orlando police department criminal ... - cityoforlando.net · however the criminal intake unit...

ORLANDO POLICE DEPARTMENT

CRIMINAL INTAKE PROCESS AUDIT

Exit Conference Date: May 11, 2018 Release Date: June 14, 2018

Report No. 18-09

City of Orlando Office of Audit Services and Management Support

George J. McGowan, CPA

Director

Co-source Partner RSM

MEMORANDUM OF TRANSMITTAL

To: John Mina, Police Chief From: George J. McGowan, CPA Director, Office of Audit Services and Management Support

Dates: Exit Conference: May 11, 2018 Release: June 14, 2018

Subject: OPD Criminal Intake Process Audit (Report No. 18-09) In accordance with our annual plan, the Office of Audit Services and Management Support, with assistance from our co-source partner RSM, performed an audit of the processes and controls of the Criminal Intake Unit of the Orlando Police Department (OPD). The audit objectives were to perform an assessment of the intake process in an effort to understand the internal control design, opportunities for process improvements, and compliance with OPD and City policies and procedures.

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

The following report contains the issues identified during the audit, recommendations for improvement and management’s replies regarding actions taken/planned to be taken with respect to the identified issues. We would like to commend the Criminal Intake Unit for their admirable productivity and effective use of their limited resources. The unit staff members are some of the most knowledgeable and dedicated employees we have encountered in our time with the City of Orlando.

We appreciate the cooperation and courtesies extended by the management and staff of the Criminal Intake Unit and Police Support Services during the course of this audit.

GJM

c: The Honorable Buddy Dyer, Mayor

Jody Litchford, Deputy City Attorney Byron Brooks, Chief Administrative Officer Mark Canty, Police Deputy Chief Roger Brennan, Police Lieutenant

Claudio Rosado, Police Support Services Manager

Criminal Intake Internal Audit Report

April 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Scope and Objectives, Approach and Reporting .............................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Background ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Observations, Recommendations and Management’s Action Plans ................................................................................................................................................. 9

1 ©2015 RSM US LLP. All rights Reserved.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background The Criminal Intake unit is part of Police Support Services and is made up of two full-time employees. The unit performs several key functions for the Orlando Police Department (OPD), with a primary objective of compiling case files and submitting them to the State Attorney’s Office (SAO) for prosecution. The current processes around case package management are manual, relying heavily on hard copy source documents and physical couriering. A new case management software (LERMS) was implemented by OPD in 2016, however the Criminal Intake unit still relies on legacy system AS400 for tracking of case package submissions to the SAO. Data requests, commonly referred to as taskings, routed to Criminal Intake via the SAO also require manual gathering. Since the electronic records management functionality within LERMS has not yet been fully implemented, Criminal Intake must gather evidence and reports from various units through email requests or by physically collecting such records themselves. In acknowledgement of this manual nature, Internal Audit was engaged to assist in identifying opportunities for process improvements.

Overall Summary / Highlights The observations identified during our assessment are summarized on the next few pages. We have assigned relative risk or value factors to each observation. Risk ratings are the evaluation of the severity of the concern and the potential impact on the operations of each item. Starting on page 8, the detailed observations are listed including management action plans, estimated completion dates and responsible parties.

Summary of Observation Ratings

Number of Observations by Risk Rating

High Moderate Low

Criminal Intake Internal Audit 1 2 0

Fieldwork was performed from December 2017 through March 2018.

Thank you to all of the City team members who assisted us throughout this review.

Objective and Scope The primary scope and objectives of the audit were to perform an assessment of the City of Orlando’s Criminal Intake process in an effort to understand the internal control design, opportunities for process improvements, and instances of noncompliance with Department and / or City policies and procedures. The following were within the scope of our assessment: • Policies and procedures relevant to the criminal intake process; • Key controls for criminal information gathering, data entry into

information systems, documentation collection and retention, and communication/ documentation exchange with the State Attorney’s office; and

• Controls related to information systems utilized in the criminal intake process: o CAD / AS400 o LERMS o eDocs

We tested the work flow and supporting records of incidents on a sample basis for compliance with OPD policies and procedures, completeness and accuracy, efficient and effective transfer of data to the State Attorney, and opportunities for improvement. At the conclusion of our analysis, we summarized the result of our procedures into a report and conducted exit interviews with the Orlando Police Department and the Office of Audit Services to discuss the details of our findings.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – CONTINUED

Ratings and Conclusions The following section provides a summary of the observations identified. We have assigned relative risk ratings to each observation. This is the evaluation of the severity of the concern and the potential impact on operations. There are many areas of risk to consider including financial, operational, and/or compliance, as well as, public perception or ‘brand’ risk when determining the relative risk rating. Items are rated as High, Moderate, or Low.

