Report 2021-105 All Recommendation Responses

Report 2021-105: Law Enforcement Departments Have Not Adequately Guarded Against Biased Conduct (Release Date: April 2022)

Recommendation for Legislative Action

To better align existing expectations in state law with best practices for addressing bias during the hiring of peace officers, the Legislature should do the following:
- Require that POST, in the course of its regular audits of local law enforcement departments' hiring processes, determine whether the departments conduct the following activities:
o Oral interviews that incorporate assessments of officer applicants' ability to interact with a diverse community.
o Interviews of secondary references to obtain information about officer applicants' characters
- Require POST to develop guidance for local law enforcement departments on performing effective Internet and social media screenings of officer applicants. This guidance should include, at minimum, strategies for identifying applicant social media profiles and for searching for and identifying content indicative of potential biases, such as affiliation with hate groups.

Description of Legislative Action

AB 2547 (Nazarian, 2022) would have required POST to develop guidance for local law enforcement departments on performing effective internet and social media screenings of officer applicants. The guidance would have had to include, at a minimum, strategies for identifying applicant social media profiles and for searching for, and identifying, content indicative of potential biases, such as affiliation with hate groups. This bill died in the Senate on August 11, 2022.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Legislation Proposed But Not Enacted

Description of Legislative Action

AB 2547 (Nazarian, 2022) would require POST to develop guidance for local law enforcement departments on performing effective internet and social media screenings of officer applicants. The guidance would have to include, at a minimum, strategies for identifying applicant social media profiles and for searching for and identifying content indicative of potential biases, such as affiliation with hate groups. As of August 25, 2022, this bill was pending in the Senate Committee on Appropriations.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Legislation Introduced

As of August 25, 2022, AB 2547 (Nazarian, 2022) was pending in the Senate Committee on Appropriations.

Recommendation for Legislative Action

To provide law enforcement departments hiring peace officers the ability to effectively screen for bias in applicants, the Legislature should amend state law to specify that law enforcement departments can request that officer applicants identify their public social media accounts so departments are aware of the accounts and can review them to identify content indicative of potential biases, such as affiliation with hate groups.

Description of Legislative Action

As of October 21, 2022, the Legislature has not taken action to address this specific recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: No Action Taken

Description of Legislative Action

As of August 25, 2022, the Legislature has not taken action to address this specific recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: No Action Taken

As of August 25, 2022, the Legislature has not taken action to address this specific recommendation.

Recommendation for Legislative Action

To ensure that peace officers are properly trained about bias and its effects, the Legislature should amend state law to require that officers—including those at CDCR—receive training on the following topics at least every other year, and should require POST to monitor to ensure that local departments comply with this requirement:
- Explanations of implicit and explicit bias, including how bias can influence behavior
- Community engagement strategies, including the benefits of effective community engagement and the means to achieve
that engagement.
- Cultural awareness and sensitivity, including regarding the various cultures within the communities they serve.
- Reporting obligations, including how officers should respond after observing biased behavior by peers.

Description of Legislative Action

As of October 21, 2022, the Legislature has not taken action to address this specific recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: No Action Taken

Description of Legislative Action

As of August 25, 2022, the Legislature has not taken action to address this specific recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: No Action Taken

As of August 25, 2022, the Legislature has not taken action to address this specific recommendation.

Recommendation for Legislative Action

To aid law enforcement departments in effectively leveraging data on officers' stops as part of their early intervention systems, the Legislature should require the RIPA Board to develop and disseminate technical guidance for how best to analyze stops data to reveal potential indications of bias at the officer level.

Description of Legislative Action

As of October 21, 2022, the Legislature has not taken action to address this specific recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: No Action Taken

Description of Legislative Action

As of August 25, 2022, the Legislature has not taken action to address this specific recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: No Action Taken

As of August 25, 2022, the Legislature has not taken action to address this specific recommendation.

Recommendation for Legislative Action

To ensure that law enforcement departments properly identify and respond to possibly biased conduct by their officers, the Legislature should amend state law to do the following:
- Create a definition of biased conduct that law enforcement departments must use when investigating any bias-related complaint or any incident that involves possible indications of officer bias. At a minimum, the definition should specify that biased conduct can include conduct resulting from implicit as well as explicit biases; that conduct is biased if a reasonable person would conclude so using the facts at hand; that an officer need not admit biased or prejudiced intent for conduct to reasonably appear biased; and that biased conduct may occur in an encounter with the public, with other officers, or online, such as conduct on social media.
- Require law enforcement departments that analyze officer conduct based on this definition to reach one of the existing formal determinations in state law about whether an allegation is true, and to document a rationale for reaching the determination.
- Require DOJ to develop standard investigative protocols that law enforcement departments must follow when evaluating whether an officer has engaged in biased conduct.
- Require POST, in consultation with DOJ, to develop training on how to properly conduct investigations of biased conduct. State law should require officers who handle complaints or other misconduct investigations to attend the training at least once every two years.

