Sei sulla pagina 1di 27

Family Investigations Bureau Review

Police Department

October 20, 2011 Project Team:


Irene Larkin, Deputy City Auditor Sara LeBeau, Internal Auditor Aaron Cook, Internal Auditor Carl Wright, Internal Auditor Professional Standards Bureau, Inspections Unit Personnel
Project Number: 3120007

City Auditor Department


Bill Greene Acting City Auditor
City of Phoenix City Auditor Department 17 S. 2nd Avenue, Suite 200 Phoenix, AZ 85003
This report can be made available in alternate format upon request. More information: 602-262-6641 (voice) or 602-534-5500 (TTY)

Family Investigations Bureau Review Executive Summary


PURPOSE
At the request of the Police Chief and the City Managers Office, the City Auditor Department (CAD) directed a team that reviewed case management practices within the Family Investigations Bureau, Crimes Against Children Unit (CACU). The team addressed concerns that a former Detective assigned to that Unit did not properly maintain his assigned cases. The team also reviewed a sample of current CACU detectives cases and determined if quality case management protocols exist. The team 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 concluded a CACU Detective did not appear to be properly maintaining his assigned cases. In the memo, the PSB Detective identified nine cases that the Detective believed required further review. In June 2011, the same PSB Detective performed a follow-up on the 2007 review and observed that the CACU Detectives case management issues had not been resolved. The CACU Detective retired in June 2010 and a large number of his cases remained open. The current CACU supervisors were notified of the PSB Detectives 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. The audit included testing a sample of the CACU Detectives cases to determine if case management was in compliance with procedures, and reviewing what actions the Police Department took as a result of the findings detailed in the June 2007 PSB memo. The team also reviewed a sample of all current CACU detectives cases for adherence to investigative protocols, including case classifications and timely actions. In addition, the team reviewed overall CACU supervisory and case management practices to verify compliance with key practices and procedures and identify areas for improvement. As a result of the performance issues identified through this audit and other recent case reviews, the Police Department formed an internal Case Review Task Force (CRTF) to review all cases assigned to the former Detective that still fall within the statute of limitations. The CRTF will determine whether the investigations were conducted thoroughly and as necessary, recommend further investigation efforts. Police personnel will provide case reviews to the County Attorneys Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to determine if any criminal or civil rights violations were committed and ensure appropriate action is taken. Similarly, if any misconduct issues are identified, the Police Departments Professional Standards Bureau Investigations Unit will observe standard department protocols and initiate an internal investigation.

Page i

City Auditor Department

RESULTS IN BRIEF
REVIEW OF THE FORMER CACU DETECTIVES CASES Overall, 81% of the former Detectives cases reviewed did not follow case management policy or procedures and likely lacked sufficient supervisory review. No formal policy or procedural changes were made within CACU after the performance issues were raised in June 2007. Additionally, the former Detectives open cases that were transferred to CACU supervisory personnel after the Detectives retirement received limited attention. Our case review focused on evaluating if documented evidence within the Police Automated Computer Entry (PACE) system supported that investigatory elements, including the interview process, evidence collection and case management, were conducted in accordance with policy. Examples of investigations 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 addressed through a written evaluation (Performance Management Guide (PMG)) by CACU supervision. After receiving a not met on his October 2007 PMG, the Detective was removed from case assignment rotation and worked overtime to aid in reducing his case load. The Detective then received overall ratings of met for following PMGs, although supervisory comments noted that case management still needed improvement. Sixty-one open cases were transferred upon the Detectives retirement to supervisory staff; 39 of those cases remained open and showed no evidence of investigation efforts for approximately one-year. As of September 20, 2011, all 39 open cases had case management activity recorded in PACE as a result of CACU follow-up efforts. REVIEW OF CURRENT CACU CASES Of the CACU cases reviewed, 30% did not follow case management policy or procedures. CACU cases we identified that did not follow policy included similar policy deviations to those of the retired CACU Detectives cases, just not as numerous. Examples of investigations deemed non-compliant included not interviewing all parties, lack of documentation supporting attempts to contact suspects, missing summarization or impounding of medical results, pending or closing cases prematurely, incorrectly using information only and having open cases with PACE inactivity for greater than one year.

