure that it has a system or process for cumulatively capturing Use of Force violations across time. 12 6. Category: Force reviews or investigations indicating a policy, training, or tactical deficiency. Again, of the nine cases that appeared to identify some deficiency, five (5) were for policy violations, two (2) were for training, and two (2) were for tactics. It should be noted that, of the seven (7) cases in which the disposition has been determined to date, two cases have resulted in suspension: one case involving use of force in the context of an officer’s secondary employment, for which a 1-day suspension was assigned; and another case involving overdue force reports, for which a 6-day suspension was assigned. Data Not Collected/Challenges: It is not currently clear to the Monitoring Team how deficiencies in officer performance in use of force incidents are classified as involving training or tactical deficiencies rather than policy violations. Next Steps: As work on the Consent Decree continues, the Monitor and Parties will spend significant time working with the CPD to standardize and streamline the process for reviewing use of force incidents and for considering, when necessary, the nature and extent of officer discipline that may arise from improper conduct during such incidents. The classification scheme for force policy violations will be part of the process. CPD’s mechanisms for reflecting the dispositions, adjudications, and ultimate discipline associated with particular force inquiries need to also be streamlined. 7. Category: Number of use of force administrative investigations that are returned for lack of completeness Data Not Collected/Challenges: Currently, it is not possible to distinguish between cases that were returned for substantive reasons (e.g., for being incomplete with regard to the material 13 details of the incident or poorly written) and cases that were returned for technical reasons (e.g., missing signature or incomplete form). Next Steps: The Division will need to establish a system or process for adequately reporting on incomplete investigations – and for documenting investigations that are incomplete for substantive reasons or are incomplete for technical reasons. B. Addressing Individuals in Crisis Process: We relied on CPD’s new Crisis Intervention Coordinator and the ADAMHS Board Report for data in this section. Key Insights: The ADAMHS Board Report, based on CPD’s crisis-intervention data for 2015, reflected some inconsistencies and some known data accuracy issues. Accordingly, this leaves the baseline measures for crisis intervention undefined at this time. 1. Category: Number of calls for service and incidents with individuals in crisis, broken down by whether specialized CIT officers responded to the calls the rate of which the individuals in crisis are redirected to the health care system Data Not Collected/Challenges: The numbers of calls for service and incidents reported with individuals in crisis – as well as the details of those incidents and the subjects involved in them – appear likely to be simultaneously over- and under-inclusive. The numbers are overinclusive because, in some instances, incidents are classified as involving a crisis or officers are filling out crisis intervention data sheets in instances where there was an interaction with an individual facing a behavioral or mental health challenge but there was not, in fact, any sort of affirmative crisis intervention. For instance, the reported numbers for 2015 would reflect as identical a situation where an officer gave a homeless individual a ride to a shelter in the back of 14 his or her car and a situation where an officer talked a subject experiencing mental illness down from committing self-harm. At the same time, there is some confusion among CPD officers about when to fill out the specialized crisis intervention “form” – with some officers not uniformly completing the form unless the incident involves a use of force. Accordingly, a number of CPD interactions with individuals experiencing a behavioral crisis but that do not involve force are not necessarily being captured by the data currently available. Next Steps: The Division will need to establish a clearer system for tracking and reporting on how individuals in crisis are handled. Specifically, the Committee and CPD “will need to take time to get the rollout of new or improved reporting requirements to officers right.” Dkt. 65 at 46. The Mental Health Advisory Committee’s work on core revisions to CPD’s crisis intervention policy “must be sufficiently far along in order for work on . . . data . . . to progress further,” and “a non-manual, technology-based solution” must be “in place or imminently contemplated” to “ensure that revised reporting requirements do not unnecessarily impede the ability of officers to efficiently and effectively provide law enforcement service.” Dkt. 65 at 46. 2. Category: Number of police interactions where force was used on individuals in crisis, including the type of force used; the reason for the interaction, i.e. suspected criminal conduct or a call for assistance; the threat to public safety, including whether the person was armed and if so, with what; a description of the type of resistance offered, if any; and a description of any attempts at deescalation. The Team pulled some information from the ADAMHS Board Report on the number of police interactions where force was used on individuals in crisis and the type of force used. However, although some numbers appear accurate, the ADAMHS Board Report indicates that, 15 in some instances, the numbers in certain categories are “double-counted” and, accordingly, not mutually exclusive. Data Not Collected/Challenges: We cannot definitively establish baselines for the reason for the interaction, whether the person was armed, the type of resistance offered and a description of attempts of de-escalation, as these data were not available as they are not collected in a thorough manner. Next Steps: Again, pending completion and implementation of new crisis intervention policies and establishing an improved mechanism for tracking crisis intervention data, the Division will need to revamp its reporting requirements and process. C. Stop, Search, & Arrest Data Process: The Team met with the Compliance Unit to discuss the stop, search, and arrest measures. Key Insights: The CPD does not collect data on stops, searches, and arrests pursuant to such activity. Accordingly, the baseline cannot include any information related to this activity. Next Steps: It is currently contemplated that work will occur in earnest on new policies and procedures, including data collection systems, for stops during 2017. As with updated mechanisms for collecting crisis intervention data, CPD will need to ensure that the collection of data on stops occurs in a system or environment that is approved by the Court and promotes efficient and effective law enforcement. D. Bias-Free Policing & Community Engagement 16 Process: Data were collected from a number of sources, including CPDs District Commanders, the Homicide Unit, and OPS. For measures relating to community engagement activity, the Team learned from the Division that most of this information is housed within the Districts. The Team asked each District Commander to provide information on community engagement and partnerships in the form of a spreadsheet template that the Team constructed and provided. It should be noted that, although the City of Cleveland maintains a number of partnerships and structures that relate to public safety and policing, the Monitoring Team has interpreted the measure to refer more to those partnerships that the Division of Police itself cultivates, maintains, and fosters. This should not be read as minimizing the importance of ongoing relationships across City departments and entities with respect to law enforcement and safety. This section of the Consent Decree also includes reference to the biennial survey of Cleveland residents regarding perceptions of CPD and public safety. Dkt. 7-1 ¶ 361–66. The results of that survey were discussed in a separate report to the Court. See Dkt. 71. Key Insights: There is no central source that serves as a repository for information on all of the community engagement activities taking place in the Division, or specifically within Districts. 