Description of Legislative Action

AB 2547 (Nazarian, 2022) would have required POST to establish a definition of biased conduct and include minimum descriptions for that definition. This bill would have also required that POST use this definition in any investigation into a bias-related complaint or incident. Additionally, this bill would have required POST to develop guidance for local law enforcement departments on performing effective social media screenings for officer applicants. This bill died in the Senate on August 11, 2022.

AB 655 (Chapter 854, Statutes of 2022) requires, among other things, the Department of Justice to adopt and promulgate guidelines for the investigation and adjudication of complaints of a peace officer being engaged in membership in a hate group or participation in any hate group, by local agencies. This bill was signed by the Governor on September 30, 2022.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Partially Implemented

Description of Legislative Action

AB 2547 (Nazarian, 2022) would require POST to establish a definition of biased conduct, and includes minimum descriptions for that definition. This bill also requires that POST use this definition in any investigation into a bias-related complaint or incident. Additionally, this bill would require POST to develop guidance for local law enforcement departments on performing effective social media screenings for officer applicants. As of August 25, 2022, this bill was pending in the Senate Committee on Appropriations.

AB 655 (Kalra, 2022) would require, among other things, that the Department of Justice adopt and promulgate guidelines for the investigation and adjudication by a public agency or oversight agency of complaints of a peace officer being engaged in membership in a hate group or participation in any hate group. As of August 25, 2022, this bill was pending in the Assembly.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Legislation Introduced

As of August 25, 2022 AB 2547 (Nazarian, 2022) was pending in the Senate Committee on Appropriations, and AB 655 (Kalra, 2022) was pending in the Assembly.

Recommendation for Legislative Action

To increase the adoption of best practices for addressing officer bias in law enforcement departments statewide, the Legislature should require the RIPA Board to outline specific best practices for addressing bias within law enforcement in at least the areas of recruiting, hiring, training, community engagement, early intervention systems and related monitoring, and misconduct investigations. The Legislature should require local law enforcement departments to report to the RIPA Board the extent to which they have implemented those best practices, and should further require that departments provide the board with copies of any of the policies, procedures, or plans that they attest align with the best practices if the RIPA Board requests they do so. Finally, the Legislature should require the RIPA Board to publish annually through a scorecard, interactive dashboard, or similar means each department's progress.

Description of Legislative Action

As of October 21, 2022, the Legislature has not taken action to address this specific recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: No Action Taken

Description of Legislative Action

As of August 25, 2022, the Legislature has not taken action to address this specific recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: No Action Taken

As of August 25, 2022, the Legislature has not taken action to address this specific recommendation.

Recommendation for Legislative Action

To increase the adoption of best practices for addressing officer bias in law enforcement departments statewide, the Legislature should establish a required frequency with which DOJ must complete best practice reviews of law enforcement departments to assess their efforts to combat bias. Local departments should be required to cooperate with DOJ, and DOJ should issue public reports about the results of those reviews. The Legislature should further establish the minimum required areas that DOJ should evaluate during these reviews, including the best practices described in this report, and require DOJ to establish criteria for selecting the law enforcement departments it reviews.

Description of Legislative Action

As of October 21, 2022, the Legislature has not taken action to address this specific recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: No Action Taken

Description of Legislative Action

As of August 25, 2022, the Legislature has not taken action to address this specific recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: No Action Taken

As of August 25, 2022, the Legislature has not taken action to address this specific recommendation.

Recommendation for Legislative Action

To increase the adoption of best practices for addressing officer bias in law enforcement departments statewide, the Legislature should require that DOJ establish guidelines for local independent review of law enforcement departments' misconduct investigations, such as specifying that an effective independent review entity should have full access to the relevant records and should review all of the department's bias-related investigations. For any law enforcement department that does not have a process for independent review that aligns with DOJ's guidelines, the Legislature should require DOJ to conduct periodic audits of the department's misconduct investigations to identify whether it has appropriately handled investigations of possible biased conduct.