Page ii

City Auditor Department

CACU CASE MANAGEMENT PROCESS REVIEW Internal controls are not in place to ensure all completed cases are reviewed and reviews are properly documented. Supervisory review of all completed 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 FIB Bureau Manual nor the Police Departments Operations Orders require that CACU sergeants review all completed cases or that they document their review, and there are no automated PACE system controls preventing a detective from closing or pending a case that has not been reviewed. Sound internal controls might include establishing formal (FIB Bureau Manual or Operations Orders) policy and implementing related controls requiring that sergeants review all completed 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 monitor open cases will help prevent case neglect and facilitate comprehensive case management oversight. Current CACU procedures do not facilitate monitoring of open CACU cases for adequate investigative progress. Current FIB policy requires that sergeants review 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 are necessary based on recent case activity, and requiring that detectives file a supplement documenting their review. Implementation of CACU policy requiring that sergeants periodically analyze a detectives entire population of open cases to identify specific cases to analyze further. Development of a PACE system aging report identifying when supplements were filed that sergeants can use to identify cases they will review. Pended cases are not monitored for further investigative potential. Pended case monitoring procedures will promote prompt investigation of new evidence and timely closure of pended cases. Pended CACU cases are not monitored to determine if additional investigative procedures are necessary based on recent case activity or if the case should be considered for closure if circumstances warrant. Monitoring pended cases to determine if investigative procedures or closure are warranted will promote prompt investigation of new evidence, timely conclusion of pended cases, and accurate case management reporting. The following section includes our recommendations and the departments response.

Page iii

City Auditor Department

Department Responses to Recommendations


NOTE: This table will be completed after the responses are received by the department. The complete table will appear in the final audit report. Rec. 1.1: CRTF reinvestigate all cases assigned to the Detective that fall within the statute of limitations. Response: The CRTF was developed consisting of one sergeant, six detectives, and one police assistant. Approximately 2,500 reports were identified from the retired Detective and are currently being reinvestigated based on statute of limitations. Target Date: September 30, 2012

Rec. 1.2: Define and document the use of information only and provide uniform training to provide for consistent use throughout CACU and to aid in statistical reporting. Response: Follow current policy as listed in the Operations Orders. Brief all investigative CACU squads and increase monitoring compliance with bureau and department policy. Document compliance/non-compliance in monthly supervisory notes. Address non-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 39 open cases transferred to the Sergeant upon the Detectives retirement. Response: Investigation initiated by Professional Standards Bureau Investigations Unit. Target Date: January 31, 2012

Rec. 2.1: Train supervisory staff how to utilize PACE to assist in determining CACUs case load and activity. Response: FIB CACU supervisory staff will be trained by experienced PACE trainers to assist in determining case load and activity. Rec. 2.2: Limit use of Restricted to Detail to cases per FIB policy. Response: Follow policy on restricting DRs; reserve this function for Target Date: high profile cases only. November 30, 2011 Target Date: June 30, 2012

Page iv

City Auditor Department

Rec. 2.3: Reevaluate if limiting the number of open cases to 40 on detectives PMGs is beneficial. Response: Review current standard and determine effectiveness and then make appropriate revisions to Bureau Manual policy if needed. Target Date: March 31, 2012

Rec. 3.1: Determine if medical records and interviews for cases that are closed and classified as information only should be impounded (dependent if this material is immediately released for destruction) and include in written procedures. Response: Meet with Maricopa County Attorneys Office to determine if medical records and forensic interviews should be impounded on reports classified as information only. Require detectives to review property purge policies. Document compliance / non-compliance in monthly notes; address non-compliance as outlined in the Department Policy. Target Date: April 30, 2012

