family investigations audit

7/30/2019 Family Investigations Audit

1/27


2/27

Family Investigations Bureau ReviewPolice Department

October 20, 2011Project Team:

Irene Larkin, Deputy City AuditorSara LeBeau, Internal AuditorAaron Cook, Internal AuditorCarl Wright, Internal AuditorProfessional Standards Bureau, Inspections Unit Personnel

Project Number: 3120007

City Auditor Department

Bill GreeneActing City Auditor

City of PhoenixCity Auditor Department17 S. 2nd Avenue, Suite 200Phoenix, AZ 85003

This report can be made available in alternate format upon request.More information: 602-262-6641 (voice) or 602-534-5500 (TTY)


3/27

Page iCity Auditor Department

Family Investigations Bureau ReviewExecutive Summary

PURPOSE

At the request of the Police Chief and the City Managers Office, the City AuditorDepartment (CAD) directed a team that reviewed case management practices within theFamily Investigations Bureau, Crimes Against Children Unit (CACU). The teamaddressed concerns that a former Detective assigned to that Unit did not properlymaintain his assigned cases. The team also reviewed a sample of current CACUdetectives cases and determined if quality case management protocols exist. Theteam was comprised of CAD and Police Department Professional Standards Bureau,Inspections Unit (PSB) personnel.

BACKGROUND

PSB performed a CACU Case review in June 2007, resulting in a memo that concludeda CACU Detective did not appear to be properly maintaining his assigned cases. In thememo, the PSB Detective identified nine cases that the Detective believed requiredfurther review. In June 2011, the same PSB Detective performed a follow-up on the2007 review and observed that the CACU Detectives case management issues had notbeen resolved. The CACU Detective retired in June 2010 and a large number of hiscases remained open. The current CACU supervisors were notified of the PSBDetectives finding.

In July 2011, the audit team led by the CAD was assembled to conduct this audit with

the primary objective of reviewing issues brought forward in the 2007 PSB memo. Theaudit included testing a sample of the CACU Detectives cases to determine if casemanagement was in compliance with procedures, and reviewing what actions the PoliceDepartment took as a result of the findings detailed in the June 2007 PSB memo. Theteam also reviewed a sample of all current CACU detectives cases for adherence toinvestigative protocols, including case classifications and timely actions. In addition, theteam reviewed overall CACU supervisory and case management practices to verifycompliance with key practices and procedures and identify areas for improvement.

As a result of the performance issues identified through this audit and other recent casereviews, the Police Department formed an internal Case Review Task Force (CRTF) toreview all cases assigned to the former Detective that still fall within the statute oflimitations. The CRTF will determine whether the investigations were conductedthoroughly and as necessary, recommend further investigation efforts. Police personnelwill provide case reviews to the County Attorneys Office and the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation (FBI) to determine if any criminal or civil rights violations were committedand ensure appropriate action is taken. Similarly, if any misconduct issues areidentified, the Police Departments Professional Standards Bureau Investigations Unitwill observe standard department protocols and initiate an internal investigation.


4/27

Page iiCity Auditor Department

RESULTS IN BRIEF

REVIEW OF THE FORMER CACU DETECTIVES CASES

Overall, 81% of the former Detectives cases reviewed did not follow casemanagement policy or procedures and likely lacked sufficient supervisory

review. No formal policy or procedural changes were made within CACUafter the performance issues were raised in June 2007. Additionally, theformer Detectives open cases that were transferred to CACU supervisorypersonnel after the Detectives retirement received limited attention.Our case review focused on evaluating if documented evidence within the PoliceAutomated Computer Entry (PACE) system supported that investigatoryelements, including the interview process, evidence collection and casemanagement, were conducted in accordance with policy. Examples ofinvestigations deemed non-compliant in our audit included:

those missing interview and/or medical summarizations or impounds;

cases pended (i.e. investigative efforts exhausted and inactivated pending

further information) or closed prematurely; incorrect use of the information only designation; or

open cases with PACE inactivity greater than one year.

The CACU Detectives case management issues raised in 2007 were addressedthrough a written evaluation (Performance Management Guide (PMG)) by CACUsupervision. After receiving a not met on his October 2007 PMG, the Detectivewas removed from case assignment rotation and worked overtime to aid inreducing his case load. The Detective then received overall ratings of met forfollowing PMGs, although supervisory comments noted that case managementstill needed improvement.

Sixty-one open cases were transferred upon the Detectives retirement tosupervisory staff; 39 of those cases remained open and showed no evidence ofinvestigation efforts for approximately one-year. As of September 20, 2011, all39 open cases had case management activity recorded in PACE as a result ofCACU follow-up efforts.

REVIEW OF CURRENT CACU CASES

Of the CACU cases reviewed, 30% did not follow case management policyor procedures.