Description of Legislative Action

As of October 21, 2022, the Legislature has not taken action to address this specific recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: No Action Taken

Description of Legislative Action

As of August 25, 2022, the Legislature has not taken action to address this specific recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: No Action Taken

As of August 25, 2022, the Legislature has not taken action to address this specific recommendation.

Recommendation #9 To: Corrections and Rehabilitation, Department of

To communicate to both the public and its officers its commitment to performing its duties in a fair and impartial manner, CDCR should formalize a policy that aligns with best practices by, at minimum, declaring that biased conduct is prohibited, describing in detail what constitutes biased conduct, and outlining key compliance mechanisms.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2023

Revisions to DOM are completed and under stakeholder review.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

We look forward to reviewing the revised policies when CDCR provides them for review.

1-Year Agency Response

1-Year Update: Language for multiple DOM revisions is in development and on track to be completed in May 2023. Following that, 15 stakeholder offices have been identified that will each need time for review of revisions being made to their respective sections of the DOM. Because of the number of stakeholders, RPMB's expected completion date is January 2024.

Proposed Action Plan: Develop a California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) definition of bias affecting employees and the population we serve by consulting with stakeholders within CDCR and with other law enforcement agencies.

- Issue memo to all staff with dual signature from Secretary and Receiver

- Add language to applicable parts of Department Operations Manual (DOM) and California

Code of Regulations (CCR)

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

6-Month Agency Response

Develop a California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) definition of bias affecting employees and the population we serve by consulting with stakeholders within CDCR and with other law enforcement agencies.

- Issue memo to all staff with dual signature from Secretary and Receiver

- Add language to applicable parts of Department Operations Manual (DOM) and California Code

of Regulations (CCR)

6-Month Update: The drafted memo is being circulated for review, with an estimated signature date of October 31, 2022.

With the definition of bias completed, DOM revisions will be initiated.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

60-Day Agency Response

Develop a California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) definition of bias affecting employees and the population we serve by consulting with stakeholders within CDCR and with other law enforcement agencies.

- Issue memo to all staff with dual signature from Secretary and Receiver

- Add language to applicable parts of Department Operations Manual (DOM) and California Code of Regulations (CCR)

Communication has been initiated with responsible parties within CDCR (RPMB, OPEC, Office of Legal Affairs (OLA), Office of Research (OOR), and Office of Internal Affairs (OIA). A definitive plan will be developed for implementation by October 2022.

A memo to staff will be completed by October of 2022. Language to be added to DOM will be completed by May 2023 and California Code of Regulations (CCR) (if applicable) language will be submitted.

Revisions to CCR may take additional time based upon the established processes and timelines for revisions to regulations.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

Recommendation #10 To: Corrections and Rehabilitation, Department of

To improve its ability to recruit qualified applicants who reflect the diversity of the State, by April 2023 CDCR should develop and begin implementing a documented strategy
aligned with best practices for recruiting officers who reflect the diversity of the State.

60-Day Agency Response

Develop Peace Officer Recruitment Strategic Plan.

Proof-of-Practice will be emailed:

Attachment:

Item 10- Peace Officer Recruitment Strategic Plan (Finalized)

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Fully Implemented

CDCR provided its finalized recruitment strategic plan, which includes strategies for recruiting officers who reflect the diversity of the State and methods for evaluating the success of its efforts.

Recommendation #11 To: Corrections and Rehabilitation, Department of

To better assess whether peace officer applicants have the ability to work with diverse members of their communities and whether they possess detectable disqualifying biases, by no later than October 2022 CDCR should begin conducting standardized interviews of officer applicants that include questions designed to assess their experience working with diverse communities and their ability to do so effectively.

6-Month Agency Response

POSED/The Office of Peace Officer Selection (OPOS) already utilizes structured interviews during its background investigative process, including Pre-Investigatory Interview, Computerized Voice Stress Analyzer, and Discrepancy interview where questions are designed to identify individual tolerance working with diverse communities. OPOS will work with the State Personnel Board, the Commission on Correctional Peace Officer Standards and Training (CPOST), OLA, OLR, and HR to address any conflicts with labor agreements and merit-based hiring process provisions to address this recommendation of adding questions related to potential biases of applicants when working with diverse communities.

6-Month Update: OPOS has added the necessary questions into our background investigation process to address, document, and assess an applicant's experience to effectively work with diverse communities. These changes were fully implemented September 2022, during the annual training for Background Investigation Unit investigators.