1. Category: Number of community partnerships, number of community partnerships with youth, variety of community partnerships. Data Not Collected/Challenges: The Team has received detailed information about the number of community partnerships from three of the Division’s five districts to date. Consequently, the Team cannot definitively determine the baseline at this time. Nevertheless, it 17 can be noted here that one CPD District reported 22 community partnerships, another reported 14 partnerships, and a third reported 10 partnerships. The Monitoring Team suspects that the overall numbers for CPD are likely larger than the aggregate number across the individual Districts. Next Steps: The Division will need to establish a system/process for capturing community engagement more efficiently and systematically. 2. Category: Homicide clearance rate In 2015, CPD’s homicide clearance rate was 56 percent. Of 127 homicides occurring in Cleveland during the year, 71 were solved and 56 were unsolved. Data Not Collected/Challenges: None. Next Steps: None. 3. Category: Number of civilian complaints regarding police services related to discrimination and their disposition. Data Not Collected/Challenges: The baseline cannot include the number of civilian complaints regarding police services related to discrimination and their disposition. For information on civilian complaints for discrimination, OPS is the adjudicating body. With respect to the overall number of complaints related to discrimination, OPS has an inadequate and rudimentary case tracking system. The state of OPS data is either irretrievable or unreliable. Only as part of more recent work in the Consent Decree process has a more formalized intake process been codified. In any event, OPS’ current intake categorization scheme does not appear to include discrimination as a primary category or sub-category. With respect to disposition of resident complaints related to discrimination, the Monitoring Team has previously reported that, of the 294 complaints received by OPS in 2015, 18 86 percent of cases have not completed the investigatory process. Only four had been reviewed by the PRB as of early May 2016. Next Steps: The Parties and Monitoring Team re working closely with OPS to assist in developing a system to more appropriately capture, categorize, investigate, and track citizen complaints. 4. Category: Biennial community survey The results of the Decree-required, biennial community survey have recently been provided to the Court. See Dkt. 71. E. Recruitment Measures Process: The City’s Civil Service Commission (“CSC”) is generally the custodian of data related to recruitment measures. For some subparagraphs of the Consent Decree, the data were provided by the CPD (e.g., composition of the 2015 recruit class). Once the class roster is assembled and certified, the Civil Service Commission ceases engagement with the process. It is important to note that the 2015 measures we report may not represent an appropriate baseline, as the process for both recruitment and selection is changing for future CPD classes. 1. Category: The number of qualified recruits; baseline also includes the total number of qualified and unqualified recruits by race and gender The definition of “qualified” is inherently qualitative in some crucial respect. At least for purposes of this baseline, the Team considered as “qualified” recruits those who were “hired” and those whose names were certified and vetted for the Academy as indicated by the CSC. Using this general definition, the number of qualified recruit applicants in 2015 was 191. The number of applicants who were not qualified was 1,219. A total of 781 applicants were white, 19 409 were black, 13 were Asian, 154 were identified as Hispanic, and the remainder were classified in other categories. No data was available for 6 applicants. A total of 1,120 applicants identified their gender as male, with 290 identifying their gender as female. Data Not Collected/Challenges: As part of the City’s implementation of a comprehensive recruitment and hiring strategy, this definition of “qualified” is likely to change. Within information about applicant race, the Hispanic/Latino category needs to be further validated, as the number does appear slightly low in light of Cleveland’s overall demographics. Next Steps: None. 2. Category: Summary of recruitment activities, including leveraging community partnerships as these data are not available. Data Not Collected/Challenges: The baseline cannot include the summary of recruitment activities, including leveraging community partnerships, as these data are not available. Currently, there is no central source that serves as a repository for information on all of the recruitment activities taking place in the Division. Next Steps: The Division will need to establish a system and process for capturing its recruitment activities more efficiently and systematically. The City’s indication that they intend to create a dedicated group within CPD to manage and engage with recruitment activities is an encouraging step toward ensuring that a dedicated entity will be in charge of managing data and performance metrics associated with recruiting and hiring. 3. Category: Number and race, ethnicity, gender of applicants who failed the initial screening and the reasons for the failure. In 2015, 1,219 applicants were reported to have failed the initial screening. This included 394 applicants who failed to show for the test, 240 applicants who failed to submit their Personal 20 History Statement, and 251 who either did not show for or failed the agility test. Some 35 applicants failed the written test. Data Not Collected/Challenges: In 2015 – and, to our knowledge, unlike some previous years – every applicant went through a criminal record screening. In the past, only those who had made it past a “first cut” had their backgrounds checked. Such added and earlier background screening in 2015 might therefore have resulted in higher numbers than expected in the “exclusion for background reasons” category relative to prior years. Further, the information about the race of applicants who failed the initial screening provided by the Civil Service Commission needs further refinement, as the total number of applicants reflected in that data element exceeds the number of applicants who failed and, indeed, the overall number of applicants in 2015. Next Steps: In the short-term, the Division will need to ensure it is accurately capturing information about the race and ethnicity of its applicants. In the longer term, it is likely that the collection of additional demographic information of recruits will need to be considered in the context of the Decree-required Recruitment & Hiring Plan. 4. Category: Number of applicants with fluency in languages other than English, list of languages spoken by recruits. Data Not Collected/Challenges: The Team is unable to report on the number of applicants with fluency in languages other than English or on the languages spoken by recruits. These data are not currently collected in the recruitment process. Next Steps: The Division will need to ensure it is accurately capturing the language proficiency of applicants and recruits. 