• High Risk Items are considered to be of immediate concern and could cause significant issues when considering the above identified risk areas, if not addressed in a timely manner.

• Moderate Risk Items may also cause operational issues and do not require immediate attention, but should be addressed as soon as possible. • Low Risk Items could escalate into operational issues, but can be addressed through the normal course of conducting business.

The details of these observations are included within the Observations, Recommendations and Management’s Action Plan section of this report.

Ratings by Observation

Observations Rating

1. There is opportunity to strengthen monitoring controls around the completeness of case packages submitted to the State Attorney’s Office. High

2. Technology enhancements are required to support an efficient criminal intake process. Moderate

3. Policies and procedures governing the criminal intake process are not current and comprehensive. Moderate


SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES, APPROACH AND REPORTING

Scope and Objectives The primary scope and objectives of the audit were to perform an assessment of the City of Orlando’s Criminal Intake process in an effort to understand the internal control design, opportunities for process improvements, and to identify any instances of noncompliance with Department and / or City policies and procedures. The following were within the scope of our assessment:

• Policies and procedures relevant to the Criminal Intake process; • Key controls for criminal information gathering, data entry into information systems, documentation collection and retention, and communication/

documentation exchange with the State Attorney’s office; and • Controls related to information systems utilized in the Criminal Intake process:

o CAD / AS400 o LERMS o eDocs

Approach Our approach consisted of the following: Phase One: Gain an Understanding of the Process In the first phase, obtained copies of the Department’s procedure manuals, narratives and templates of pertinent documents utilized in the process. We then interviewed key personnel and documented our understanding of the process in an illustrative format using flow charts to depict the work flow. Phase Two: Process Efficiency, Risk and Control Assessment We worked with stakeholders and process owners to understand the risks within the process and mitigating controls in place related to those risks. We documented such risks and controls in a matrix and evaluated potential gaps in the controls and made recommendations accordingly.

• We also compared current processes to other relevant agencies; and • We assessed critical information systems for efficiencies and enhanced capabilities.

Phase Three: Tests of Operating Effectiveness We selected 60 cases from a LERMS case listing provided by OPD for the period January 1, 2017 through December 5, 2017. Our initial review of those sampled cases resulted in 15 cases being eliminated from the testing population due to a case package not being generated, which resulted in a total sampled population of 45. Case packages may not be created due to various reasons, including, but not limited to arrests made on a warrant for another municipality, case package is filed under an original case number, etc. For the remaining sampled cases we tested the following:

• Compliance with OPD policy and procedures; • Completeness and accuracy of data entry and supporting documentation related to each incident; • Proper document maintenance; • Efficient and effective transfer of data / documentation to the State Attorney’s office (through evaluation of the related tasking requests, as applicable to the

selected cases); and • Identify instances of noncompliance, control deficiencies, and opportunities for improvement.


SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES, APPROACH AND REPORTING - CONTINUED Reporting

At the conclusion of our analysis, we summarized the result of our procedures into a report and conducted exit interviews with the Orlando Police Department and the Office of Audit Services to discuss the details of our findings.


BACKGROUND

Orlando Police Department Criminal Intake The Criminal Intake unit is part of Police Support Services and is made up of two full-time employees, following the reporting structure depicted in the organizational chart below.

Citizens

City of OrlandoPolice Department Organizational Chart

Mayor

Chief Administrative Office

Police ChiefPolice Administration

Police Deputy ChiefSpecial Services

Bureau(234 FTE)

Police Deputy ChiefAdministrative Services

Bureau(147 FTE)

Police Deputy ChiefPatrol Services Bureau

(395 FTE)

Police Deputy ChiefInvestigative Services

Bureau(177 FTE)

Police Support Services(46 FTE)

Criminal Intake(2 FTE)

Training / Administration

(56 FTE)