Rec. 3.2: Define how duplicate reports should be classified (status and disposition) as this can determine if an incident is counted twice statistically (original and duplicate). Determine if original reports should be supplemented noting the duplication, and if detectives should review the original report to ensure the duplicate or related incident is addressed. Response: Create policy and establish that a duplicate report will be closed as unfounded and the reason supplemented. This will occur after a review of both the duplicate and original reports is completed by the supervisor. The reviews will be documented in Case Management. Supervisors and detectives will be trained on this new policy upon implementation. Target Date: December 31, 2011

Rec. 3.3: Perform additional review on three original reports referenced via duplicate departmental reports that appear questionable. Response: Assign a supervisor to review the three reports to determine if they were properly investigated. Document investigative actions in PACE Case Management. Target Date: December 31, 2011

Page v

City Auditor Department

Rec. 4.1: Develop and implement internal controls to ensure that sergeants review all completed case histories and files before the case status is changed to a closed or pended status, and that sergeants document their review in the case history. Establish formal documented (FIB Bureau Manual or Operations Orders) policy mandating these review requirements. Response: Define and implement procedures within the Bureau Manual to ensure detectives notify their supervisor of all cases that are pended or closed. Define and implement policy to ensure supervisors receive notification and approve a case change to pended or closed from detectives before status change in made by the assigned detective. Supervisor will document their review in the case history. Target Date: March 31, 2012

Rec. 4.2: Develop standard review criteria unique to CACU cases that sergeants are to apply when reviewing completed case histories and files submitted by detectives. Response: Develop a standard review criteria checklist based on approved policies and MCAO protocols. Include the standard review criteria checklist in the FIB manual. Target Date: March 31, 2012

Rec. 4.3: Establish standard criteria to serve as a guide for sergeants and detectives when determining if an open CACU case should be changed to a closed or pended status. Response: Develop a standard review criteria checklist based on approved policies and MCAO protocols. Include the standard review criteria checklist in the FIB manual. Target Date: March 31, 2012

Rec. 4.4: Develop and implement policy requiring periodic review of pended CACU cases to determine if additional investigative procedures are necessary based on recent case activity or to determine if the case should be considered for closure if circumstances warrant. Response: Develop and implement policy requiring periodic review of pended CACU cases to determine if additional investigative procedures are necessary. Target Date: June 30, 2012

Page vi

City Auditor Department

Rec. 4.5: Develop a formal CACU policy requiring that detectives inform their sergeant of all new supplements on closed and pended CACU cases so that sergeants may determine if they will analyze the information for investigative quality. Inquire with the Police Information Technology Bureau to determine if an automated function may be programmed in PACE (or the PACE replacement system) that automatically notifies sergeants of new closed and pended case supplements that detectives add to the case history. Response: Submit a work order to ITB to determine if this function can be programmed into the existing RMS. As an alternative if a technological solution cannot be implemented, develop policy requiring detectives inform their supervisor of all new supplements related to closed or pended cases. Establish this as a PMG goal and document compliance / non-compliance. Address noncompliance as outlined in the Department Policy. Supervisors and detectives 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 CACU cases to determine if additional investigative procedures are necessary based on recent case activity. Response: Develop and implement policy requiring periodic review of all open CACU cases to determine if additional investigative procedures are necessary. Target Date: June 30, 2012

Rec. 4.7: Comply with Police Department Operations Order 8.4 for changing offense and ARS Assignment codes by updating the DR with the appropriate case management codes (ARS, PCC, or radio code) which should reflect, as closely as possible, the actual incident under investigation. Response: FIB personnel will comply with Operations Order 8.4 and document compliance/non-compliance in the supervisor's monthly notes. Address non-compliance as outlined in the Department Policy. Target Date: November 30, 2011