21 5. Category: Lateral candidates by race, gender, ethnicity, disability. List of lateral candidates. The Division reported to the Team that, unlike many other police departments, lateral candidates are not recruited into the Division of Police. Data Not Collected/Challenges: None. Next Steps: The issue of lateral candidates is likely to be a part of the Decree-required Recruitment & Hiring Plan. 6. Category: Number of applicants with at least two years of college, a college degree or at least two years of military service. The Civil Service Commission’s data reflects that 347 applicants in 2015 had two or more years of college. Some 240 applicants had a college degree. Data Not Collected/Challenges: The Team is unable to report on years of military service because this data does not appear to be currently collected by CPD or another entity within the CPD. However, the Team can report on the number of applicants who have demonstrate that they have at least 180 days of active military service and/or if they are a disabled veteran. The Civil Service Commission is not in possession of recruit data for two or more years of military service. Next Steps: The City will need to ensure it is accurately captures the years of military experience held by recruits. 7. Category: Pass/fail rate overall for applicants by race, ethnicity, and gender. Data Not Collected/Challenges: The Team calculated for itself the pass rate. These data are inherently reliant on the accuracy of the underlying data. For instance, if data on the number 22 of Hispanic/Latino applicants is inaccurate, then the pass rates for Hispanics would also be inaccurate. Next Steps: None. 8. Category: Average length of time to move applicants through each phase. Data Not Collected/Challenges: Currently, the recruitment data are not collected in a manner that allows for process time to be determined. Next Steps: The City and/or Division will need to develop a system/process to accurately captured the length of time to move applicants through each phase of the process. 9. Category: Final composition of recruit class by race, ethnicity and gender. Of the members of the recruit class in 2015 that did not separate from the class at some point during the year, 29 class members were white, 12 members were Hispanic/Latino, 8 individuals were black, and the racial identity of three were listed as “other.” The class consisted of 44 individuals identifying their gender as male and 8 individuals identifying their gender as female. Data Not Collected/Challenges: The Team is unable to report on self-identified disability except for disabled veterans, as such information is either not collected or not readily available. Next Steps: The City and/or Division needs to ensure a mechanism for ensuring that recruits identify any disability status. F. Training Measures Process: The Team met with the CPD’s Compliance Bureau and Training Section and the command staff to discuss training measures. 23 Key Insights: Training conducted pursuant to the Consent Decree will not begin until later in 2016. 2016 will therefore serve as the baseline for the training measures. The Outcome Measures team has offered support and advice to the training unit on how to conduct future class evaluations. As training modifications are made pursuant to the Decree, they will be recorded by the Team. Any training deficiencies reflected by problematic incidents or performance trends will be collected by the Training Section, IAU, the Training Review Committee, and the Force Review Board – with the Training Review Committee needing to ensure a coordinate repository for identified deficiencies across these various internal accountability structures or mechanisms. Next Steps: The Parties, Monitoring Team, and Division will need to collaborate on establishing systems and processes for capturing the key training measures outlined in the Decree. G. Officer Assistance & Support Efforts Process: The Team met with members of the Employee Assistance Unit and CPD Compliance Bureau. Key Insights: Many of the officer assistance programs are voluntary. Presently, the Employee Assistance Unit can report on the availability and use of officer assistance and support services. For 2015, 11 officers used assistance and support services. The Unit cannot currently report on officers’ opinions or evaluation of the services. The Monitoring Team has provided some suggestions to the Unit on methods to collect evaluative information without compromising officer confidentiality. 24 Next Steps: The Division will need to establish a system/process for capturing officers’ experiences and opinions on the employee assistance program, including with the Officer Intervention Program as it is substantially revamped going forward. H. Supervision Measurements Process: The Team met members of CPD’s Command Staff to discuss supervision issues. Key Insights: The baseline does not include the various Decree-required supervision measures because the CPD indicated that it would not be possible, at present, to collect them. There is no central or known data collection effort on this item. Next Steps: The Division will need to establish a system/process for capturing how supervision is conducted in the Division. I. Civilian Complaints, Internal Investigations and Discipline Process: The Team met with members of the Inspections Unit, the Internal Affairs Unit, and OPS. Key Insights: A very small number of cases are investigated by Inspections, with IA investigating those civilian complaint allegations that are or could be criminal in nature. Most civilian complaints therefore are or should be investigated by OPS. Although Exhibit A summarizes the number of civilian complaints, it is important to underscore the fact that the quality of the data collected from OPS is not sufficiently reliable at this time. As mentioned in the Monitor’s First Semiannual Report and elsewhere in this report, a significant percentage of the 294 complaints filed in 2015 have neither completed the investigatory process nor been 25 reviewed by the PRB. Only four have been reviewed by the PRB. The office has inadequate case tracking an only recently has established a formal system for intake. Exhibit A therefore reports primarily on civilian complaints investigated by the CPD itself, which the Team believes to be very small proportion of overall civilian complaints. The data from both IAU and Inspections was drawn from Excel spreadsheets and manual log books maintained in the respective units. To provide the Team with data, handwritten logs were in some instances transferred to electronic spreadsheets and subsequently circulated. This information often had to be linked up with data from other databases, such as IAPro. 1. Category: Number of complaints, and whether any increase or decrease in this number appears related to access to the complaint process OPS reports that there were 294 resident complaints about police conduct in calendar year 2015. Data Not Collected/Challenges: The lack of defined processes and protocols within OPS makes gauging the reliability of the overall complaint numbers challenging. Next Steps: The Parties and Monitoring Team are working closely with OPS and the Division to assist in developing a system to more appropriately capture and investigate citizen complaints. 2. Category: Number of sustained, exonerated, unfounded, not sustained, and administratively dismissed complaints by type of complaint Data Not Collected/Challenges: The data reported are incomplete. Only 45 of the 294 cases from 2015 have been completed and received dispositions as of the writing of this report. Only 4 have gone to the PRB for review and a discipline recommendation to the Chief of Police. 26 Next Steps: The Parties and Monitoring Team are working closely with OPS and the Division to assist in developing a system to more appropriately capture and investigate citizen complaints. 