Case 2:12-cv-01282-JLR Document 595-2 Filed 11/29/19 Page 1 of 15 Supervision Report November 2019 1 Case 2:12-cv-01282-JLR Document 595-2 Filed 11/29/19 Page 2 of 15 Introduction Under Paragraph 223 of the Consent Decree, the Court retains jurisdiction over this matter “until such time as the City has achieved full and effective compliance and maintained such compliance for no less than two years.” On January 10, 2018, the Court entered an order finding the Department to be in “full and effective compliance” as of the date of the Order, thus commencing at that point the two-year “sustainment period.” Dkt. #439. The Court further ordered the parties and the monitor to “meet, confer, and prepare a plan for discharging their obligations under the Consent Decree” during this two-year period. On March 13, 2018, the Court entered an order approving the Sustainment Period Plan developed pursuant to the Court’s January 10th order. This plan, and an attached matrix of deadlines, became the governing documents for this Sustainment Period. As relates to SPD’s obligations under the Consent Decree, the matrix contains deadlines for SPD self-reporting or assessment of specific topical areas (“Commitments”) of the Consent Decree. These assessments, implicated paragraphs of the Consent Decree, and associated deadlines are provided in the chart that follows: Sustainment Matrix Deliverable Nos. 6 114 120 134 142 99 111 172 180 25 33 42 50 Systemic Report/Audit/Assessment Filing Deadline Community Engagement Stops and Detentions – Outcome Report Stops and Detentions – Audit Report Crisis Intervention – Outcome Report Supervision May 31, 2018 June 30, 2018 May 31, 2019 January 31, 2019 October 31, 2019 October 31, 2018 October 31, 2019 October 31, 2018 November 30, 2019 October 31, 2018 October 31, 2019 October 31, 2018 July 31, 2019 Force Reporting, Review, and Investigation – Type I Force Reporting, Review, and Investigation – Type II 2 Case 2:12-cv-01282-JLR Document 595-2 Filed 11/29/19 Page 3 of 15 Sustainment Matrix Deliverable Nos. 105 56 62 79 71 194 202 156 164 Systemic Report/Audit/Assessment Crisis Intervention/Use of Force Use of Force – Outcome Report Force Review Board Use of Force – Comprehensive Early Intervention Filing Deadline December 15, 2018 January 31, 2019 January 10, 2020 July 31, 2019 October 31, 2019 March 15, 2019 December 1, 2019 April 30, 2019 Bias-Free Policing – Disparity Review (Use of Force and Search/Seizure) Bias Free Policing – Disparity December 31, 2019 Review (Use of Force/Search and Seizure/other activity) This report covers SPD’s obligations with respect to Sustainment Matrix Deliverable No. 180 and, with the exception of analyses relating to supervisor response to force incidents, reports the elements of supervision, unity of command, and training across an 18-month study period of January 1, 2018, to June 30, 2019, as relates to Paragraphs 153-156 of the Consent Decree. 1 With respect to analyses relating to supervisor response to force incidents, this report relies upon the audit methodology described in full detail in the Department’s Force Reporting and Investigation Report, filed on July 31, 2019, and analyzes a data set comprising Type I and Type II use of force cases between January 1 and December 31, 2018. Data Sources Data for this report is sourced from the Data Analytics Platform (DAP), with some crosschecking against original source systems. The DAP consists of three interconnected technical and management systems: 1) a data warehouse, 2) a User Interface (UI), and 3) 1 The role of supervisors is addressed in many different sections of the Consent Decree. For example, requirements relating to supervisors can be found in sections addressing use of force, crisis intervention, stops and detentions, and others. As in Phase I of this matter, these requirements will be evaluated in the reports planned for each respective subject matter. 3 Case 2:12-cv-01282-JLR Document 595-2 Filed 11/29/19 Page 4 of 15 a system of data governance to assure quality data and analytics. 2 In this environment, data flow from the transactional systems used to support the delivery of police service (Police Data Systems, or PDS), through an Extract Transform and Load (ETL) process, to populate a Data Warehouse (DW) and a user interface (UI) through which information is returned to the field for analysis and use as a supervisory and systems oversight resource. Among the source data systems that feed into the DW and provide data for elements of this report are a number of transactional systems that support the delivery of police service and management of the organization, including the movement of personnel. Data for this report comes, primarily, from the Departments source record for the Functional Organization (FO). These systems include a personnel database (Versonnel), a movement tracking system, and a snapshot historical record, and are used to manage workflow (e.g. time, leave approval, etc.). In Part I of this report, filed with the Court on October 31, 2018, the Department identified a gap in data between an officer’s ordinance title and court code history.3 These data were not previously available in DAP. Over the last year, the DAP remediated this gap; this report utilizes those enhanced data. Source data for the training components of this report are derived from