BACKGROUND - CONTINUED The Criminal Intake unit performs several key functions for the Orlando Police Department (OPD), as described below and illustrated in the process map which follows. Case Packages and Taskings The Criminal Intake unit’s primary function is to process adult and juvenile arrest case packages prior to submitting the documents to the State Attorney’s Office (SAO). Case packages are generated by an officer following an arrest, and contain supporting records such as the charging affidavit, statements, reports, and other supplemental information. Once reviewed for completeness and accuracy by a Supervising Officer, the case package is routed to Criminal Intake where a log of the case package contents is recorded in the AS400 system. Criminal Intake also responds to additional case package information requests, known as taskings, from the SAO. Taskings require Criminal Intake to obtain case documents or evidence from various units within OPD, or to forward the request to the arresting officer. The unit submits more than 12,000 case packages to the State Attorney each year. Transporting Case Packages On a daily basis, the Criminal Intake staff transport the original case packages and hard copy tasking responses to the SAO. For safety consideration, both Criminal Intake employees transport the documents. The staff use a dedicated OPD vehicle to drive between their office at OPD Headquarters and the SAO location. LERMS Reports and Final Dispositions Criminal Intake reviews LERMS for cases which require further action by the officer. For a particular date range, Criminal Intake runs reports for the following case statuses: Inactive charges filed; warrant; and filing charges at large. For each case on the report, Criminal Intake researches the case status by referencing the officer’s report, the case status and history in AS400, the case status in the SAO’s records, and the case status in the Clerk of the Court’s records. Through this research, Criminal Intake identifies cases which require action items, such as warrants to be filed and case packages to be completed. Throughout the workday, the SAO emails the final disposition of active cases. The disposition includes the final outcome of the case and the date the case was closed. Criminal Intake updates the case record in LERMS on a daily basis.


BACKGROUND – CONTINUED Case Package Process – High Level Graphic Depiction

Case Package Process

Offi

cer

Supe

rvis

orR

epor

t Rev

iew

Crim

inal

Inta

keSt

ate

Atto

rney

City of Orlando – Police Department

Start

Dispatch or traffic stoprecorded in AS400

Creates reportin Mobile10

Couriers case package to State/ Juvenile Attorney

Log taskinginto AS400

Review taskfor completion

Sends taskingvia Email

Approves reportin Mobile10

Merges and codesreport in LERMS

Assign tasking

Creates Case Package

ApprovesCase Package

Prepares case

Officer responds, arrest if necessary

Gathers information/evidence requested

Review and log casePackage into AS400

End

End


BACKGROUND – CONTINUED As illustrated by the below chart, the majority of Criminal Intake resource time is allocated to the completion of case packages and taskings. The timely submission of complete and accurate case data to the State Attorney’s Office is a mandatory step in the criminal sentencing process, demanding the constant attention and expertise of Criminal Intake professionals. Given the high volume of annual arrests within the City of Orlando, police officers and detectives have become increasingly burdened by the paperwork requirements of each case file - making the quality assurance and review function provided by Criminal Intake even more necessary and valuable. The quality assurance procedures over case file submissions which Criminal Intake performs ensure that all criminal offenses are prosecuted appropriately, contributing to the overall safety of the community.

63%25 hours13%

5 hours

25%10 hours

Weekly Breakdown of Criminal Intake ActivitiesBased on 40 Staff Hours per Week

Case Packages and Taskings

Transporting Case Packages

LERMS Reports and Final Dispositions


OBSERVATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND MANAGEMENT’S ACTION PLAN

Observation 1. There is opportunity to strengthen monitoring controls around the completeness of case packages submitted to the State Attorney’s Office.

High The manual nature and transaction processing requirements of the case submission process undermines Criminal Intake’s ability to mature its quality control function. Under the current resource constraints, there is no performance of a detective control which identifies cases that have not been submitted timely to Criminal Intake. 17 out of 45 sampled case packages (38%) were not submitted to Criminal Intake within the timeframe required per policy 1206.6 given the charge type, and an additional 1 case (2%) was never submitted at all. Criminal Intake could enhance their quality assurance procedures by reviewing a system generated aging report to pro-actively identify and follow up on outstanding cases nearing the submission due date.