Supporting documentation will be provided, per CSA's direction.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Fully Implemented

CDCR provided its updated background investigative procedures, which CDCR has updated to include a set of interview questions that align with POST's interview factors. One of the questions appears designed to assess the applicant's ability to work with diverse communities. CDCR has also included additional questions in its background questionnaires to solicit information on past biased conduct by applicants.

60-Day Agency Response

POSED/The Office of Peace Officer Selection (OPOS) already utilizes structured interviews during its background investigative process, including Pre-Investigatory Interview, Computerized Voice Stress Analyzer, and Discrepancy interview where questions are designed to identify individual tolerance working with diverse communities. OPOS will work with the State Personnel Board, the Commission on Correctional Peace Officer Standards and Training (CPOST), OLA, OLR, and HR to address any conflicts with labor agreements and merit-based hiring process provisions to address this recommendation of adding questions related to potential biases of applicants when working with diverse communities.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

As we discuss in the report, a structured interview provides several benefits to assessing a candidate's ability to work with diverse individuals, such as freedom from social and ethnic prejudices and sensitivity to and acceptance of differences based on demographic background. We will consider this recommendation fully implemented when CDCR has implemented a structured interview that incorporates specific questions targeted at assessing these qualities in its applicants.

Recommendation #12 To: Corrections and Rehabilitation, Department of

To better assess whether peace officer applicants have the ability to work with diverse members of their communities and whether they possess detectable disqualifying biases, by no later than October 2022 CDCR should proactively seek and attempt to contact secondary references to obtain more candid information about applicants, such as information about past biased conduct or affiliation with hate groups.

6-Month Agency Response

OPOS will add question(s) to the Electronic Statement of Personal History primary reference questionnaire that request secondary reference contacts who can speak to the applicant's character and any noticeable biases.

6-Month Update: Section 5 of the Backgrounds Investigation Procedures (BIP) has been updated. Training specific to this CAP item was completed September 2022.

Supporting documentation will be submitted, per CSA's direction.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Fully Implemented

During our audit, we found that CDCR requested but did not always contact secondary references. CDCR has now provided its updated background investigation procedures, which now require background investigators to contact all secondary references that initial references provide.

60-Day Agency Response

OPOS will add question(s) to the Electronic Statement of Personal History primary reference questionnaire that request secondary reference contacts who can speak to the applicant's character and any noticeable biases.

Proof of Practice Documents will include:

- Primary Reference Questionnaire

- Background Investigation Procedures (Section 5).

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

Recommendation #13 To: Corrections and Rehabilitation, Department of

To better assess whether peace officer applicants have the ability to work with diverse members of their communities and whether they possess detectable disqualifying biases, by no later than October 2022 CDCR should begin using documented procedures that adhere to best practices to identify and review applicants' public social media profiles for content indicative of disqualifying biases, such as hate group affiliation.

6-Month Agency Response

OPOS Background Investigation Unit currently reviews all social media platforms, open websites, and the "CLEAR" online investigation platform to ascertain if an applicant has any content or history indicative of disqualifying biases such as hate groups or confirmed gang affiliation. Direction will be added to the Background Investigation Procedures to ensure investigators are completing a thorough review of social media sites.

6-Month Update: Section 5 of the BIP has been revised. Training specific to this CAP item was completed September 2022.

Supporting documentation will be provided, per CSA's direction.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Fully Implemented

In our audit report, we noted that CDCR had developed a social media investigation course for its background investigators, which included strategies for navigating social media accounts and for how to locate applicants on social media. However, we further noted that the training did not include guidance for how to identify or recognize biased content. CDCR has now provided an updated set of background investigation procedures that define both bias and hate activities, and provide guidance on identifying them. The updated procedures also establish expectations for how background investigators should document their reviews of applicants' social media pages.

60-Day Agency Response

OPOS Background Investigation Unit currently reviews all social media platforms, open websites, and the "CLEAR" online investigation platform to ascertain if an applicant has any content or history indicative of disqualifying biases such as hate groups or confirmed gang affiliation. Direction will be added to the Background Investigation Procedures to ensure investigators are completing a thorough review of social media sites.

Proof of Practice Documents will include:

- Background Investigation Procedures (Section 5).