CACU cases we identified that did not follow policy included similar policydeviations to those of the retired CACU Detectives cases, just not as numerous.Examples of investigations deemed non-compliant included not interviewing allparties, lack of documentation supporting attempts to contact suspects, missingsummarization or impounding of medical results, pending or closing casesprematurely, incorrectly using information only and having open cases withPACE inactivity for greater than one year.


5/27

Page iiiCity Auditor Department

CACU CASE MANAGEMENT PROCESS REVIEW

Internal controls are not in place to ensure all completed cases arereviewed and reviews are properly documented. Supervisory review of allcompleted cases is fundamental to effective case quality control.Internal controls are not sufficient to ensure that CACU sergeants review all

completed cases before they are pended or closed. Furthermore, neither the FIBBureau Manual nor the Police Departments Operations Orders require thatCACU sergeants review all completed cases or that they document their review,and there are no automated PACE system controls preventing a detective fromclosing or pending a case that has not been reviewed. Sound internal controlsmight include establishing formal (FIB Bureau Manual or Operations Orders)policy and implementing related controls requiring that sergeants review allcompleted cases before the case status is changed to a closed or pended status,and that sergeants document their review in the case history.

Effective internal controls are not in place to ensure open cases are

monitored for adequate investigative progress. Procedures to monitoropen cases will help prevent case neglect and facilitate comprehensivecase management oversight.Current CACU procedures do not facilitate monitoring of open CACU cases foradequate investigative progress. Current FIB policy requires that sergeantsreview a minimum of five cases for timeliness of the follow-up investigation.Additional internal controls might include: Implementation of CACU policy requiring that detectives periodically analyze

inactive cases to determine if additional investigative procedures arenecessary based on recent case activity, and requiring that detectives file asupplement documenting their review.

Implementation of CACU policy requiring that sergeants periodically analyzea detectives entire population of open cases to identify specific cases toanalyze further.

Development of a PACE system aging report identifying when supplementswere filed that sergeants can use to identify cases they will review.

Pended cases are not monitored for further investigative potential. Pendedcase monitoring procedures will promote prompt investigation of newevidence and timely closure of pended cases.Pended CACU cases are not monitored to determine if additional investigativeprocedures are necessary based on recent case activity or if the case should beconsidered for closure if circumstances warrant. Monitoring pended cases todetermine if investigative procedures or closure are warranted will promoteprompt investigation of new evidence, timely conclusion of pended cases, andaccurate case management reporting.

The following section includes our recommendations and the departments response.


6/27

Page ivCity Auditor Department

Department Responses to Recommendations

NOTE: This table will be completed after the responses are received by thedepartment. The complete table will appear in the final audit report.

Rec. 1.1: CRTF reinvestigate all cases assigned to the Detective that fall within thestatute of limitations.

Response: The CRTF was developed consisting of one sergeant,six detectives, and one police assistant. Approximately 2,500reports were identified from the retired Detective and are currentlybeing reinvestigated based on statute of limitations.

Target Date:September 30,2012

Rec. 1.2: Define and document the use of information only and provide uniformtraining to provide for consistent use throughout CACU and to aid in statisticalreporting.

Response: Follow current policy as listed in the Operations Orders.Brief all investigative CACU squads and increase monitoringcompliance with bureau and department policy. Documentcompliance/non-compliance in monthly supervisory notes. Addressnon-compliance as outlined in department policy.

Target Date:November 30,2011

Rec. 1.3: Investigate why no activity occurred for over a one-year period of time on 39open cases transferred to the Sergeant upon the Detectives retirement.

Response: Investigation initiated by Professional Standards BureauInvestigations Unit.

Target Date:January 31,2012

Rec. 2.1: Train supervisory staff how to utilize PACE to assist in determining CACUscase load and activity.

Response: FIB CACU supervisory staff will be trained byexperienced PACE trainers to assist in determining case load andactivity.

Target Date:June 30, 2012

Rec. 2.2: Limit use of Restricted to Detail to cases per FIB policy.

Response: Follow policy on restricting DRs; reserve this function forhigh profile cases only.



7/27

Page vCity Auditor Department

Rec. 2.3: Reevaluate if limiting the number of open cases to 40 on detectives PMGs isbeneficial.

Response: Review current standard and determine effectiveness

and then make appropriate revisions to Bureau Manual policy ifneeded.

Target Date:

March 31, 2012

Rec. 3.1: Determine if medical records and interviews for cases that are closed andclassified as information only should be impounded (dependent if this material isimmediately released for destruction) and include in written procedures.

Response: Meet with Maricopa County Attorneys Office todetermine if medical records and forensic interviews should beimpounded on reports classified as information only. Requiredetectives to review property purge policies. Document compliance

/ non-compliance in monthly notes; address non-compliance asoutlined in the Department Policy.