3. Category: Number of complaint allegations supported by a preponderance of the evidence Data Not Collected/Challenges: The data reported are incomplete. In any event, it is not readily apparent that the “preponderance of evidence” standard is rigorously applied by OPS or PRB or that, even if it is, OPS investigative files are sufficiently thorough and complete so as to conduct a qualitative review of the investigations to determine if the application of the standard by OPS or PRB are appropriate. Next Steps: The Parties and Monitoring Team are working closely with OPS and the Division to assist in developing a system to more appropriately capture and investigate citizen complaints. 4. Category: average length of time to complete investigations by complaint type Data Not Collected/Challenges: The available data reported are incomplete and, by themselves, misleading. The average length of time reported only represents the 45 cases that have been completed – not the vast majority of cases that are still pending at least five, and as many as 17 months, after the original complaint was made. Next Steps: The Monitor is working closely with OPS and the Division to assist in developing a system to more appropriately capture and investigate citizen complaints. 5. Category: number of officers who were subjects of multiple complaints or who had repeated instances of sustained complaints. 27 Data Not Collected/Challenges: Here, too, the available data reported are incomplete and, by themselves, misleading. The average length of time reported only represents the 45 cases that have been completed – not the vast majority of cases that are still pending at least five, and as many as 17 months, after the original complaint was made. Next Steps: The Monitor is working closely with OPS and the Division to assist in developing a system to more appropriately capture and investigate citizen complaints. 6. Category: arrests of officers for on- and off-duty conduct CPD records indicate that 14 officers were arrested in connection with off-duty conduct. One officer was arrested in connection with on-duty conduct. Data Not Collected/Challenges: None. Next Steps: CPD and the City need to ensure that collection of information about arrests of officers are adequately logged and reflected in IAPro, the Division’s centralized officer performance database. 7. Category: criminal prosecutions of officers for on-or off-duty conduct Eleven (11) officers were prosecuted in connection with off-duty conduct. One officer was prosecuted in connection with on-duty conduct. Two officers who were arrested in relation to off-duty conduct were not prosecuted. One case remains open. Data Not Collected/Challenges: None. Next Steps: None. 8. Category: Other than vehicle accidents not involving a pursuit, number and nature of civil suits against the City or CDP officers for work related conduct, and the amount of judgments against or settlements resulting from those civil suits 28 Data Not Collected/Challenges: There are eight cases logged that represent large civil suits. Of these cases, five are not yet settled; therefore, the settlement value in this report is incomplete. The Team is in the process of collecting judgment data on cases from low-level complaints (e.g., missing property). Next Steps: The Monitoring Team will be continuing to work with City Law to collect the data necessary. IV. CONCLUSION This purpose of this memorandum is to summarize what outcome measures required by the Decree have sufficient data to consider 2015 data as a baseline and what other areas will require work and focus in order to have data that can serve as benchmark data. Exhibit A, attached hereto, provides a detailed breakdown of all quantitative measures that the Decree requires be assessed over time – indicating whether the numbers can be considered as baselines and, where no numbers are listed, usually summarizing the nature of the deficiencies. Going forward, the Monitoring Team will evaluate and update the Court, and public, on all outcome measures at least yearly (or, in the case of the community survey, once every two years) to assess the nature of progress over time in the various reforms of the Consent Decree translating into real-world reform, effective law enforcement, and constitutional policing across Cleveland’s diverse communities. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Matthew Barge MATTHEW BARGE Monitor 29 115 West 18th Street, Second Floor New York, New York 10001 Tel: (202) 257-5111 Email: matthewbarge@parc.info 30 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on June 22, 2016, I served the foregoing document entitled Memorandum Providing Baseline Assessment Report via the court’s ECF system to all counsel of record. /s/ Matthew Barge MATTHEW BARGE 31 EXHIBIT A Baseline Measures June 2016 EXHIBIT A: Baseline Outcome Measures Baseline Consent Consent Appendix Decree Decree Line Item Paragraph Section 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 367 a 367 a. 1 367 a. 1 367 a. 1 367 a. 1 367 a. 1 367 a. 1 367 a. 1 Topic Name of Measure Included in 2015 Baseline? (yes/no) Source of Data Validated by Source (yes/no) Comments yes yes Validational data from CPD captured 349 use of force cases (based on timing of data request) 39,270 charges in 2015 285 24,086 yes yes Validational data from CPD captured 289 Arrests with 609 different charge types 24,371 total arrests in 2015 0.9% 1.2% 81% 62% yes yes yes yes 36 64 100 85 61 4 yes yes yes yes yes yes 2015 Data Collected Use of Force (UOF) UOF UOF UOF UOF UOF UOF UOF UoF Charges # of UOF charges #of non-UoF charges UoF Charges ending in arrests # UoF ending in arrests Total # of non-UoF ending in arrests UoF rates UoF as % of all charges UoF arrests as % of all arrests % of UoFs ending in arrest % of non-UoFs ending in arrest District District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 outside city Force type Balance Displacement Body Force Control Hold-Restraint Control Hold-Takedown Joint Manipulation Tackling/Takedown Taser Verbal/Physical Gestures Other (1-25 instance each) Unknown/NULL Arrest type Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Category 5 Category 6 Category 7 Race yes IAPro see below 350 38,920 yes yes yes yes IAPro IAPro IAPro IAPro see below see below see below These data are for all officers that used force (1,311). Multiple force types used by officers per citizen. see below 76 463 217 65 137 142 44 31 106 30 no IAPro see below N/A . . . . . . . yes 1 of 17 IAPro see below yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes While 774 Arrest Types (i.e., Charge Types) were identified in IAPro, the categories were not clear and more meaningful categories need to be established as a baseline Baseline Measures June 2016 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 367 a. 1 367 a. 1 367 a. 1 367 a. 1 UOF UOF UOF UOF Black White Hispanic Asian Other Unknown/NULL Ethnicity Hispanic/Latino Non-Hispanic/Latino Unknown/NULL Age under 20 years 21-29 years 30-39 years 40-49 years 50-59 years 60+ years Unknown/NULL Gender Male Female Unknown/NULL Mental State Mental Crisis Behavioral Crisis Event yes yes yes yes IAPro IAPro IAPro IAPro 259 77 9 1 1 3 yes yes yes yes yes yes 9 338 3 yes yes yes 64 134 68 38 18 11 17 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes 265 82 3 yes yes yes 42 13 yes yes 138 N/A yes see below see below see below see below 67 Unimpaired/None Detected yes (new) 67 yes 68 Unknown/NULL yes (new) 90 yes . N/A No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the future Only drugs and alcohol as noted in IAPro New item CPD collects that has been added to baseline but not specified in Consent Decree New item CPD collects that has been added to baseline but not specified in Consent Decree No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the future 134 112 . . . . yes yes N/A N/A N/A N/A not baseline, need