FINAL Audit Cover Sheet

N3039

Description

L O S A N G E L E S P O L I C E C O M M I S S I O NL O S A N G E L E S P O L I C E C O M M I S S I O NREVIEW OF AUDIT DIVISION’SGANG ENFORCEMENT DETAILWORK PRODUCT ASSESSMENTSUMMARYConducted byOFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERALANDRÉ BIROTTE, JR.Inspector GeneralDecember 28, 2005OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERALREVIEW OF AUDIT DIVISION’S GANG ENFORCEMENT DETAILWORK PRODUCT ASSESSMENT SUMMARYFISCAL YEAR 2005/2006PURPOSEThe Office of the Inspector General (OIG) performed an “executive level” review of AuditDivision’s Gang Enforcement Detail (GED) Work Product Assessment Summary Report(Report). Audit Division performed the assessment to meet the audit mandates of ConsentDecree paragraph 131 (f) and (g). Those mandates require Audit Division to examine therelationships of GED officers working together under particular supervisors to determinewhether additional investigation is needed to identify “at-risk” practices. Also, the mandatesrequire Audit Division to draw a conclusion regarding the GED’s adherence to the law, the LosAngeles Police Department’s (Department) policies and procedures, and the Consent Decree;and recommend a course of action to correct any identified deficiencies. Because the assessment1only provided a summary of the results from five Consent Decree audits and four Command2Accountability Performance Audits (CAPAs) and drew no conclusions, the OIG performed an“executive level” review of the Report, instead of a more detailed review ...

Informations

• Publié par: Assa
• Nombre de lectures: 14
• Langue: English

Extrait

Conducted by

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

R

R

E

E

V

V

I

I

E

E

W

W

O

O

F

F

A

A

U

U

D

D

I

I

T

T

D

D

I

I

V

V

I

I

S

S

I

I

O

O

N

N

’

’

S

S

G

G

A

A

N

N

G

G

E

E

N

N

F

F

O

O

R

R

C

C

E

E

M

M

E

E

N

N

T

T

D

D

E

E

T

T

A

A

I

I

L

L

W

W

O

O

R

R

K

K

P

P

R

R

O

O

D

D

U

U

C

C

T

T

A

A

S

S

S

S

E

E

S

S

S

S

M

M

E

E

N

N

T

T

S

S

U

U

M

M

M

M

A

A

R

R

Y

Y

L

OS

A

NGELES

P

OLICE

C

OMMISSION

December 28, 2005

ANDRÉ BIROTTE, JR.

Inspector General

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

REVIEW OF AUDIT DIVISION’S GANG ENFORCEMENT DETAIL

WORK PRODUCT ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

FISCAL YEAR 2005/2006

PURPOSE

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) performed an “executive level” review of Audit

Division’s Gang Enforcement Detail (GED) Work Product Assessment Summary Report

(Report).

Audit Division performed the assessment to meet the audit mandates of Consent

Decree paragraph 131 (f) and (g).

Those mandates require Audit Division to examine the

relationships of GED officers working together under particular supervisors to determine

whether additional investigation is needed to identify “at-risk” practices.

Also, the mandates

require Audit Division to draw a conclusion regarding the GED’s adherence to the law, the Los

Angeles Police Department’s (Department) policies and procedures, and the Consent Decree;

and recommend a course of action to correct any identified deficiencies.

Because the assessment

only provided a summary of the results from five Consent Decree audits

1

and four Command

Accountability Performance Audits (CAPAs)

2

and drew no conclusions, the OIG performed an

“executive level” review of the Report, instead of a more detailed review.

Audit Division’s Report identified/summarized the number of GED officers and supervisors with

multiple instances of non-compliance with Consent Decree paragraphs.

3

The Report further

stated that an additional and more detailed analysis of certain work products is essential to draw

conclusions regarding possible patterns of “at risk” practices that may exist within any of the

GEDs.

SCOPE

The “executive level” review entailed tracing the various figures in the Report to Audit

Division’s supporting work paper schedules, and reviewing the Report for clarity and

presentation.

RESULTS

Tracing of the Figures in the Report

Overall, the figures in Audit Division’s Report were accurate, in that they agreed with Audit

Division’s supporting work paper schedules.

A few minor errors were noted in the Report’s

figures for the recurrences and patterns, and the OIG communicated those errors to Audit

Division.

1

The five Consent Decree audits were the Arrest, Booking and Charging Reports Audit; Confidential Informant

Control Package Audit; Motor Vehicle and Pedestrian Stops Data Collection Audit; Non-Categorical Use of Force

Reports Audit; and Warrant Applications and Supporting Affidavits Audit.

2

The four CAPAs included the Areas of Newton, Wilshire, West Los Angeles, and Hollywood.

3

The commanding officers of the various Areas were previously notified of the officers and supervisors with

instances of non-compliance in the various Consent Decree audits and CAPAs, so the commanding officers were not

again communicated this same information after Audit Division’s assessment.

Review of Audit Division’s GED Work Product Assessment Summary

Page 2 of 2

1.0

Review of the Report for Clarity and Presentation

Overall, the OIG found Audit Division’s Report to be clear and well presented; however, the

following clarity and presentation issues were noted:

•

The OIG would have preferred that the Report indicate that one Area’s CAPA results can not

be precisely compared to another Area’s CAPA results, because the audit programs, scopes,

and test months could be somewhat different.

Furthermore, the Areas’ operations and

predominant types of crimes may vary considerably.

•

The OIG would have preferred that the Report indicate the tentative time frame for

completing the CAPAs for the remaining 15 Areas.

•

Table Nos. 2, 3 and 4 could have more clearly presented the results for Newton, Wilshire,

West Los Angeles, and Hollywood, since these four Areas had instances of non-compliance

for both the Consent Decree audits and CAPAs.

In contrast, the other Areas/Divisions had

instances of non-compliance only for the Consent Decree audits, since their CAPAs had not

yet been performed.

To present the results more clearly, the OIG would have preferred that

these Tables include separate columns for the Consent Decree audit “number of instances”

and the CAPA “number of instances.”

Additionally, the total number of work products

reviewed for each Area/Division could have been indicated.

4

This information would help

put the total number of instances of non-compliance for each Area/Division in perspective.

•

The OIG would have preferred that the Report elaborate as to what the “more detailed

analysis of work product” would involve and the tentative time frame for completing this

analysis.

As some GED officers and supervisors were identified as authorizing or approving

work products with multiple instances of Consent Decree non-compliance, there may be a

“sense of urgency” for completing this analysis to determine if a pattern of conduct exists.

5

CONCLUSION

The Report clearly stated that Audit Division’s work involved an assessment summary, not an

audit, and that more work in the future was necessary to analyze GED officers and supervisors

with multiple instances of Consent Decree non-compliance.

Therefore, the OIG withholds a

determination as to whether Audit Division met the mandates of Consent Decree paragraph 131

(f) and (g).

Overall, the figures in the Report were accurate and the Report was clear and well

presented.

4

For example, the total number of arrest packages for each CAPA could have been indicated.

This would have

given the Report reader an overall sense of each audit’s scope.

5

Audit Division advised that they are currently developing a database and related methodology to identify and

analyze the officers and supervisors with high-risk non-compliance recurrences, but they had not yet set a time

frame for completing this more detailed analysis.