Target Date:April 30, 2012

Rec. 3.2: Define how duplicate reports should be classified (status and disposition) asthis can determine if an incident is counted twice statistically (original and duplicate).Determine if original reports should be supplemented noting the duplication, and ifdetectives should review the original report to ensure the duplicate or related incidentis addressed.

Response: Create policy and establish that a duplicate report willbe closed as unfounded and the reason supplemented. This will

occur after a review of both the duplicate and original reports iscompleted by the supervisor. The reviews will be documented inCase Management. Supervisors and detectives will be trained onthis new policy upon implementation.

Target Date:December 31,

2011

Rec. 3.3: Perform additional review on three original reports referenced via duplicatedepartmental reports that appear questionable.

Response: Assign a supervisor to review the three reports todetermine if they were properly investigated. Documentinvestigative actions in PACE Case Management.

Target Date:December 31,2011


8/27

Page viCity Auditor Department

Rec. 4.1: Develop and implement internal controls to ensure that sergeants review allcompleted case histories and files before the case status is changed to a closed orpended status, and that sergeants document their review in the case history. Establish

formal documented (FIB Bureau Manual or Operations Orders) policy mandating thesereview requirements.

Response: Define and implement procedures within the BureauManual to ensure detectives notify their supervisor of all cases thatare pended or closed. Define and implement policy to ensuresupervisors receive notification and approve a case change topended or closed from detectives before status change in made bythe assigned detective. Supervisor will document their review in thecase history.

Target Date:March 31, 2012

Rec. 4.2: Develop standard review criteria unique to CACU cases that sergeants are toapply when reviewing completed case histories and files submitted by detectives.

Response: Develop a standard review criteria checklist based onapproved policies and MCAO protocols. Include the standardreview criteria checklist in the FIB manual.


Rec. 4.3: Establish standard criteria to serve as a guide for sergeants and detectiveswhen determining if an open CACU case should be changed to a closed or pendedstatus.

Response: Develop a standard review criteria checklist based onapproved policies and MCAO protocols. Include the standardreview criteria checklist in the FIB manual.


Rec. 4.4: Develop and implement policy requiring periodic review of pended CACUcases to determine if additional investigative procedures are necessary based onrecent case activity or to determine if the case should be considered for closure ifcircumstances warrant.

Response: Develop and implement policy requiring periodic reviewof pended CACU cases to determine if additional investigative

procedures are necessary.



9/27

Page viiCity Auditor Department

Rec. 4.5: Develop a formal CACU policy requiring that detectives inform their sergeantof all new supplements on closed and pended CACU cases so that sergeants maydetermine if they will analyze the information for investigative quality. Inquire with the

Police Information Technology Bureau to determine if an automated function may beprogrammed in PACE (or the PACE replacement system) that automatically notifiessergeants of new closed and pended case supplements that detectives add to the casehistory.

Response: Submit a work order to ITB to determine if this functioncan be programmed into the existing RMS. As an alternative if atechnological solution cannot be implemented, develop policyrequiring detectives inform their supervisor of all new supplementsrelated to closed or pended cases. Establish this as a PMG goaland document compliance / non-compliance. Address non-

compliance as outlined in the Department Policy. Supervisors anddetectives will be trained on this new policy upon implementation.

Target Date:January 31,2012

Rec. 4.6: Develop and implement policy requiring periodic review of all open CACUcases to determine if additional investigative procedures are necessary based onrecent case activity.

Response: Develop and implement policy requiring periodic reviewof all open CACU cases to determine if additional investigativeprocedures are necessary.


Rec. 4.7: Comply with Police Department Operations Order 8.4 for changing offenseand ARS Assignment codes by updating the DR with the appropriate casemanagement codes (ARS, PCC, or radio code) which should reflect, as closely aspossible, the actual incident under investigation.

Response: FIB personnel will comply with Operations Order 8.4and document compliance/non-compliance in the supervisor'smonthly notes. Address non-compliance as outlined in theDepartment Policy.



10/27

Page viiiCity Auditor Department

Table of Contents

Executive Summary.................................................................................. i

Department Responses to Recommendations ...................................... iv

Table of Contents .................................................................................. viii

Background.............................................................................................. 1

Scope, Methods & Standards ................................................................. 1

Detailed Observations by Major Scope Areas:

1 CACU Detective Case Review .................................................... 32 CACU Supervisory Response from 2007 Memo ......................... 63 CACU Case Review.................................................................... 94 CACU Case Management Process Review .............................. 12

Attachment:Attachment A CACU Case Management Comparison ................. 17


11/27

Page 1City Auditor Department

Background

The Phoenix Police Department utilizes the Police Automated Computer Entry (PACE)Case Management System. PACE automates the access and update of departmentalreports, supplements, arrest records, and other department activities such as field

interrogation reports and vehicle impounds.