Cornerstone, a Learning Management System (LMS) implemented across the City in 2015. Cornerstone is a Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) solution that manages training (required and optional) with integrated curriculum (video training modules) and allows training managers to track in-house and off-site training and continuing education in a “transcript” for every employee. In addition, Cornerstone maintains certifications by voluntary affiliation (e.g. Crisis Intervention Team) and rule. Data from the Cornerstone LMS is ingested into the DAP through a series of automated processes. A local database is populated using a script that queries the report interface for Cornerstone. The local data is then ingested daily by the DAP ETL, where new and 2 Data governance is an ongoing process of identifying, investigating / analyzing, remediating, mitigating and monitoring for common data quality issues certain common errors and critical errors essential to relating and counting data. PDS systems support the business of police service delivery and are designed to produce the ideal data for analysis. As part of the mitigation and monitoring phase of the DG cycle, special packages of software check for “bad data” as records matriculate into the warehouse in a process called error handling. At this stage of the business intelligence cycle, insight about the nature of the data is applied to continual improvement of the quality of the data and the resulting analysis. “Court code” is a scheduling system label used to manage furlough schedules (days off) and coordination with the Seattle Municipal Court docket schedules where an officer’s appearance may be required. Court codes allow for officers’ appearances to be scheduled during an officer’s regular work week, whenever possible, to reduce overtime expenditures. 3 4 Case 2:12-cv-01282-JLR Document 595-2 Filed 11/29/19 Page 5 of 15 updated or changed records are loaded into the DW. These data are rendered for analysis in three forms: 1) Training History, 2) Certification History, and 3) integrated certification indicators embedded in multiple Tableau data sources. Training History provides the most granular view of training data and includes every course in every employees’ transcript. Certification History is a daily snapshot of the state of the certification groups. Finally, many data sources contain indicators of various training and certification status. These data are integrated as attributes of the officer or employee. Part I of this report identified gaps in the way these data were being extracted and consumed by the DAP. Over the last year, as part of the Seattle Police Department’s continuous improvement, the Department purchased and began implementing an Application Programing Interface (API), to assure a more stable and less manually intensive connection to training data and has recommended changes to the way training data is maintained. Analysis and Consent Decree Requirements Paragraphs 153-156 of the Consent Decree cover three areas of inquiry: adequacy of supervision by the Chain of Command; Unity of Command; and Training for Long-Term Acting Sergeants. Analyses as to each are provided below. The Department’s findings demonstrate continued compliance with these Consent Decree requirements. I. Overall Distribution of First Line Supervisors During the study period, January 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019, the Department employed or had supervisory control over 2,257 sworn and civilian resources. Of the 1,516 sworn employees (67.2% of all SPD employees), 64.5% were, at one point, assigned to the Operations Bureau. An additional 19.5% were assigned to the Investigations Bureau, and 36.1%4 of sworn employees were assigned to a variety of special service and supportive roles across the Professional Standards Bureau, Special Operations Bureau, Office of Police Accountability (OPA), Homeland Security Bureau, Administrative Services, Night Duty and Chief Strategy functions.5 This distribution is shown in Figure 1. 4 Because employees transferred during the period and are represented in multiple bureaus, the total exceeds 100%. Approximately 328 sworn employees were observed with a “null” bureau at one point during the study period. These employees were either assigned to Human Resources for administrative leave or the communications section. 5 5 Case 2:12-cv-01282-JLR Document 595-2 Filed 11/29/19 Page 6 of 15 Figure 1: Distribution of Administrative Assignment, All Sworn6 First Line-Supervisors (FLS) of sworn employees hold the rank of “Police Sergeant” when assigned to a permanent position or “Acting Police Sergeant” when serving in a temporary assignment. When the supervised role serves an investigative function, the title is indicated as “…Detective.” On June 30, 2019, the end-date of the study period, 190 sworn employees worked as permanent or acting first line supervisors. Of these, 84.2% of all Sergeants were “hardstriped,” or assigned to a permanent role. An additional 12.6% of all Police Sergeants served in an acting or long-term, temporary role, and 3.2% of all Sergeant Detectives served in an acting capacity. This distribution is presented in Table 1. 6 As noted above, because employees transferred during the period and are represented in multiple bureaus, the total exceeds 100%. 