to calculate in future not baseline, need to calculate in future not baseline, need to calculate in future not baseline, need to calculate in future 65 66 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 367 a. 1 367 a. 1 UOF UOF Medical Condition Drugs / ETOH no yes IAPro IAPro 367 a. 1 UOF Disability yes IAPro 367 a. 2 UOF Injuries # officers injured # public injuries rate of officer injuries change overall rate of officer injuries change severity rate of subject injuries change overall rate of subject injuries change severity Force complaints yes yes yes no no no no yes IAPro 367 a. 2 UOF IA . see below see below 79 # of force complaints 43 yes 80 81 82 83 # of non-force complaints disposition of force complaints Substantiated Substantiated Other 73 yes 0 7 yes yes 367 a. 2 UOF yes 2 of 17 IA see below These data are by officer and not by case; These data are just from IA and does not include complaints through OPS These data are by officer and not by case; These data are just from IA and does not include complaints through OPS Baseline Measures June 2016 84 85 86 2 34 yes yes no . N/A External (non-CPD/Civilian) no . N/A force type Balance Displacement Body Force Control Hold-Restraint Control Hold-Takedown Joint Manipulation Tackling/Takedown Taser Verbal/Physical Gestures Other (1-25 instance each) Unknown/NULL geographic area District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 outside city Unknown/NULL demographics of complainant Black White Hispanic Asian Other Unknown/NULL yes 0 8 2 0 1 0 1 0 7 27 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes 2 0 4 4 3 0 10 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes 11 2 0 0 0 10 yes yes yes yes yes yes # ECW and changes over time # of ECW changes compared to UOF changes compared to weapon/force instrument yes yes no no IAPro IAPro Case Office Case Office, IAPro Administrative Closure Open source (in/ext.) force complaints no 87 Internal (CPD) 88 367 a. 2 UOF UOF 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 367 a. 2 367 a.4 UOF violating policy # in violation yes 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 367 a.4 UOF violating policy force type Balance Displacement Body Force Control Hold-Restraint Control Hold-Takedown Joint Manipulation Tackling/Takedown Taser Verbal/Physical Gestures Other (1-25 instance each) Unknown/NULL yes 367 a. 2 367 a. 2 367 a.3 UOF UOF ECW usage yes yes 3 of 17 IA IA, IAPro see below see below Incomplete information; no systematic capturing of data through IA or OPS Incomplete information; no systematic capturing of data through IA or OPS lots of incomplete data (more than half data not present) IA IA, IAPro Not in baseline, need to calculate in future 44 . . yes N/A N/A 9 yes 2 5 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 2 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes see below Not in baseline, need to calculate in future Not in baseline, need to calculate in future Baseline Measures June 2016 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 367 a.4 367 a.4 367 a.4 367 a.4 367 a.4 367 a.4 367 a.4 UOF violating policy UOF violating policy UOF violating policy UOF violating policy UOF violating policy UOF violating policy UOF violating policy geography District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 outside city Arrest Type Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Category 5 Category 6 Category 7 race Black White Hispanic Asian Other ethnicity Hispanic/Latino Non-Hispanic/Latino age under 20 years 21-29 years 30-39 years 40-49 years 50-59 years 60+ years Unknown/NULL gender Male Female condition yes Case Office, IAPro see below 1 3 3 1 1 0 yes Case Office, IAPro see below yes yes yes yes yes yes TBD While 15 Arrest Types (i.e., Charge Types) were identified in IAPro, the categories were not clear and more meaningful categories need to be established as a baseline . . . . . . . yes yes yes yes no Case Office, IAPro Case Office, IAPro Case Office, IAPro see below 2 6 1 0 0 yes yes yes yes yes 1 8 yes yes 0 0 2 5 2 0 0 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes 9 0 yes yes see below see below Case Office, IAPro Case Office, IAPro 169 mental condition no . N/A 170 medical condition no . N/A 171 drugs/alcohol no . N/A 172 presence of disability no . N/A 4 of 17 No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the future No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the future No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the future No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the future Baseline Measures June 2016 173 174 175 176 367 a5 UOF violating policy # of officers with > 1 UOF violating policy yes Case Office 367 a6 UOF violating policy force reviews/investigations resulting in yes IA 177 178 179 180 367 a7 184 367 a7 185 367 b 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 367 b. 1 367 b. 1 367 b. 2 367 b. 2 367 c UOF violating policy UOF violating policy investigation process quality of investigations quality of review # of investigations returned because incomplete no yes see below 5 2 2 policy deficiency training deficiency tactics deficiency 181 182 183 0 IA yes yes yes N/A Examination of data received shows most of the policy deficiencies were administrative/technical (i.e. late forms) and not substantive or due to tactics A random sample will be selected by Monitoring Team and reviewed to capture the quality of the investigations . . yes Chief's Office Data have not been received as of June 2016 CI Unit N/A Incomplete information; no systematic capturing of data N/A Incomplete information; no systematic capturing of data N/A Incomplete information; no systematic capturing of data N/A Incomplete information; no systematic capturing of data addressing individuals in crisis addressing individuals # calls for service and incidents involving an in crisis individual in crisis Responded to by specialized CIT officer Responded to by other addressing individuals in crisis Direction of individuals in crisis directed to healthcare system directed to judicial system system direction other rate - directed to healthcare system rate - directed to judicial system system rate - direction other addressing individuals in crisis # of UOF on ind in crisis type of force used Balance Displacement Body Force Control Hold-Restraint Control Hold-Takedown Joint Manipulation Tackling/Takedown Taser Verbal/Physical Gestures Other (1-25 instance each) Unknown/NULL addressing individuals in crisis reason for interaction # subject armed/not armed weapon type resistance offered description of attempts to de-escalate no . . no CI Unit . . . . . . no CI Unit . . . . . . . . . . . no CI Unit . . . . stop, search, arrest 5 of 17 Baseline Measures June 2016 215 216 217 218 367 c. 1 219 220 221 367 c. 1 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 367 c. 1 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 367 c. 1 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 367 c. 1 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 367 c. 1 252 253 254 255 367 c. 1 256 257 258 259 260 367 c. 1 stop, search, arrest stop, search, arrest stop, search, arrest stop, search, arrest stop, search, arrest stop, search, arrest stop, search, arrest stop, search, arrest # of investigatory stop, search, arrest # of investigatory stops # of investigatory searches # of investigory arrrests no % of investigatory stop, search, arrest # investigatory stops/# summons or arrest # investigatory searchess/# summons or arrest no District District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 outside city no Arrest type Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Category 5 Category 6 Category 7 no Actual or perceived age under 20 years 21-29 years 30-39 years 40-49 years 50-59 years 60+ years Unknown/NULL no race Black White Hispanic Asian Other Unknown/NULL no Compliance N/A No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the future N/A No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the future N/A No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the future N/A No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the future N/A No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the future N/A No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the future N/A No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the future N/A No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the future . . . Compliance . . Compliance . . . . . . Compliance . . . . . . . Compliance . . . . . . . Compliance . . . . . . ethnicity Hispanic/Latino Non-Hispanic/Latino Unknown/NULL no gender Male Female Unknown/NULL no Compliance . . . 