As defined in Police Department Operations Order 8.4, a Departmental Report (DR) isthe primary reporting document for recording any crime or incident having occurredwithin the City, either reported to the Department or observed by an officer.

Supplemental reports are generated to document additional information gathered in thefollow-up investigation.

The DR status reflects the progress or development of the case. Within CACU, thefollowing status types are used:

Open A report with an active investigation, which has a degree of solvability.

Pended Indicates investigative efforts have been exhausted and the case isbeing inactivated pending the development of further information.

Closed Indicates the case or incident has been concluded and no furtherinvestigation is required (all suspects have been identified, located, charged,etc.).

According to Police Department Operations Order 8.4, Information Only coding is tobe used for cases if no crime is articulated, there is doubt as to whether or not a crimehas occurred, or if the incident did not occur within the Citys jurisdiction.

Scope, Methods & Standards

Scope

We reviewed a sample of cases from January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2010 forthe former Detective who was the subject of the June 2007 PSB memo. Our reviewconsisted of 84 cases out of a total population of 290 cases. In our sample of 84, weincluded the 9 cases that were specifically identified in the June 2007 PSB memo.

We reviewed a sample of 260 cases from current CACU detectives that were assignedbetween June 1, 2009 and June 30, 2010. Our review consisted of 10 cases from eachof the 26 current CACU detectives.

We also reviewed the current CACU case management process, including qualitycontrol and review, case supplement management, and monitoring pended cases.


12/27


Methods

Reviewed the PACE Case Management System to determine total casepopulation and case classifications.

Reviewed 344 case histories from CACU detectives to determine adherence topolicy and standard practice.

Interviewed CACU lieutenant, sergeants and detectives to document currentcase management practices. Reviewed Police Department Operations Orders relevant to CACU, case

management, reporting and inspections. Reviewed applicable Family Investigations Bureau (FIB) Policy and Procedures

Manual. Reviewed applicable Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS). Reviewed other agencies manuals for standard practices.

Standards

We conducted this audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditingstandards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtainsufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings andconclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtainedprovides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our auditobjectives.


13/27


14/27


We reviewed a sample of 84 cases to determine if interview procedures, evidencecollection procedures, and case management practices complied with PoliceDepartment Operations Orders, FIB Manual or County Protocol policies. The followingtable summarizes the results of our case review:

Conducted / Documented

Per Policy

Not Per

Policy

Not

Applicable*Interviews 33% 60% 7%Evidence 49% 44% 7%

Case Management 17% 76% 7%Overall Completion of

Investigation**12% 81% 7%

*We did not review cases that were submitted for prosecution or cleared by arrest.**Overall completion of investigation was identified as not per policy if any element of the testing criteria(interviews, evidence, or case management) was not considered completed per policy.

As the table illustrates, of the 84 cases reviewed:

Interview ProceduresInterviews were not conducted in accordance with policy for fifty (60%) of the casesreviewed. Reports did not meet interview criteria because of missingsummarizations or impounds, all parties were not interviewed, or there was nodocumented activity in PACE.

Evidence CollectionReports did not meet evidence collection criteria in 37 (44%) of the cases reviewed.These included lack of summarization or impounding of medical results, or there wasno documented activity in PACE.

Case ManagementSixty-four (76%) of the cases reviewed did not meet the review criteria. Exceptionsnoted included the following:

cases were pended or closed before any or all interviews were completed;

cases were closed prematurely (e.g. further review needed due to suspectadmission);

one case was closed as a result of expired of statute of limitations;

open cases with PACE inactivity greater than one-year; and

the incorrect use of information only.

The use of Information Only was inconsistent with policy in 30% of the casestested. The incorrect use of this designation results in statistically under- orover-reporting incidents.We determined if the use of information only was consistent with policy based on thenarrative provided in the original DR, (any) supplemental reports, or case history.Information only was not used per policy in 25 (30%) of the 84 cases reviewed. Inmany of these cases, the report is classified as information only based on a victims


15/27


allegation that does not match the suspects statement and there is no corroboratingevidence. Nowhere in the reports narrative, does the former CACU Detective expressdoubt that a crime occurred. Examples of incorrect use of information only by theformer detective include the following:

A report where all parties were told by the former Detective that it would be

submitted to the County Attorneys Office for prosecution, but the Detective laterreclassified the case as information only and the case was not submitted forprosecution.

A report was classified as information only but no victim or suspect interviewswere conducted.

A report of a crime committed outside the Citys jurisdiction; the Detective shouldhave reclassified the report as information only.