Page vii

City 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 .................................................... 3 2 CACU Supervisory Response from 2007 Memo ......................... 6 3 CACU Case Review.................................................................... 9 4 CACU Case Management Process Review .............................. 12 Attachment: Attachment A CACU Case Management Comparison ................. 17

Page viii

City Auditor Department

Background
The Phoenix Police Department utilizes the Police Automated Computer Entry (PACE) Case Management System. PACE automates the access and update of departmental reports, 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) is the primary reporting document for recording any crime or incident having occurred within the City, either reported to the Department or observed by an officer. Supplemental reports are generated to document additional information gathered in the follow-up investigation. The DR status reflects the progress or development of the case. Within CACU, the following 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 is being inactivated pending the development of further information. Closed Indicates the case or incident has been concluded and no further investigation is required (all suspects have been identified, located, charged, etc.). According to Police Department Operations Order 8.4, Information Only coding is to be used for cases if no crime is articulated, there is doubt as to whether or not a crime has 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 for the former Detective who was the subject of the June 2007 PSB memo. Our review consisted of 84 cases out of a total population of 290 cases. In our sample of 84, we included 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 assigned between June 1, 2009 and June 30, 2010. Our review consisted of 10 cases from each of the 26 current CACU detectives. We also reviewed the current CACU case management process, including quality control and review, case supplement management, and monitoring pended cases.

Page 1

City Auditor Department

Methods

Reviewed the PACE Case Management System to determine total case population and case classifications. Reviewed 344 case histories from CACU detectives to determine adherence to policy and standard practice. Interviewed CACU lieutenant, sergeants and detectives to document current case 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 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.

Page 2

City Auditor Department

1 CACU Detective Case Review


BACKGROUND
Criteria used to determine if case management was in adherence to policy and procedures came from Police Department Operations Orders, FIB Manual, and Multidisciplinary Protocol for the Investigation of Child Abuse developed by the Maricopa County Childrens Justice Project. The review focused on documentation of the interview process, evidence collection and case management (status, clearance, use of information only, and timeliness). The interview process was determined complete if the following information was documented within PACE: audio / video recordings of all victim(s), suspect(s), and witnesses were conducted, impounded, and summarized / transcribed. It was considered acceptable if an interview attempt was documented. Evidence collection was considered complete if PACE documentation existed noting the summarization and impound of medical examinations (when necessary) and other investigative evidence (e.g. clothing, DNA, photographs). Case management was considered complete if the: Case status (open, pended, closed) was appropriate based on work documented within PACE; Case was cleared appropriately within PACE (e.g. cleared by arrest, unfounded); Use of information only was appropriate based on case narrative (e.g. for cases if no crime was articulated, there is doubt as to whether or not a crime has occurred, or if the incident did not occur within the Citys jurisdiction); and Case was supplemented in PACE on a timely basis and did not have periods greater than one year for which work was not documented. We conducted reviews on 84 cases, 13 of these cases were open and the remaining 71 cases were considered complete (pended or closed). Our case review for the former Detective identified in the 2007 memo consisted of two separate reviews. One review was completed by CAD team members and a second review was conducted by PSB team members. The results from the two reviews were then compared and summarized. We also observed the length of time these cases remained in an open status before and after the Detectives retirement.

RESULTS
81% of the Detectives cases reviewed did not follow case management policy or procedures and likely lacked sufficient supervisory review.