6 of 17 Compliance . . . . Baseline Measures June 2016 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 367 c. 2 367 c. 2 367 c. 2 367 c. 2 285 367 c. 3 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 367 c. 3 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 367 c. 3 documentable reasonable suspicion to stop and probable cause search actual or perceived race Black White Hispanic Asian Other Unknown/NULL documentable reasonable suspicion to stop and probable cause search actual or perceived ethnicity Hispanic/Latino Non-Hispanic/Latino Unknown/NULL documentable reasonable suspicion to stop and probable cause search actual or perceived gender Male Female Unknown/NULL documentable reasonable suspicion to stop and probable cause search actual or perceived age under 20 years 21-29 years 30-39 years 40-49 years 50-59 years 60+ years Unknown/NULL searches finding contraband searches finding contraband searches finding contraband no Compliance N/A No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the future N/A No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the future N/A No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the future N/A No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the future . . . . . . no Compliance . . . no Compliance no Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . # of searches finding contraband no Compliance # of searches finding contraband by district District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 outside city no Compliance Arrest type Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Category 5 Category 6 no . N/A No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the future No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the future N/A No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the future N/A . . . . . . Compliance . . . . . . 7 of 17 Baseline Measures June 2016 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 367 c. 3 308 309 310 311 367 c. 3 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 . Category 7 searches finding contraband searches finding contraband 367 c. 3 searches finding contraband 367 c. 3 searches finding contraband 367 d 367 d.1 367 d. 1 367 d. 1 actual or perceived race Black White Hispanic Asian Other Unknown/NULL no actual or perceived ethnicity Hispanic/Latino Non-Hispanic/Latino Unknown/NULL no actual or perceived gender Male Female Unknown/NULL actual or perceived age under 20 years 21-29 years 30-39 years 40-49 years 50-59 years 60+ years Unknown/NULL Compliance N/A No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the future N/A No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the future N/A No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the future N/A No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the future . . . . . . Compliance . . . no no Compliance . . . . Compliance . . . . . . . bias free policing & community engagement bias free policing & community engagement bias free policing & community engagement bias free policing & community engagement # of community partnerships District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 yes Data have not been received as of June 2016 10 11 22 14 # of community partnerships w/youth District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 yes variety of community partnerships yes 338 District 1 339 District 2 340 District 3 District Commanders see below yes yes yes yes represents partnerships specifically with youth, although youth may be included in other partnerships Data have not been received as of June 2016 District Commanders see below 4 3 7 1 yes yes yes yes District Commanders Can be calculated once all data for all Districts have been received Can be calculated once all data for all Districts have been received Can be calculated once all data for all Districts have been received 8 of 17 Baseline Measures June 2016 341 District 4 342 343 District 5 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 367 d.2 bias free policing & community engagement bias free policing & community engagement 367 d.2 bias free policing & community engagement 367 d.2 367 d.2 367 d.3 bias free policing & community engagement bias free policing & community engagement 358 359 360 361 367 d.3 367 e 367 e. 1 bias free policing & community engagement Can be calculated once all data for all Districts have been received Can be calculated once all data for all Districts have been received yes Homicide Unit # of homicides # of homicides solved # of homicides unsolved yes Homicide Unit Type of homicide # of domestic violence homicides # of non-domestic violence homicides yes Homicide Unit homicide clearance rate 127 71 56 yes yes yes 12 115 yes yes 95 23 7 2 yes yes yes yes see below yes # civilian complaints for discrimination no OPS . N/A dispostion of discrimination complaints no OPS . N/A analysis of bienniel survey yes ISA hired see below yes City Hall Civil Service Commission (CSC) see below Incomplete information; no systematic capturing of data Incomplete information; no systematic capturing of data results are in a separate document from this baseline document recruitment measures recruitment measures applicants # of qualified recruit applicants 363 # of not qualified recruit applicants 367 e. 1 yes Homicide victims Adult male victims Adult female victims Juvenile male victims Juvenile female victims 362 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 Homicide Unit 56% recruitment measures applicants by race yes White (W) Black (B) Asian (A) Hispanic (H) Other (O) AI No Data (.) 9 of 17 191 yes 1219 yes 781 409 13 154 44 3 6 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes see below Category captured in data: "Name has been certified. Candidates are being vetted for the next Academy" (categroy 11) and "hired/currently in the academy" (category 4) These are applicants who failed somewhere in the process Baseline Measures June 2016 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 367 e. 1 recruitment measures applicants by gender 367 e. 2 summary of recruit activities in development recruitment measures of community partnerships 367 e. 2 summary of recruit activities in leveraging of recruitment measures community partnerships 1120 290 no no 379 367 e. 3 recruitment measures # of applicants who failed initial screening yes 380 381 382 367 e. 3 recruitment measures reason for failures yes 2-Failed agility test 3-No show for the Agility test 4-Hired / Currently in the Academy 5-No response to certification 6-Passed over 7-Removed for background reason(s) 8-No show for the Psychological Exam 9-No longer interested 10-Waived 11-Name has been certified. Candidates are being vetted for the next Academy 12-No show for the test 13-Did not submit their Personal History Statement 14-Failed the test 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 see below yes Males Females 367 e. 3 recruitment measures recruit failures by race yes CPD Personnel; City Hall Civil Service Commission City Hall Civil Service Commission N/A Incomplete information; no