A supplemental report where the Detective references a previous DR (which wasclassified as information only) where the Detective chose not to interview thesuspect as he believed he didnt have enough evidence to prove the allegation.However, just because I did not have sufficient evidence to proceed [sic] that

didnt mean that the allegation was false; it just meant it was unprovable [sic].

Based on the sample tested, it appears that the CACU Detective was notcompleting cases timely. There was also limited supervisory activity on opencases transferred after the Detectives retirement.Of 84 cases reviewed, the Detective had 39 (46%) cases that did not have any PACEdocumented activity for over a one-year period of time. The average period of inactivitywas approximately two years. The maximum length of time was almost six years andthis case was closed due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.

Upon the Detectives retirement, 61 open cases were transferred to the squad sergeant

as of June 28, 2010. No documented PACE activity occurred on 39 of those opencases for approximately one-year after the transfer happened. As of September 20,2011, all 39 cases have recorded activity as a result of recent CACU follow-up efforts.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommended improvements to supervisory and case management controls areaddressed in Observation No. 4. We further recommend the following:

1.1 CRTF reinvestigate all cases assigned to the Detective that fall within the statute oflimitations.

1.2 Define and document the use of information only and provide uniform training toprovide for consistent use throughout CACU and to aid in statistical reporting.

1.3 Investigate why no activity occurred for over a one-year period of time on 39 opencases transferred to the Sergeant upon the Detectives retirement.


16/27


2 CACU Supervisory Response from 2007 Memo

BACKGROUND

PSB performed a CACU case review in June 2007, where the PSB Detective

performing the review noted that a former CACU Detective did not appear to be properlymaintaining his assigned cases. The CACU Detective retired in June 2010 and a largenumber of his cases remained open. In June 2011, the same PSB Detective performeda follow-up on the 2007 review and observed that the former CACU Detectives casemanagement issues had not been resolved.

In addition to the June 2007 memo, we received a copy of an email sent in September2007 by a CACU Sergeant to his supervisor requesting a formal investigation into thissame Detectives performance. In the email, the Sergeantstated that he had alreadymade CACU supervision aware of numerous reports this Detective had failed toinvestigate.

RESULTS

Police supervision addressed the Detectives case management issues as aperformance issue. No formal policy or procedural changes were made.Based on our review the following actions were taken by CACU supervision:

October 2007: Detective received a performance review with an overall rating ofnot met;

January 2008: Detective received an unscheduled performance review. InFebruary of 2009 and February of 2010, he received scheduled performancereviews and all three reviews had an overall rating of met, although somecomments were made that case load and case management neededimprovement.

No formal policy or procedural changes were made within CACU as a result ofthe June 2007 memo or the September 2007 email.

February 2008: A FIB lieutenant issued a memo requiring that CACU sergeantsreview hardcopies of all DRs immediately upon the detective classifying them inPACE as pended or closed. However, there was no formalpolicy in the way ofPolice Department Operations Orders or FIB Bureau Manual policy requiring thatsergeants review all completed case histories and files, and that they documenttheir review.

PSBs Investigative Officer History report shows no formal complaints or investigativeactions for the Detective from date of hire through retirement. PMGs document that theDetectives problems with case management were noted prior to the June 2007 memo.Per PMG supervisory comments, the Detective was removed from case assignmentrotation and agreed to work overtime to aid in reducing his case load.


17/27


Current CACU supervision reported that unit detectives have a PMG goal of no morethan 40 open cases. Due to the lack of supervisory review of case status changes (seeObservation #4), cases could be inappropriately pended or closed to meet this goal.Once a case is pended or closed in PACE, it no longer displays in the detectives inboxor is statistically counted as an open case. If the detective does not track these casesin a separate document, additional case work could be delayed or may not be

performed.

Cases were Restricted to Detail outside standard practice.A case can be Restricted to Detail within PACE by a detective or supervisory staff.This action limits case access to employees who are assigned to the same investigativeunit. Restricting a case does not remove the case from any status or statistical counts.According to FIB policy, case restriction should be limited to high profile cases or thoseincidents involving city personnel.

CACU sergeants we interviewed indicated that "Restricted to Detail" is not standardpractice in CACU.

From January 1, 2007 through June 19, 2010, 194 CACU cases were placed inrestricted status. Of those 194 cases, 100 were assigned to the Detective. Ninety-nineof those 100 cases were placed into restricted status on December 20, 2007, by thesupervisory sergeant. As this sergeant has since retired and has not responded to FIBoutreach, we were unable to obtain an explanation of these actions. PSB will conductfurther review of this activity. The table below illustrates the spike in restricted DRs.