Page 3

City Auditor Department

We reviewed a sample of 84 cases to determine if interview procedures, evidence collection procedures, and case management practices complied with Police Department Operations Orders, FIB Manual or County Protocol policies. The following table summarizes the results of our case review: Conducted / Documented Per Policy 33% 49% 17% 12% Not Per Policy 60% 44% 76% 81% Not Applicable* 7% 7% 7% 7%

Interviews Evidence Case Management Overall Completion of Investigation**

*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 Procedures Interviews were not conducted in accordance with policy for fifty (60%) of the cases reviewed. Reports did not meet interview criteria because of missing summarizations or impounds, all parties were not interviewed, or there was no documented activity in PACE. Evidence Collection Reports 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 was no documented activity in PACE. Case Management Sixty-four (76%) of the cases reviewed did not meet the review criteria. Exceptions noted 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 suspect admission); 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 cases tested. The incorrect use of this designation results in statistically under- or over-reporting incidents. We determined if the use of information only was consistent with policy based on the narrative 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. In many of these cases, the report is classified as information only based on a victims

Page 4

City Auditor Department

allegation that does not match the suspects statement and there is no corroborating evidence. Nowhere in the reports narrative, does the former CACU Detective express doubt that a crime occurred. Examples of incorrect use of information only by the former 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 later reclassified the case as information only and the case was not submitted for prosecution. A report was classified as information only but no victim or suspect interviews were conducted. A report of a crime committed outside the Citys jurisdiction; the Detective should have reclassified the report as information only. A supplemental report where the Detective references a previous DR (which was classified as information only) where the Detective chose not to interview the suspect 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 not completing cases timely. There was also limited supervisory activity on open cases transferred after the Detectives retirement. Of 84 cases reviewed, the Detective had 39 (46%) cases that did not have any PACE documented activity for over a one-year period of time. The average period of inactivity was approximately two years. The maximum length of time was almost six years and this 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 open cases 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 are addressed in Observation No. 4. We further recommend the following: 1.1 CRTF reinvestigate all cases assigned to the Detective that fall within the statute of limitations. 1.2 Define and document the use of information only and provide uniform training to provide 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 open cases transferred to the Sergeant upon the Detectives retirement.

Page 5

City Auditor Department

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 properly maintaining his assigned cases. The CACU Detective retired in June 2010 and a large number of his cases remained open. In June 2011, the same PSB Detective performed a follow-up on the 2007 review and observed that the former CACU Detectives case management issues had not been resolved. In addition to the June 2007 memo, we received a copy of an email sent in September 2007 by a CACU Sergeant to his supervisor requesting a formal investigation into this same Detectives performance. In the email, the Sergeant stated that he had already made CACU supervision aware of numerous reports this Detective had failed to investigate.

RESULTS
Police supervision addressed the Detectives case management issues as a performance 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 of not met; January 2008: Detective received an unscheduled performance review. In February of 2009 and February of 2010, he received scheduled performance reviews and all three reviews had an overall rating of met, although some comments were made that case load and case management needed improvement. No formal policy or procedural changes were made within CACU as a result of the June 2007 memo or the September 2007 email. February 2008: A FIB lieutenant issued a memo requiring that CACU sergeants review hardcopies of all DRs immediately upon the detective classifying them in PACE as pended or closed. However, there was no formal policy in the way of Police Department Operations Orders or FIB Bureau Manual policy requiring that sergeants review all completed case histories and files, and that they document their review. PSBs Investigative Officer History report shows no formal complaints or investigative actions for the Detective from date of hire through retirement. PMGs document that the Detectives problems with case management were noted prior to the June 2007 memo. Per PMG supervisory comments, the Detective was removed from case assignment rotation and agreed to work overtime to aid in reducing his case load.

Page 6

City Auditor Department

Current CACU supervision reported that unit detectives have a PMG goal of no more than 40 open cases. Due to the lack of supervisory review of case status changes (see Observation #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 inbox or is statistically counted as an open case. If the detective does not track these cases in 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 investigative unit. 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 those incidents involving city personnel. CACU sergeants we interviewed indicated that "Restricted to Detail" is not standard practice in CACU. From January 1, 2007 through June 19, 2010, 194 CACU cases were placed in restricted status. Of those 194 cases, 100 were assigned to the Detective. Ninety-nine of those 100 cases were placed into restricted status on December 20, 2007, by the supervisory sergeant. As this sergeant has since retired and has not responded to FIB outreach, we were unable to obtain an explanation of these actions. PSB will conduct further review of this activity. The table below illustrates the spike in restricted DRs.