6 Case 2:12-cv-01282-JLR Document 595-2 Filed 11/29/19 Page 7 of 15 Table 1: Supervisor Assignment, Permanent and Acting Overall, 51.1% of all Sergeants, both permanent and acting, were assigned to the Operations Bureau, and 15.7% were assigned to the Investigations Bureau. The remaining Sergeants were distributed among the Homeland Security and Special Operations Bureau (12.4%), Collaborative Policing Bureau (6.7%), Professional Standards Bureau (5.1%), and OPA (5.1%). More than 60% of all hard-striped Sergeants were assigned to the Operations Bureau at the end of the study period. This distribution is presented in Table 2. Table 2: Distribution of Permanent and Acting Sergeants by Administrative Assignment 7 Case 2:12-cv-01282-JLR Document 595-2 Filed 11/29/19 Page 8 of 15 II. Adequacy of Supervision by the Chain of Command The City will provide and SPD will deploy an adequate number of qualified field/first-line supervisors (typically sergeants) to assure the provisions of this Agreement are implemented. SPD will employ sufficient first-line supervisors to assure that first-line supervisors are able to: (1) respond to the scene of uses of force as required by this Agreement; and (2) investigate each use of force (except those investigated by FIT) in the manner required by this Agreement. See paragraphs 153 and 156 Consent Decree; see also Sixth Systemic Assessment-Seattle Police Monitor page 4. Note: A detailed discussion regarding the performance of sergeants with respect to use of force investigation and review is set forth in the Department’s Force Reporting and Investigation Report, filed with the Court on July 31, 2019. The Department refers the reader to that report for a fuller analysis. Supervisor responsibilities with respect to investigation and review of use of force differ, by policy, depending on the level of force used. For Type I uses of force,7 sergeants are required to screen the use of force, prior to a subject being booked or released where practical. If there is any uncertainty or concern as to the reason or nature of the force, or existence of any injury, the sergeant is required to respond immediately to the scene, unless impractical. The investigating supervisor is responsible for reviewing the officer’s documentation of the incident as soon as practicable and ensuring the quality of the officer’s report. Sergeants are then required to provide their own brief summary of their investigation in Blue Team and forward the packet, via Blue Team, to the reviewing lieutenant. Type I use of force generally consists of actions which “causes transitory pain, the complaint of transitory pain, disorientation, or intentionally pointing a firearm or bean bag shotgun.” This is the most frequently reported level of force. Examples of Type I force, generally used to control a person who is resisting an officer’s lawful commands, include “soft takedowns” (controlled placement), strike with sufficient force to cause pain or complaint of pain, or an open hand technique with sufficient force to cause complaint of pain. Type I uses of force are investigated and screened by a sergeant, reviewed and approved by a lieutenant and captain or designee, and reviewed by the Force Review Unit. 7 8 Case 2:12-cv-01282-JLR Document 595-2 Filed 11/29/19 Page 9 of 15 For Type II incidents,8 a sergeant is required to respond to the scene, assess the subject’s injuries, and determine whether the subject’s injuries are consistent with the force reported. The sergeant must interview the subject, confirm that appropriate medical aid is offered, and obtain basic case information. The sergeant identifies and secures evidence to enable them to summarize the use of force and the surrounding circumstances; such evidence includes physical evidence, audio and video recordings, photographs, and documentation of the presence or absence of injuries. The sergeant must also attempt to locate and interview relevant civilian witnesses. The sergeant then completes their own use of force report, summarizing the incident, the investigation, and relevant evidence, and forwards the investigation to the Administrative Lieutenant, who – for Type II investigations – is responsible for completing the investigation. In Part I of this report, filed with the Court on October 31, 2018 the Seattle Police Department analyzed whether its first line supervisors were adequately responding to and investigating uses of force. More recently, SPD has analyzed its supervisors’ responses to uses of force incidents in its Reporting, Review, and Investigation of Use of Force Report, filed with the Court on July 31, 2019, and in its Comprehensive Use of Force Report, filed with the Court on October 31, 2019. In the Reporting, Review, and Investigation of Use of Force Report, SPD analyzed use of force incidents between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2018. SPD found that 1,370 Type I and Type II use of force cases were closed during this period. SPD analyzed 1,283 of those cases, or 94% of all closed Type I and Type II cases. Of the 1,087 Type I cases where a Type I assessment was conducted by FRU, five cases were duplicates and were removed from analysis. Of the remaining cases, 938 (87%) were accepted for quality on the first inspection. One hundred and forty-four (13.3%) cases were returned to the chain of command