18/27


RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommended improvements to supervisory and case management controls areaddressed in Observation No. 4. We further recommend the following:

2.1 Train supervisory staff how to utilize PACE to assist in determining CACUs caseload and activity.

2.2 Limit use of Restricted to Detail to cases per FIB policy.

2.3 Reevaluate if limiting the number of open cases to 40 on detectives PMGs isbeneficial.


19/27


3 CACU Case Review

BACKGROUND

For the first six months of 2010, the CACU had approximately 1,600 assigned cases

distributed between four squads.

We identified and reviewed 260 cases assigned to current CACU detectives from June1, 2009 through June 30, 2010 to evaluate if investigations and case management weredocumented per policy and completed in a timely manner. Reviews conducted by bothCAD and PSB staff were compared and summarized. We did not include investigationsfor detectives who are no longer with the unit.

PSB will perform additional review of CACU detectives cases.

RESULTS

Of the CACU cases reviewed, 30% of cases were not completed in accordancewith policy.We applied the same audit test criteria to determine compliance with policy andprocedures in our review of a sample of current CACU cases, as we applied in ourreview of the former CACU Detectives cases. Our review focused on PACEdocumentation for the interview process, evidence collection and case management(status, clearance, use of information only, and timeliness).

Of the 260 CACU sample cases reviewed, 143 (55%) cases were completed inaccordance with policy. The following table summarizes the results of our case review:

Conducted / DocumentedPer Policy

Not PerPolicy

NotApplicable*

Interviews 67% 18% 15%Evidence 78% 7% 15%

Case Management 60% 25% 15%Overall Completion of

Investigation**55% 30% 15%

*We did not review those cases that were submitted for prosecution or cleared by arrest.**Overall completion of investigation was identified as not per policy if any element of the testing criteria(interviews, evidence, or case management) was not considered completed per policy.

As the table illustrates, of the 260 cases reviewed:

Interview ProceduresInterviews were not conducted in accordance with policy for 48 (18%) of thecases reviewed. Reports did not meet interview criteria because all parties werenot interviewed, no documented attempts were made to contact suspects, orthere was no documented PACE activity.


20/27


Evidence CollectionReports did not meet evidence collection criteria in 19 (7%) of the casesreviewed. These included lack of summarization or impounding of medicalresults, or there was no documented activity in PACE.

Case ManagementSixty-four (25%) of the cases reviewed did not meet the review criteria.Exceptions noted included the following:

Cases were pended or closed prematurely. For example:

cases were pended before all the interviews were completed or allidentified parties were contacted;

investigative work continued consistently for months on cases thatwere pended at or near the time they were assigned to the detective,indicating the cases should have remained open.

Duplicate reports were closed after originals were incorrectly closed;

Open cases were noted with PACE inactivity greater than one-year; and

The incorrect use of information only.

Comparisons were made between the former CACU Detective and other Unit detectivesbased on cases reviewed as reported in this audit. In all three categories, the formerCACU Detectives investigative process illustrated lack of compliance with policy. OtherUnit detectives cases reviewed showed room for improvement. See Attachment A CACU Case Management Comparisonof this report for charts illustrating the casemanagement comparisons.

There are no written policies to guide CACU staff in closing duplicate reports.

Three of the 11 (27%) original reports reviewed were not completed per policy.If a case was closed because it was a duplicate report, we reviewed the original (orreferenced) report to verify that the closure was appropriate. During this review,concerns were noted regarding duplicate reports case dispositions and original reportscase status.

Although all eleven duplicate reports were in a closed status, the case dispositiondiffered one was unfounded, three were information only, and seven were notreclassed. A defined practice would provide consistency in case management andwould address statistical counts of incidents.

In 3 of the 11 duplicate reports, detectives supplemented the original report referencingthe duplicate DR and its status. It is unknown if CACU detectives review the originalreport to ensure that the duplicate (or related) incident is included in the original prior toclosing either report. Reviews of the eleven original DRs revealed cases with nodocumented PACE activity; current notations of on-going investigation on a closed /information only 2009 case; and an incorrect closing of related reports.


21/27


22/27


4 CACU Case Management Process Review

We evaluated the effectiveness and supervisory control of the CACUs casemanagement process. Our analysis focused primarily on supervisory and casemanagement practices relevant to the control weaknesses identified in the preceding

observations in this report, including case quality control and review, case supplementmanagement, and monitoring pended cases. We also evaluated the adequacy of thesupervisory and case management documented policies and procedures. We identifiedthe CACUs supervisory and case management practices through inquiry with theCACU sergeants, review of pertinent documents, and other procedures.

RESULTS

Effective internal controls are not in place to ensure all closed and pended casesare reviewed and reviews are properly documented.