Page 7

City Auditor Department

RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended improvements to supervisory and case management controls are addressed in Observation No. 4. We further recommend the following: 2.1 Train supervisory staff how to utilize PACE to assist in determining CACUs case load 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 is beneficial.

Page 8

City Auditor Department

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 June 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010 to evaluate if investigations and case management were documented per policy and completed in a timely manner. Reviews conducted by both CAD and PSB staff were compared and summarized. We did not include investigations for 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 accordance with policy. We applied the same audit test criteria to determine compliance with policy and procedures in our review of a sample of current CACU cases, as we applied in our review of the former CACU Detectives cases. Our review focused on PACE documentation 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 in accordance with policy. The following table summarizes the results of our case review: Conducted / Documented Per Policy 67% 78% 60% 55% Not Per Policy 18% 7% 25% 30% Not Applicable* 15% 15% 15% 15%

Interviews Evidence Case Management Overall Completion of Investigation**

*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 Procedures Interviews were not conducted in accordance with policy for 48 (18%) of the cases reviewed. Reports did not meet interview criteria because all parties were not interviewed, no documented attempts were made to contact suspects, or there was no documented PACE activity.

Page 9

City Auditor Department

Evidence Collection Reports did not meet evidence collection criteria in 19 (7%) of the cases reviewed. These included lack of summarization or impounding of medical results, or there was no documented activity in PACE. Case Management Sixty-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 all identified parties were contacted; investigative work continued consistently for months on cases that were 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 detectives based on cases reviewed as reported in this audit. In all three categories, the former CACU Detectives investigative process illustrated lack of compliance with policy. Other Unit detectives cases reviewed showed room for improvement. See Attachment A CACU Case Management Comparison of this report for charts illustrating the case management 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 (or referenced) report to verify that the closure was appropriate. During this review, concerns were noted regarding duplicate reports case dispositions and original reports case status. Although all eleven duplicate reports were in a closed status, the case disposition differed one was unfounded, three were information only, and seven were not reclassed. A defined practice would provide consistency in case management and would address statistical counts of incidents. In 3 of the 11 duplicate reports, detectives supplemented the original report referencing the duplicate DR and its status. It is unknown if CACU detectives review the original report to ensure that the duplicate (or related) incident is included in the original prior to closing either report. Reviews of the eleven original DRs revealed cases with no documented PACE activity; current notations of on-going investigation on a closed / information only 2009 case; and an incorrect closing of related reports.

Page 10

City Auditor Department

Of the CACU cases reviewed, Information Only appears to be used per policy most of the time. Defined use and uniform training of Information Only would aid staff in this classification. Of the 260 cases reviewed, information only was used per policy 94% of the time. Reasons for incorrect use of information only are noted below: Reporting of interview assistance with several out-of-state and non-Phoenix jurisdictions which are not classified as information only. Reporting of victims unwilling to prosecute classified as information only but due to victims age a crime still occurred. A report of a victims allegation which does not match the suspects statement; the detective did not express doubt in the allegation within the narrative. Detective reclassifies case as information only; later the same day, original officer cites the suspect for two counts child neglect. Based on the CACU sample, it appears that most of the tested cases were documented within PACE timely. Cases were documented in PACE timely for 247 (95%) of the 260 CACU sample cases reviewed. Of the thirteen cases that did not have any PACE documented activity for over a one-year period of time, cases averaged 1.5 years with the longest being approximately two years.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended improvements to supervisory and case management controls are addressed in Observation No. 4. We further recommend the following: 3.1 Determine if medical records and interviews for cases that are closed and classified as information only should be impounded (dependent if this material is immediately released for destruction) and include in written procedures. 3.2 Define how duplicate reports should be classified (status and disposition) as this can determine if an incident is counted twice statistically (original and duplicate). Determine if original reports should be supplemented noting the duplication, and if detectives should review the original report to ensure the duplicate or related incident is addressed. 3.3 Perform additional review on three original reports referenced via duplicate departmental reports that appear questionable.