for additional information. It is important to note that because of the protocol by which force reports are grouped as cases in IAPro (a many-to-one relationship), a deficiency in one report will result in the entire case showing as returned. In other words, it cannot be assumed that all the force reports contained in the 13.3% of cases returned contained incomplete documentation; the true percentage is likely lower. However, even assuming each of the cases returned involved deficiencies as to each use of force report contained, this 87% approval matches the 8 Force that causes or is reasonably expected to cause physical injury greater than transitory pain but less than great or substantial bodily harm. Examples include a hard take-down or and/or the use of any of the following weapons or instruments: CEW, OC spray, impact weapon, beanbag shotgun, deployment of K-9 with injury or complaint of injury causing less than Type III injury, vehicle, and hobble restraint. 9 Case 2:12-cv-01282-JLR Document 595-2 Filed 11/29/19 Page 10 of 15 finding reported in the Monitor’s First Systemic Assessment in which the Monitor determined the Department to be in full and effective compliance.9 Of the 196 Type II cases where a Type II assessment was conducted by FRU, 188 (95.9%) were accepted for quality on the first inspection. Only 8 cases (4.1%) were returned to the chain of command for additional information. As with the Type I cases, because force reports are grouped as cases in IAPro (a many-to-one relationship), a deficiency in one report will result in the entire case showing as returned. It cannot be assumed that all of the force reports contained in the 4.1% of cases returned contained incomplete documentation; the true percentage is likely lower. This 95.9% approval rate shows improved performance over the Monitor’s determination that SPD was in initial compliance with paragraphs 103-111 of the Consent Decree. The FRU audit did not identify any Type I cases in which a supervisor failed to screen a use of force. Similarly, within the sample of Type II cases (n = 196), at least one supervisor was documented to have responded to the scene in 100% of these incidents. These results demonstrate that SPD employs sufficient number of first-line supervisors to respond to the scene of uses of force as required by paragraph 153 of the Consent Decree. Further, the Comprehensive Use of Force Report, filed October 31, 2019, contains findings that demonstrate SPD’s compliance with the second prong of paragraph 153 which requires SPD to employ enough first-line supervisors to investigate uses of force. III. Unity of Command As a general rule, all operational field officers (including patrol officers) should be assigned to a single, consistent, clearly identified first-line supervisor. First line supervisors should normally be assigned to work the same days and hours as the officers they are assigned to supervise. See paragraph 154 Consent Decree; see also Sixth Systemic Assessment-Seattle Police Monitor page 4. Of the 1,256 Sworn Line-Resources (SLR),10 all had a single, consistent, clearly identified front-line supervision at the rank of Sergeant or higher over the course of the study period. Further, across Patrol, there is complete unity of command. See Monitor’s First Systemic Assessment on Force Investigation and Reporting. Sworn Line-Resources (SLR) are identified by rank: police officers and police officer detective ranks, including acting’s and probationary / student designations. 9 10 10 Case 2:12-cv-01282-JLR Document 595-2 Filed 11/29/19 Page 11 of 15 Prior to 2014, SPD employed a staffing assignment system referred to as “in-squad relief.” Under this system, patrol officers routinely reported to two or more different sergeants during their work week. While they were supervised at all times, they did not consistently report to the same supervisor. Recognizing the lack of unity of command, SPD changed its patrol staffing approach to require that all of the officers within a squad have the same scheduled work week and report to the same supervisor. An officer’s assigned supervisor will change over time with normal personnel moves, sergeant/officer promotions, retirements, student officer assignments, etc. Over the course of the study period, on average, sworn-line resources (a category that includes police officer and police officer detective ranks, including acting and probationary/student designations) had a total of 2.8 different supervisors each (median of 2.0). Within the Operations Bureau, which held more than 64% of all sworn employees during the study period, sworn line resources had an average of 2.9 different supervisors (median of 3). During the Part I audit, filed with the Court on October 31, 2018, SPD found that sworn line resources had an average of 2.81 different supervisors, also with a median of 3. These results confirm that SPD has maintained compliance with paragraph 154. By policy and by design of the staffing system, all officers work the same scheduled work week as their assigned supervisor. Officers are not assigned to a new supervisor, except in the event of transfer out of the squad or normal personnel moves by sergeants (promotions, retirements, etc.). TRAINING Sergeant training is central to effective first-line supervision. The City and SPD will ensure that