systematic capturing of data N/A Incomplete information; no systematic capturing of data 1219 yes Same number as above (# of non-qualified applicants); considered anyone who is NOT hired (category 4) and anyone whose name has NOT been certified (category 11) 166 85 N/A to reason for failures 183 13 66 1 19 17 N/A to reason for failures 394 yes yes 240 35 yes yes 658 375 12 128 41 1 4 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes 128 1091 yes yes City Hall Civil Service Commission City Hall Civil Service Commission see below recruitment measures recruit failures by ethnicity yes Hispanic/Latino (H) Non-Hispanic/Latino 10 of 17 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes City Hall Civil Service Commission see below White (W) Failures Black (B) Failures Asian (A) Failures Hispanic (H) Failures Other (O) Failures AI Failures No Data (.) Failures 367 e. 3 yes yes City Hall Civil Service Commission see below It is unclear whether this information is captured adequately Baseline Measures June 2016 405 406 407 408 409 367 e. 3 recruitment measures recruit failures by gender yes City Hall Civil Service Commission see below Male Failures Female Falures 367 e. 3 971 248 recruitment measures recruit failures by self identified disability no City Hall Civil Service Commission . 410 367 e. 4 recruitment measures # of applicants with fluency in other language no City Hall Civil Service Commission . 411 412 367 e. 4 recruitment measures list of languages spoken by recruits no . 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 367 e. 5 367 e. 5 367 e. 5 367 e. 5 367 e. 5 367 e. 6 recruitment measures # of lateral candidates recruitment measures laterals by race Black White Hispanic Asian Other recruitment measures ethnicity Hispanic/Latino Non-Hispanic/Latino recruitment measures laterals by gender Male Female recruitment measures Other information on laterals laterals with self identified disability list of laterals former agencies list of laterals years of service recruitment measures applicant qualifications yes yes City Hall Civil Service Commission Only have data on veterans; No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the future No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the future No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the future 0 0 0 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes 0 0 yes yes see below 0 0 0 0 0 yes yes yes yes yes see below see below The Division does not recruit laterals The Division does not recruit laterals The Division does not recruit laterals The Division does not recruit laterals see below The Division does not recruit laterals 0 0 0 yes yes yes City Hall Civil Service Commission see below yes 432 433 # applicants with 2+ years college # applicants with college degree yes yes 455 240 yes yes 434 # applicants with 2+ years military no . N/A 435 # applicants with 180+ days military yes (new) 161 yes 436 437 disabled veterans yes (new) 1235 yes 11 of 17 This category captures those who attended college for 2+ years, but did not obtain a BA degree (includes those with associates degrees) No data collected currently; only have 180+days; Needs to be collected in the future New item CPD collects that has been added to baseline but not specified in Consent Decree New item CPD collects that has been added to baseline but not specified in Consent Decree Baseline Measures June 2016 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 367 e. 7 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 367 e. 7 pass/fail rate in each phase of prerecruitment measures employment process 2-Failed agility test 3-No show for the Agility test 4-Hired / Currently in the Academy 5-No response to certification 6-Passed over 7-Removed for background reason(s) 8-No show for the Psychological Exam 9-No longer interested 10-Waived 11-Name has been certified. Candidates are being vetted for the next Academy 12-No show for the test 13-Did not submit their Personal History Statement 14-Failed the test recruitment measures pass/fail rate by race 367 e. 7 367 e. 7 recruitment measures pass/fail rate by gender yes yes 468 367 e. 8 avg length of time to move through each recruitment measures phase of preemployment 469 470 471 472 367 e. 8 recruitment measures avg length of time to process applicants 367 e. 9 recruitment measures composition of recruit class Initial Size of recruit class 67.68% yes yes pass rate calculated pass rate calculated 80.31% 97.13% yes yes pass rate calculated pass rate calculated 46.02% 69.24% 99.02% 89.50% 96.64% 99.92% 99.67% yes yes yes yes yes yes yes pass rate calculated pass rate calculated pass rate calculated pass rate calculated pass rate calculated pass rate calculated pass rate calculated 89.50% 85.08% yes yes pass rate calculated pass rate calculated 20.34% 79.66% yes yes pass rate calculated pass rate calculated N/A City Hall Civil Service Commission see below City Hall Civil Service Commission see below City Hall Civil Service Commission see below Male Pass Rate Female Pass Rate recruitment measures pass/fail rate by self identified disability pass calculated pass rate calculated pass rate calculated pass rate calculated pass rate calculated pass rate calculated pass rate calculated pass rate calculated pass rate calculated pass rate calculated N/A yes recruitment measures pass/fail rate by ethnicity Hispanic/Latino (H) pass rate Non-Hispanic/Latino pass rate 84.99% 98.93% 94.59% 99.92% 98.44% 98.61% yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes 86.38% 93.03% White (W) pass rate Black (B) pass rate Asian (A) pass rate Hispanic (H) pass rate Other (O) pass rate AI pass rate No Data (.) pass rate 367 e. 7 466 467 yes City Hall Civil Service Commission see below no no City Hall Civil Service Commission . No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the future No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the future No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the future . . yes yes see below 52 yes 473 Remained yes (new) 44 yes 474 Separated yes (new) 8 yes 12 of 17 New item CPD collects that has been added to baseline but not specified in Consent Decree New item CPD collects that has been added to baseline but not specified in Consent Decree Baseline Measures June 2016 475 367 e. 9 recruitment measures Separated by Race yes see below 476 Black yes (new) 2 yes 477 White yes (new) 4 yes 478 Hispanic yes (new) 2 yes 479 Asian yes (new) 0 yes yes (new) yes 0 yes 480 481 367 e. 9 Other recruitment measures Separated by Gender see below 482 Male yes (new) 7 yes 483 Female yes (new) 1 yes 8 29 12 0 3 yes yes yes yes yes 12 40 yes yes 44 8 yes yes 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 367 e. 9 367 e. 9 367 e. 9 496 367 e. 9 497 367 f. 1 Command Staff/ Academy recruitment measures composition of recruit classes by race Black White Hispanic Asian Other Command Staff/ Academy recruitment measures composition of recruit classes by ethnicity Hispanic/Latino Non-Hispanic/Latino Command Staff/ Academy recruitment measures composition of recruit classes by gender Male Female composition of recruit classes by self recruitment measures identified disabilty New item CPD collects that has been added to baseline but not specified in Consent Decree New item CPD collects that has been added to baseline but not specified in Consent Decree New item CPD collects that has been added to baseline but not specified in Consent Decree New item CPD collects that has been added to baseline but not specified in Consent Decree New item CPD collects that has been added to baseline but not specified in Consent Decree no New item CPD collects that has been added to baseline but not specified in Consent Decree New item CPD collects that has been added to baseline but not specified in Consent Decree see below see below see below . N/A