Page 11

City Auditor Department

4 CACU Case Management Process Review


We evaluated the effectiveness and supervisory control of the CACUs case management process. Our analysis focused primarily on supervisory and case management practices relevant to the control weaknesses identified in the preceding observations in this report, including case quality control and review, case supplement management, and monitoring pended cases. We also evaluated the adequacy of the supervisory and case management documented policies and procedures. We identified the CACUs supervisory and case management practices through inquiry with the CACU sergeants, review of pertinent documents, and other procedures.

RESULTS
Effective internal controls are not in place to ensure all closed and pended cases are reviewed and reviews are properly documented. Effective internal controls are not in place to ensure that sergeants review all completed cases and to ensure their reviews are properly documented. Effective internal controls to ensure all completed cases are reviewed and reviews are properly documented may include: Requiring that only the supervisory chain of command change a case status from an open status to a closed or pended status (this control may be applied through a PACE system (or PACE replacement system) automated function that allows only the supervisory chain of command to change a case status to closed or pended.) Establishing formal policy 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 for the 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 case status in PACE to closed or pended, and they generate a PACE query of closed or pended cases to identify cases ready for review. The sergeants also indicated they either review the final supplements, the completed case files and the electronic PACE case histories, or all case documents. However, the FIB Bureau Manual or Police Department Operations Orders do not require that sergeants document their review; the PACE 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 been reviewed. A former FIB lieutenant issued a memo in 2008 requiring that CACU sergeants insist that subordinates provide hardcopies of all DRs immediately upon classifying them in PACE as pended or closed, that sergeants review the DRs to ensure each case meets the classification in the Police Department Operations Orders and FIB Manual, and that sergeants document the reviewed DR number in the employees notes.

Page 12

City Auditor Department

The FIB lieutenants memo provides the only directive that sergeants are to review completed cases. There is no formal policy in the way of Department Operations Orders or FIB Bureau Manual policy requiring that sergeants review all completed case histories 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 process requirements, or case documentation requirements) that sergeants are required to apply when reviewing completed CACU cases submitted by detectives. Currently, sergeants apply review criteria they have developed individually based on their personal investigative experience, knowledge, and discretion. Standard review criteria might include quality standards, investigative process requirements, and case documentation requirements. The following internal control procedures 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 case should be closed or pended. Police Department Operations Orders identify general guidelines for assigning closed and pended status, however there are no established criteria specific to CACU cases for determining whether cases should be closed or pended. Detectives and sergeants may change case status to closed or pended at their discretion and without consideration of criteria specific to cases the CACU investigates. Department Operations Orders provide the following guidelines for closing and pending cases: Closed: Indicates the case or incident has been concluded and no further investigation 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 is being inactivated pending the development of further information.