Effective internal controls are not in place to ensure that sergeants review allcompletedcases and to ensure their reviews are properly documented. Effective internal controlsto ensure all completed cases are reviewed and reviews are properly documented mayinclude:

Requiring that only the supervisory chain of command change a case status froman open status to a closed or pended status (this control may be applied througha PACE system (or PACE replacement system) automated function that allowsonly the supervisory chain of command to change a case status to closed orpended.)

Establishing formalpolicy in the FIB Bureau Manual requiring that sergeants:

review all completed case histories and files;

use the PACE query of closed or pended cases to track their reviews forthe purpose of ensuring that all cases have been reviewed; and

document their review in the case history.

CACU sergeants indicated they review cases after detectives have changed the casestatus in PACE to closed or pended, and they generate a PACE query of closed orpended cases to identify cases ready for review. The sergeants also indicated theyeither review the final supplements, the completed case files and the electronic PACEcase histories, or all case documents. However, the FIB Bureau Manual or PoliceDepartment Operations Orders do not require that sergeants document their review; thePACE system does not identify reviewed cases, and there are no automated PACE

system controls preventing a detective from closing or pending a case that has not beenreviewed.

A former FIB lieutenant issued a memo in 2008 requiring that CACU sergeants insistthat subordinates provide hardcopies of all DRs immediately upon classifying them inPACE as pended or closed, that sergeants review the DRs to ensure each case meetsthe classification in the Police Department Operations Orders and FIB Manual, and thatsergeants document the reviewed DR number in the employees notes.


23/27


The FIB lieutenants memo provides the only directive that sergeants are to reviewcompleted cases. There is no formalpolicy in the way of Department OperationsOrders or FIB Bureau Manual policy requiring that sergeants review all completed casehistories and files, and that they document their review.

Formal standard case review criteria have not been established that sergeants

are to apply when reviewing closed & pended cases.There is no formal standard review criteria (quality standards, investigative processrequirements, or case documentation requirements) that sergeants are required toapply when reviewing completed CACU cases submitted by detectives. Currently,sergeants apply review criteria they have developed individually based on their personalinvestigative experience, knowledge, and discretion.

Standard review criteria might include quality standards, investigative processrequirements, and case documentation requirements. The following internal controlprocedures may facilitate reviews in accordance with established standards:

Development of a checklist identifying standard review criteria that sergeants

follow when reviewing cases. Have sergeants sign and date the checklist when they complete their review and

have determined the review criteria are met.

The checklist may be automated in PACE (or in the PACE replacement system)that only sergeants may approve in PACE.

The checklists may be retained for the retention life of the case documents.

CACU case specific criteria have not been established to determine if a caseshould be closed or pended.Police Department Operations Orders identify general guidelines for assigning closedand pended status, however there are no established criteria specific to CACU cases

for determining whether cases should be closed or pended. Detectives and sergeantsmay change case status to closed or pended at their discretion and withoutconsideration of criteria specific to cases the CACU investigates.

Department Operations Orders provide the following guidelines for closing and pendingcases:

Closed: Indicates the case or incident has been concluded and no furtherinvestigation is required (all suspects, or a missing person, have been identified,located, and charged, etc.)

Pended: Indicates investigative efforts have been exhausted and the case isbeing inactivated pending the development of further information.

Established criteria will minimize risk that cases with further investigative potential areclosed and will promote accurate case management reporting. Established criteria mayinclude documentation and investigative process requirements specific to CACU cases.


24/27


Pended Cases are not monitored for further investigative potential.Pended cases are not monitored to determine if additional investigative procedures arenecessary based on recent case activity or if the case should be considered for closureif circumstances warrant. Monitoring pended cases to determine if investigativeprocedures or closure are warranted will promote prompt investigation of new evidence,timely conclusion of pended cases, and accurate case management reporting.

Procedures to facilitate review of pended cases might include:

Reviewing pended cases based on the likelihood of additional informationbecoming available in the future. This may be facilitated by requiring thatdetectives assign a pre-designated status to a case when it is pended that will beused to notify the detective in the future to analyze the case. Multiple statuslevels may be established that the detective can select from that correspondswith the likelihood of additional case information becoming available. Forexample, a certain status may identify cases needing review in 30 days, 90 days,six months or one year. An automated PACE (or PACE replacement system)function may be developed for identifying pended cases for additional analysis.

Reviewing pended cases when they become inactive.

Sergeants are not required to review closed & pended case supplements forinvestigative quality.Police Department Operations Orders permit sergeants to review at their discretion,new supplements to closed or pended cases. There are no CACU procedures requiringthat detectives inform their sergeants of new supplements to closed or pended cases asthe supplements are added to the case histories. Sergeants review of additionalinformation on a closed or pended case will help ensure adequate consideration of theinvestigative quality of the supplement.