There is further opportunity to strengthen Criminal Intake’s quality assurance function by implementing a formal control mechanism to track and monitor outstanding SAO tasking requests. Results of case package sample testing evidence the need for such monitoring - 13 out of 40 sampled taskings (33%) lacked recorded evidence of a response and 7 out of 40 (17%) were completed after the due date requested by the SAO. Additionally, a tasking request was made on the one case package noted above as never being received by Criminal Intake. The tasking was not addressed and case data was not submitted to the SAO - the charges were ultimately dropped due to lack of evidence.

The absence of monitoring controls around the completeness of case package submissions increases the risk that the required evidence will not be provided to the State Attorney’s Office in time to prosecute.

Recommendation With the implementation of technology enhancements discussed at observation two below, there is opportunity to minimalize the manual processing requirements of Criminal Intake’s resources. Decreasing the processing efforts would allow Criminal Intake to focus on the quality assurance role, leveraging the department’s existing experience and knowledge to ensure that the case packages and tasking responses submitted to the SAO are complete and accurate.

The quality assurance process performed by Criminal Intake should incorporate detective controls (periodic reviews) around the completeness of case package submissions. Such controls will serve to identify and track case files not yet received by Criminal Intake but nearing the policy deadline, and taskings which are overdue or nearing the deadline.


OBSERVATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND MANAGEMENT’S ACTION PLAN – CONTINUED

Observation 1. There is opportunity to strengthen monitoring controls around the completeness of case packages submitted to the State Attorney’s Office (continued).

Management Action Plan

Response: In response to the findings presented at this report, Criminal Intake agrees to 1.) Update current OPD policy to simplify deadlines for APS packages submitted to Criminal Intake; 2.) Create a SOP for the Criminal Intake Unit; and 3.) Explore scanning options to streamline APS submission.

Responsible Party: The Criminal Intake Unit will team together with the Police Legal Advisor, the patrol Services Bureau, and Information Technology to implement the action plan outlined above.

Estimated Completion Date: The action plan is expected to be completed within 6 months, by the end of 2018.



Observation 2. Technology enhancements are required to support an efficient criminal intake process.

Moderate A lack of systems integration, automated workflows, and electronic records retention prevents the maturation of the Criminal Intake process.

System integration among the applications used by the Clerk of Court, the SAO, and OPD is currently absent and prohibits timely identification of impactful changes to case status. For example, if a suspect pleads guilty at the initial court appearance, a case package is not required by the SAO. However, Criminal Intake still expends time to work the case package as the change in requirement is not known.

Further evidence of the need for real-time communication between OPD systems and SAO or Clerk of Court systems is seen in the results of case package sample testing. For 4 out of 45 sampled cases (9%), missing data which should have been provided by the Clerk of Court prevented Criminal Intake from submitting the case package to the SAO within 1 business day. (Note: While the policy does not specify the timeline for submissions to the SAO, we identified during our walkthrough procedures that Criminal Intake's practice is to submit case packages to the SAO within 1 business day.) Automated data exchanges would facilitate Criminal Intake’s ability to timely obtain the necessary case file inputs.

During process walkthroughs, we observed that Criminal Intake manually delivers case packages to the SAO on a daily basis. This process takes an average of two hours per day. This is attributable to a lack of automated data exchanges. Automating Criminal Intake’s manual delivery of files to the SAO would generate time savings.

The lack of automation also makes the tasking process challenging and inefficient, as seen in the 7 out of 40 sampled taskings (18%) which were not completed by the due date specified by the SAO. Per OPD policy, the Supervisor is the designated owner of a tasking relevant to a case reviewed by that Supervisor. However, all tasking requests are sent to Criminal Intake who manually disseminate and track the requests. An automated workflow between integrated SAO and OPD systems would align accountability with the appropriate personnel and send notifications as the SAO due date approaches. Furthermore, having electronic copies of case file data, which could be independently retrieved by the SAO via integration of systems access, would significantly reduce the number of tasking requests.

Recommendation OPD should continue to work towards implementing the proposed future state IT environment. The future state plans include migrating the AS400 CAD (dispatch) module to a LERMS CAD module (2018 priority). Next, use of the electronic records management module within LERMS will be adopted and Officers will upload all case paperwork via scanners (2019). All of the LERMS modules and the Mobile 10 field reporting software system used by OPD are built and supported by the Tyler vendor. The Tyler vendor also supports the Clerk of Court system and the SAO system, which will allow for systems integration and automated data exchanges with OPD (2019).