No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the future training measures 498 367 f. 1 training measures 499 500 367 f. 1 training measures # of officers provided training pursuant to this agreement % of officers provided training pursuant to this agreement 501 502 367 f. 2 training measures students' evaluations of the adequacy of training in type and frequency no . N/A future comparisions no . N/A future comparisions no . N/A future comparisions 13 of 17 Baseline Measures June 2016 503 504 367 f. 3 505 367 f. 4 506 367 g. 507 367 g. 1 508 509 367 g. 1 510 367 g. 2 511 367 g. 2 512 367 h. training measures modifications or improvements to training resulting from the review and analysis required by this agreement no . N/A future comparisions training measures prevalence of training deficiencies as refelected by problematic incidents or performance trends no . N/A future comparisions officer assistance & support efforts officer assistance & support efforts officer assistance & support efforts availabilty of officer assistance & support services yes EAP . N/A use of officer assistance & support services yes EAP 11 yes officer assistance & support efforts officer assistance & support efforts officer reports of adequacy of officer assistance & support svcs survey analysis of adequacy of officer assistance & support svcs no EAP . N/A no EAP . N/A supervision measures 513 367 h. supervision measures 514 367 h. supervision measures 515 367 h. supervision measures 516 367 h. supervision measures 517 367 i. 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 367 i. 1 367 i. 2 civilian complaints & investigations & discipline 367 i. 2 supervisors initial indentification of officer violations supervisors initial indentification of officer performance problems no . N/A no . N/A no . N/A No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the future No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the future No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the future No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the future 294 yes Of the 294 cases in 2015, only 45 have been completed and only 4 have gone through the PRB . N/A No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the future N/A Incomplete information; no systematic capturing of data N/A Incomplete information; no systematic capturing of data N/A no supervisors response to officer violations supervisors response to performance problems civilian complaints & investigations & discipline civilian complaints & investigations & discipline civilian complaints & investigations & discipline 367 i. 1 No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the future No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the future civilian complaints & investigations & discipline # of complaints yes increases/decreases related to access no IA, Inspections, OPS IA, Inspections, OPS no IA, Inspections, OPS # sustained by complaint type False Report Harassment Improper Procedure Infraction Notice (UTT/PIN) Lack of Service Not Provided by Complainant Other Physical Abuse/Excessive Force Unprofessional # exonerated by complaint type False Report Harassment Improper Procedure Infraction Notice (UTT/PIN) . . . . . . . . . no IA, Inspections, OPS . . . . 14 of 17 Baseline Measures June 2016 Lack of Service Not Provided by Complainant Other Physical Abuse/Excessive Force Unprofessional 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 367 i. 2 367 i. 2 367 i. 2 367 i. 2 civilian complaints & investigations & discipline civilian complaints & investigations & discipline civilian complaints & investigations & discipline civilian complaints & investigations & discipline . . . . . # unfounded by complaint type False Report Harassment Improper Procedure Infraction Notice (UTT/PIN) Lack of Service Not Provided by Complainant Other Physical Abuse/Excessive Force Unprofessional no # not sustained by complaint type False Report Harassment Improper Procedure Infraction Notice (UTT/PIN) Lack of Service Not Provided by Complainant Other Physical Abuse/Excessive Force Unprofessional no # of administratively dismissed False Report Harassment Improper Procedure Infraction Notice (UTT/PIN) Lack of Service Not Provided by Complainant Other Physical Abuse/Excessive Force Unprofessional no # of insufficient evidence False Report Harassment Improper Procedure Infraction Notice (UTT/PIN) Lack of Service Not Provided by Complainant Other Physical Abuse/Excessive Force Unprofessional IA, Inspections, OPS N/A Incomplete information; no systematic capturing of data N/A Incomplete information; no systematic capturing of data N/A Incomplete information; no systematic capturing of data N/A Incomplete information; no systematic capturing of data . . . . . . . . . OPS . . . . . . . . . OPS . . . . . . . . . no OPS . . . . . . . . . 15 of 17 Baseline Measures June 2016 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 367 i. 3 civilian complaints & investigations & discipline 367 i. 4 civilian complaints & investigations & discipline 367 i. 5 civilian complaints & investigations & discipline 367 i. 5 civilian complaints & investigations & discipline 367 i. 6 civilian complaints & investigations & discipline 367 i. 7 367 i. 8 367 i. 8 civilian complaints & investigations & discipline civilian complaints & investigations & discipline civilian complaints & investigations & discipline # of complaint allegations supported by a perponderance of the evidence average length of time to complete by complaint type False Report Harassment Improper Procedure Infraction Notice (UTT/PIN) Lack of Service Not Provided by Complainant Other Physical Abuse/Excessive Force Unprofessional # of officers w/multiple complaints District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 outside city/other units no no OPS N/A Incomplete information; no systematic capturing of data . N/A Incomplete information; no systematic capturing of data 1 14 yes yes 1 11 2 1 yes yes yes yes 8 3 5 yes yes yes . . . . . . . . . no OPS . . . . . . # of officers w/repeated sustained complaints no arrests of officers for conduct on duty off duty yes IA criminal prosecitions for conduct on duty off duty not prosecuted open yes nature of the suits excessive force (including deadly force) unlawful search & seizure N/A Incomplete information; no systematic capturing of data . OPS IA, Inspections, OPS # of civil suits against the City or CDP for work related conduct settled not yet settled N/A No data collected currently; Needs to be collected in the future yes yes IA see below see below City Law Department City Law Department There can be multiple natures of suits for each suit see below 5 1 16 of 17 As of May 2016 As of May 2016 yes yes Baseline Measures June 2016 false arrest discrimination/bias other violation of consitutional rights (e.g., 1st amendment) Harassment improper handling/disposition of property contempt of cop failure to provide medical assistance other 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 367 i. 8 367 i. 8 367 i. 8 367 i. 8 civilian complaints & investigations & discipline civilian complaints & investigations & discipline civilian complaints & investigations & discipline civilian complaints & investigations & discipline amount of judgments against number of judgments yes Judgment Status (number) number of judgments (closed) number of judgments (active) yes Judgment Status (amount) amount of judgments (closed) amount of judgments (active) yes amount of settlements settled not yet settled yes 17 of 17 City Law Department City Law Department City Law Department City Law Department 1 0 yes yes 1 0 1 1 1 0 yes yes yes yes yes yes 23 yes As ofJune 2016 10 13 yes yes As ofJune 2016 As ofJune 2016 see below $ 1,125,724.35 TBD yes yes As ofJune 2016 As ofJune 2016 see below $ 14,000 TBD yes yes As ofJune 2016 As ofJune 2016 see below see below