personnel assigned to a planned assignment of acting sergeant for longer than 60 days will be provided adequate training to fulfill the supervisor obligations under this Agreement, either prior to serving as acting sergeant, or as soon as practicable (and in no event longer than 90 days from the beginning of the planned assignment). See paragraph 155 Consent Decree; see also Sixth Systemic Assessment-Seattle Police Monitor page 4. Sixty employees were assigned as Acting Sergeants or Acting Sergeant Detective for longer than 60 days during the study period. Three had received the First Line Supervisor (FLS) training prior to becoming an acting sergeant. An additional 65.6% (40) of these acting supervisors received the training within the required 90 days. Eleven received the training more than 90 days after their assignment as Acting Sergeants or Acting Sergeant 11 Case 2:12-cv-01282-JLR Document 595-2 Filed 11/29/19 Page 12 of 15 Detectives but did receive the training at the first available opportunity. Six served in the role of Acting Sergeant or Acting Sergeant Detective for a period of longer than 60 days, but the FLS training was not offered during the time they served as an Acting Sergeant or Acting Sergeant Detective. None of these six officers are still serving as Acting Sergeants or Acting Sergeant Detectives. Table 3: First Line Supervisor Training Received First Line Supervisor (FLS) Training Received FLS Training Within 90 Days of Assignment Received FLS Training More than 90 Days After Assignment Did Not Receive FLS Training % Total Count 90% 72% 18% 54 43 11 10% 6 Historically, SPD has offered the FLS training once per year. In 2018, SPD had a significant number of personnel promoted and held the FLS training twice. In 2019, SPD held the training once in September. Going forward, to ensure that acting sergeants are receiving the training necessary to fulfill their responsibilities within 90 days of promotion, SPD will hold the FLS training quarterly. The next training will be held in the first quarter of 2020. In addition, SPD has begun distributing a list of personnel who have completed the FLS training. The distributed list of trained personnel will assist commanders as they assign acting sergeants in their sections. SPD will also add information to the lieutenant’s dashboard that will notify a lieutenant when an acting sergeant has not had the FLS training to ensure that personnel are sufficiently trained. Promotional Assignments Of the eighty (80) individual employees who were promoted to Sergeant or Acting Sergeant, 15 were first promoted in an Acting Sergeant assignment and then to permanent Sergeant during the study period. Fifty-three (53) employees were promoted to an acting role and 40 were promoted to permanent Sergeant or Sergeant Detective assignments11. It is important to note the distinction between short-term acting (60 days or less) and long-term acting sergeants. An individual in a long-term acting role has passed the exam for promotion to the higher rank, is assigned the duties of the higher rank, is considered 11 These figures do not add to the total of 80 individual employees because some employees were promoted from Officer to Sergeant without first being assigned as an Acting while other employees were promoted to Acting and then to permanent. Both are counted in the total for each rank. 12 Case 2:12-cv-01282-JLR Document 595-2 Filed 11/29/19 Page 13 of 15 by the Department to be equivalent to the higher rank, and receives the corresponding salary increase. For human resources accounting reasons, however, until a budget “pocket” opens at that rank, the employee cannot receive the formal promotion. Officers in this long-term acting position—who have passed the exam, assumed new responsibilities, and are awaiting a pocket—are required to receive new supervisor training. This arrangement promotes the development of leadership by allowing new supervisors to receive training, both formal and on-the-job, as soon as they pass the exam. “Short-term acting,” by contrast, designates a limited role that does not last longer than 60 days – for example to fill in when a supervisor is on medical or parental leave. As part of SPD’s annual budget process, SPD is realigning its budget in 2020 to reflect more accurately where its personnel are assigned. Over several decades, SPD has created new units by allocating personnel in an “on-loan” role, which has led to many acting sergeant assignments. With the budget realignment in 2020, SPD will make these units permanent and create 11 additional permanent sergeant positions. This could eliminate up to 11 “acting sergeants.” These results demonstrate sustained compliance exceeding the requirements of paragraph 155. The use of the long-term acting designation for officers who have passed the sergeants exam does not present concerns with regard to adequate training or supervision. To the contrary, it encourages and develops leadership. CONCLUSIONS The Department has maintained compliance with Paragraphs 153, 154, and 155 of the Consent Decree. The Department has an adequate number of first line supervisors to respond to the scene of uses of force and investigate. Current staffing policy has achieved unity of command; officers have consistent, clearly identified supervisors who work the same scheduled work week. Ninety percent of officer assigned to a supervisor role during the study period received FLS training. The Department is also actively working to ensure that front-line supervisor training is acquired as soon as practicable. As a result of this report, SPD has implemented three changes. First, the Department now offers front-line supervisor training quarterly rather than annually. Second, SPD has begun distributing a list of personnel who have completed the FLS training to inform commanders as they assign acting sergeants in their sections. Third, SPD is adding information to the lieutenant’s dashboard in the DAP that will notify a lieutenant when an acting sergeant has not had the FLS training to ensure that personnel are sufficiently trained. 