As the above noted technology solutions are not planned to be completed prior to the start of 2020, OPD should identify interim solutions to alleviate the manual nature of the Criminal Intake process. Focused systems training covering how to query LERMS and how to input case management data fields (such as the listing of documents provided to SAO and the date submitted) is advised.

OPD should consider using the internal courier to pick up case packages from Criminal Intake and deliver them to the SAO (the OPD internal courier already performs the initial case package delivery to Criminal Intake.)



Observation 2. Technology enhancements are required to support an efficient criminal intake process (continued).


See management’s response to the aggregated findings at observation one.



Observation 3. Policies and procedures governing the criminal intake process are not current and comprehensive.

Moderate Based on discussions, walkthroughs, and observations with OPD personnel, the written policies that OPD has are not reflective of all Criminal Intake activities including processing case packages, working taskings, and performing completeness checks. Due to the fact that the execution of these procedures is reliant upon the knowledge and experience of two employees, when one employee is absent, the timeliness of these procedures is impacted. Additionally, without current and comprehensive procedures, it may be difficult to effectively transition and execute these responsibilities in the event of extended absence, leave, or termination of the respective employees.

Review of Filing Cases Policy 1202.6 and discussion with key process owner noted the following policy gaps:

• Officer Review – The policy currently does not require the officer to sign the Filing Checklist as preparer. As a result, there is no record of the date at which the case file was submitted to the Supervisor and adherence to policy cannot be validated.

• Supervisor Review – The policy narrative and Filing Checklist information do not agree. While the Filing Checklist shows the five case package types and the supervisor review timeline for each, the narrative does not reference at-large or warrant cases. The narrative also does not specify the start date of the supervisor’s review per case type.

• Case Package Processing Procedures – Procedures do not describe Criminal Intake’s responsibilities for processing and tracking case packages, including:

o Level of review to be completed/attributes of the review o Logging case package data (in LERMS) o Timeline for SAO submission o Completeness checks (see Observation 1 above)

• Tasking Procedures – The policy does not reflect current practices or describe Criminal Intake’s responsibilities for processing and tracking taskings, including:

o The policy currently references the use of a routing slip for taskings, to be signed by the officer and supervisor. Routing sheets are not used in current practice. Rather, taskings received by email from the SAO are forwarded by Criminal Intake to the officer, supervisor, and lieutenant, or to the appropriate responding department.

o Logging tasking data o Due date requirements o Completeness checks (see Observation 1 above)

• Case Package Contents – The policy currently requires the criminal history to be provided as a component of the case package. However, the SAO has access to the criminal history and often obtains this information independently. This creates a duplicative effort for OPD.



Observation 3. Policies and procedures governing the criminal intake process are not current and comprehensive (continued).

Recommendation Subsequent to our review, OPD updated Policy 1202.6 to clarify the tasking process. It is recommended that OPD update current version 1202.7 with the policy gaps identified above. The policy should explicitly identify exceptions to prescribed deadlines for causes that are outside of OPD’s control (such as lack of complete data from the Clerk of Court). Additionally, Criminal Intake should document its standard operating procedures to reflect current case review procedures, tasking practices, completeness checks, and data entry procedures. As OPD implements its future state IT environment and modifies operational processes accordingly, the documented policies and standard operating procedures should be updated.


See management’s response to the aggregated findings at observation one.

©2015 RSM US LLP. All rights Reserved.

RSM US LLP www.rsmus.com

This document contains general information, may be based on authorities that are subject to change, and is not a substitute for professional advice or services. This document does not constitute audit, tax, consulting, business, financial, investment, legal or other professional advice, and you should consult a qualified professional advisor before taking any action based on the information herein. RSM US LLP, its affiliates and related entities are not responsible for any loss resulting from or relating to reliance on this document by any person. RSM US LLP is a limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of RSM International, a global network of independent audit, tax and consulting firms. The member firms of RSM International collaborate to provide services to global clients, but are separate and distinct legal entities that cannot obligate each other. Each member firm is responsible only for its own acts and omissions, and not those of any other party. Visit rsmus.com/aboutus for more information regarding RSM US LLP and RSM International. RSM® and the RSM logo are registered trademarks of RSM International Association. The power of being understood® is a registered trademark of RSM US LLP. ©2015 RSM US LLP. All Rights Reserved.

orlando police department criminal ... - cityoforlando.net · however the criminal intake unit...

Documents