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

Page 13

City Auditor Department

Pended Cases are not monitored for further investigative potential. Pended cases are not monitored to determine if additional investigative procedures are necessary based on recent case activity or if the case should be considered for closure if circumstances warrant. Monitoring pended cases to determine if investigative procedures 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 information becoming available in the future. This may be facilitated by requiring that detectives assign a pre-designated status to a case when it is pended that will be used to notify the detective in the future to analyze the case. Multiple status levels may be established that the detective can select from that corresponds with the likelihood of additional case information becoming available. For example, 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 for investigative quality. Police Department Operations Orders permit sergeants to review at their discretion, new supplements to closed or pended cases. There are no CACU procedures requiring that detectives inform their sergeants of new supplements to closed or pended cases as the supplements are added to the case histories. Sergeants review of additional information on a closed or pended case will help ensure adequate consideration of the investigative quality of the supplement. Effective internal controls are not in place to ensure all open cases are monitored for adequate investigative progress. FIB policy requires that sergeants review a minimum of five cases for timeliness of the follow-up investigation (as well as investigative techniques, adherence to clearance standards, and overall report quality). Sergeants may perform a PACE query that identifies individual cases that have remained in a particular case status for a specified number of days. Sergeants use this PACE query to monitor the status of cases assigned to detectives within their squad and to select the cases to review to comply with FIB policy requirements. Family Investigation Bureau command staff is currently developing a Detective Supervisors Monthly Inspection Report (DSMI Report) that Investigation Division sergeants will utilize to review a sample of closed, open and pended cases assigned to detectives in their unit. The review process is intended as a case quality control review to verify radio code and ARS assignment, report status, and verify investigation priority timelines, lab request submissions, and stolen property reviews. While the DSMI Report review process promotes quality review on a sample of cases, the review process does not facilitate a sergeants assessment of the investigation progress of all

Page 14

City Auditor Department

cases. The DSMI Report review process may be implemented as soon as October 2011. Sound internal controls to facilitate periodic review of all open CACU cases to determine if additional investigative procedures are necessary might include implementation of CACU policy requiring that: Detectives periodically analyze all of their open cases to determine if additional investigative procedures are necessary based on recent case activity, and requiring that detectives file a supplement documenting their review.

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

CACUs criteria for changing offense and ARS Assignment Codes does not fully comply 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 the appropriate case management codes (ARS, PCC, or radio code) which should reflect, as closely as possible, the actual incident under investigation. In practice, the initial code assigned an offense is generally the code that remains assigned to the case even if additional information is subsequently observed that would indicate that a different crime was committed as long as the actual crime is within the same 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 crime category) or if the case was closed as information only. Documented procedures do not exist that provide CACU personnel with comprehensive case management policy and instruction. We analyzed current documented procedures to determine if they include comprehensive supervisory and case management policy and instruction unique to CACU cases investigated by the CACU. Documented supervisory and case management procedures consist of general policy provided in the Police Department Operations 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 the procedural recommendations noted in this section is essential to a sound case management program. Documented comprehensive procedures are an important internal control to clearly and consistently communicate managements policies and requirements. They also serve as a valuable reference and training aid in developing new employees.

Page 15

City Auditor Department

RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 Develop and implement internal controls to ensure that sergeants review all completed case histories and files before the case status is changed to a closed or pended status, and that sergeants document their review in the case history. Establish formal documented (FIB Bureau Manual or Operations Orders) policy mandating these review requirements. 4.2 Develop standard review criteria unique to CACU cases that sergeants are to apply when reviewing completed case histories and files submitted by detectives. 4.3 Establish standard criteria to serve as a guide for sergeants and detectives when determining if an open CACU case should be changed to a closed or pended status. 4.4 Develop and implement policy requiring periodic review of pended CACU cases to determine if additional investigative procedures are necessary based on recent case activity or to determine if the case should be considered for closure if circumstances warrant. 4.5 Develop a formal CACU policy requiring that detectives inform their sergeant of all new supplements on closed and pended CACU cases so that sergeants may determine if they will analyze the information for investigative quality. Inquire with the Police Information Technology Bureau to determine if an automated function may be programmed in PACE (or the PACE replacement system) that automatically notifies sergeants of new closed and pended case supplements that detectives add to the case history. 4.6 Develop and implement policy requiring periodic review of all open CACU cases to determine if additional investigative procedures are necessary based on recent case activity. 4.7 Comply with Police Department Operations Order 8.4 for changing offense and ARS Assignment codes by updating the DR with the appropriate case management codes (ARS, PCC, or radio code) which should reflect, as closely as possible, the actual incident under investigation.

Page 16

City Auditor Department

Attachment A CACU Case Management Comparison


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

Page 17

City Auditor Department

Potrebbero piacerti anche