Effective internal controls are not in place to ensure all open cases are monitoredfor adequate investigative progress.FIB policy requires that sergeants review a minimum of five cases for timeliness of thefollow-up investigation (as well as investigative techniques, adherence to clearancestandards, and overall report quality). Sergeants may perform a PACE query thatidentifies individual cases that have remained in a particular case status for a specifiednumber of days. Sergeants use this PACE query to monitor the status of casesassigned to detectives within their squad and to select the cases to review to complywith FIB policy requirements.

Family Investigation Bureau command staff is currently developing a Detective

Supervisors Monthly Inspection Report(DSMI Report) that Investigation Divisionsergeants will utilize to review a sample of closed, open and pended cases assigned todetectives in their unit. The review process is intended as a case quality control reviewto verify radio code and ARS assignment, report status, and verify investigation prioritytimelines, lab request submissions, and stolen property reviews. While the DSMIReport review process promotes quality review on a sample of cases, the reviewprocess does not facilitate a sergeants assessment of the investigation progress of all


25/27


cases. The DSMI Report review process may be implemented as soon as October2011.

Sound internal controls to facilitate periodic review of all open CACU cases to determineif additional investigative procedures are necessary might include implementation ofCACU policy requiring that:

Detectives periodically analyze all of their open cases to determine if additionalinvestigative procedures are necessary based on recent case activity, andrequiring that detectives file a supplement documenting their review.

Sergeants periodically scan a detectives entire population of open cases toidentify specific cases to analyze further. A PACE system (or PACE replacementsystem) aging report may be developed that would identify when supplementswere filed that sergeants can use to identify cases they will review.

CACUs criteria for changing offense and ARS Assignment Codes does not fullycomply with Police Department Operations Orders.Police Department Operations Orders provide the following instruction for assigning

offense and ARS Assignment Codes:

The assigned investigator will ensure each DR is updated with theappropriate case management codes (ARS, PCC, or radio code) whichshould reflect, as closely as possible, the actual incident underinvestigation.

In practice, the initial code assigned an offense is generally the code that remainsassigned to the case even if additional information is subsequently observed that wouldindicate that a different crime was committed as long as the actual crime is within thesame category of crime of the code initially entered. The only time a code is changed is

if the offense type changes (for example from a physical assault category to a sex crimecategory) or if the case was closed as information only.

Documented procedures do not exist that provide CACU personnel withcomprehensive case management policy and instruction.We analyzed current documented procedures to determine if they includecomprehensive supervisory and case management policy and instruction unique toCACU cases investigated by the CACU. Documented supervisory and casemanagement procedures consist of general policy provided in the Police DepartmentOperations Orders and Family Investigations Bureau Policies and Procedures Manual.These documented procedures do not include the policy suggestions identified in the

preceding observations that are unique to cases investigated by the CACU.

Comprehensive documented CACU case management procedures mandating theprocedural recommendations noted in this section is essential to a sound casemanagement program. Documented comprehensive procedures are an importantinternal control to clearly and consistently communicate managements policies andrequirements. They also serve as a valuable reference and training aid in developingnew employees.


26/27


RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Develop and implement internal controls to ensure that sergeants review allcompleted case histories and files before the case status is changed to a closed orpended status, and that sergeants document their review in the case history.

Establish formal documented (FIB Bureau Manual or Operations Orders) policymandating these review requirements.

4.2 Develop standard review criteria unique to CACU cases that sergeants are toapply when reviewing completed case histories and files submitted by detectives.

4.3 Establish standard criteria to serve as a guide for sergeants and detectives whendetermining if an open CACU case should be changed to a closed or pendedstatus.

4.4 Develop and implement policy requiring periodic review of pended CACU cases to

determine if additional investigative procedures are necessary based on recentcase activity or to determine if the case should be considered for closure ifcircumstances warrant.

4.5 Develop a formal CACU policy requiring that detectives inform their sergeant of allnew supplements on closed and pended CACU cases so that sergeants maydetermine if they will analyze the information for investigative quality. Inquire withthe Police Information Technology Bureau to determine if an automated functionmay be programmed in PACE (or the PACE replacement system) thatautomatically notifies sergeants of new closed and pended case supplements thatdetectives add to the case history.

4.6 Develop and implement policy requiring periodic review of all open CACU cases todetermine if additional investigative procedures are necessary based on recentcase activity.

4.7 Comply with Police Department Operations Order 8.4 for changing offense andARS Assignment codes by updating the DR with the appropriate casemanagement codes (ARS, PCC, or radio code) which should reflect, as closely aspossible, the actual incident under investigation.


27/27

Attachment A CACU Case Management Comparison

The charts below reflect comparisons between the CACU Detective and CACU basedon cases reviewed as reported in this audit. NA represents those cases that weresubmitted for prosecution or cleared by arrest.

family investigations audit

Documents