13 Case 2:12-cv-01282-JLR Document 595-2 Filed 11/29/19 Page 14 of 15 As the sergeants’ promotional list comes out every two years, the Department will continue its protocol of requiring groups of officers on the list to take new supervisor training as soon as feasible in anticipation of possible future promotion. DOJ AND MONITORING TEAM JOINT VALIDATION In Phase I of the work of under the Consent Decree, DOJ and the Monitoring Team reviewed SPD’s compliance with the requirements of the Consent Decree through 10 assessments, covering the roughly six topic areas of the Consent Decree: force investigation and reporting, crisis intervention, supervision, Early Intervention System (“EIS”), use of force, and stops and biased policing. By the end of 2017, the Monitoring Team and DOJ found the City of Seattle to be in compliance with each area. On that basis, the Court issued a finding of “full and effective compliance” with the requirements of the Consent Decree. By the terms of the Consent Decree, the City of Seattle is now required to demonstrate that it can sustain compliance with those requirements for a period of two years. 12 During Phase II of the Consent Decree work, the City of Seattle has taken over the lead role in conducting assessments of the six core topic areas of the Consent Decree. By taking this lead role, SPD must demonstrate not only sustained compliance, but also a willingness and ability to critically self-assess their own progress in these areas, which are central to effective and constitutional policing. This does not mean, however, that the work of DOJ and the Monitoring Team is done. In Phase II, DOJ and the Monitoring Team are reviewing the City’s proposed methodologies for each audit and are conducting their own independent research and analysis or “look behind” the City’s review. For Part II of this supervision audit, DOJ and the Monitoring Team consulted with and assisted in devising the relevant data to be queried for supervision-related information mandated by the Consent Decree. As this audit report notes, many supervision-related requirements are covered by other audits (e.g. EIS, force reporting, stops). However, this audit sought to capture supervision-related requirements that were not otherwise 12 Although the Court found that the City has fallen partially out of full and effective compliance with the Consent Decree in its May 21, 2019 Order, the Court did not find that the City has fallen out of compliance in any area covered in the Phase II Sustainment Plan. See Dkt. 562 at 2. The Court indicated that it “remains hopeful that the City can complete these assessments and discharge these areas of the Consent Decree within the two-year sustainment period.” Id. These assessments, and DOJ’s and the Monitoring Team’s review of these assessments, are therefore unaffected by the Court’s May 21, 2019 Order. 14 Case 2:12-cv-01282-JLR Document 595-2 Filed 11/29/19 Page 15 of 15 captured; specifically, paragraphs 153-156 of the Consent Decree. These paragraphs require: (1) SPD to deploy adequate number of qualified first-line supervisors/sergeants to assure the provisions of the Consent Decree are implemented, including responding to the scene when force is used, investigating uses of force, documenting uses or force, and providing direction to officers who use force as needed. (2) As a general rule, operational field officers to be assigned to a single, consistent, clearly identified first line supervisor who works the same days and hours as the officers they supervise; and (3) SPD ensure that personnel assigned to a planned assignment of acting sergeant for longer than 60 days receive training as an acting sergeant in a timely manner defined by the Consent Decree. Having reviewed the output of the data queries, DOJ and the Monitoring Team are satisfied that SPD has demonstrated sustained compliance with these three enumerated requirements. In addition to reviewing the data related to these topics, DOJ and the Monitoring Team further evaluated the adequacy of supervisor numbers during this audit period by conducting another “look behind” earlier this summer of SPD’s audit of Type I and Type II use of force investigation and reporting, as well as a comprehensive look at SPD’s use of force. These audits demonstrated that the vast majority of supervisors are continuing to review the work of their reporting officers, adequately investigating uses of force, and documenting the process, giving further credence to the notion that there are sufficient numbers of supervisors to appropriately supervise the work of SPD officers. 15