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

Recommendation #14 To: Corrections and Rehabilitation, Department of

To proactively identify signs that officers may need additional training or supports to address possible biased behavior, CDCR should, by April 2023, adopt a policy and implement procedures that align with best practices for an effective early intervention system. The system should do the following:
- Track and incorporate data at the officer level related to complaints, uses of force, and other indicators as appropriate, and use these data to identify officers who could benefit from early intervention.
- Specify a range of early intervention options—such as trainings, mentoring or other supervisory approaches, mental health services, or reassignment—with guidance about how to apply them to the particular circumstances of each officer's conduct. The system should require prompt interventions that address the identified issues with or patterns in the officers' conduct, including conduct related to bias.
- Require monitoring of the officers who receive intervention to evaluate whether their performance improves or whether additional interventions are needed.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2023

Recommendation: Track and incorporate data at the officer level related to complaints, uses of force, and other indicators as appropriate, and use these data to identify officers who could benefit from early intervention.

2023 Update: CDCR is launching individual-level alerts through the early warning system in October 2023. These monthly alerts will be sent directly to hiring authorities. Accusations of more egregious behavior in such areas as use of force, dishonesty, discrimination, retaliation, code of silence, integrity, and sexual misconduct will also be investigated by the Office of Internal Affairs.

Recommendation: Specify a range of early intervention options—such as trainings, mentoring or other supervisory approaches, mental health services, or reassignment—with guidance about how to apply them to the particular circumstances of each officer's conduct. The system should require prompt interventions that address the identified issues with or patterns in the officers' conduct, including conduct related to bias.

2023 Update: Training will commence January 2024.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

CDCR has indicated this recommendation is not fully implemented, but that it has implemented parts of the recommendation. CDCR provided documentation showing that the system can provide information to Wardens or their designees at the staff level, rather than just the institution level. However, CDCR lacks policies or procedures for how supervisors will use the system to identify officers who may need intervention, and the only intervention option related to bias that it has reported it has is one training scheduled to begin in 2024. We will consider the implementation to be fully implemented when CDCR demonstrates that it's early intervention system addresses all parts of the recommendation.

1-Year Agency Response

1-Year Update: Language added to the California State University-Sacramento (CSUS) and CPS HR Implicit Bias course Scope of Work; contract renewals are pending. Implicit Bias training will be provided to all staff, including custody and non-custody supervisors via the 2023 annual training schedule. This training will include the following:

- Tools to identify conduct or behaviors that may be indicative of biased conduct

- Elements of cultural intelligence.

This is on track for implementation by April 2023.

Proposed Action Plan: POSED Early Intervention Options shall include proactively training all officers regarding principled policing implicit and explicit biases, courses to address cultural intelligence, and diversity in the workplace. Supervisory and managerial training shall include tools to identify conduct or behaviors that may be indicative of biased conduct.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

CDCR has indicated this recommendation is not fully implemented, but that it has implemented parts of the recommendation. However, the documentation that CDCR has provided indicates that there are key aspects of the recommendation that are absent from CDCR's early intervention system. For instance, CDCR's early intervention system appears to be institution based rather than officer based, meaning that it is not designed to identify indications of possible bias or other issues by individual officers. Additionally, only high level management has access to the system, and CDCR lacks policies or procedures for how supervisors will use the system to identify officers who may need intervention. We will consider the implementation to be fully implemented when CDCR demonstrates that it's early intervention system addresses all parts of the recommendation.

6-Month Agency Response

6-Month Update: The Department has implemented a dashboard-based staff misconduct early warning system (EWS) to allow for tracking of allegations at the earliest point possible. The EWS includes automated email alert functionality and provides monthly reporting for hiring authorities and other departmental executives to allow for intercessory actions to be taken to mitigate potential issues. Fully Implemented September 2022. Supporting documentation will be provided, per CSA's direction.

The Department will continue to provide existing training to supervisors and managers. We are working with partners to create and implement additional training on cultural intelligence and tools for identifying bias. We are on track for implementation by April 2023.

DAPO implemented Principled Policing training at the BPAA in 2019 for all new parole agents, and it completed statewide training for all existing parole agents from October through December 2020. In November 2021, DAPO implemented the FTP, which is an intervention method for newly appointed parole agent trainees, and existing parole agents when appropriate. Fully Implemented, November 2021. Supporting documentation will be provided, per CSA's direction.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

60-Day Agency Response

Bullet 1: OOR has created an early warning system that tracks allegations of staff misconduct that will allow hiring authorities the ability to identify officers who could potentially benefit from early intervention.

Bullet 2: POSED Early Intervention Options shall include proactively training all officers regarding principled policing implicit and explicit biases, courses to address cultural intelligence, and diversity in the workplace. Supervisory and managerial training shall include tools to identify conduct or behaviors that may be indicative of biased conduct.

Bullet 3: Training on hate crime recognition and investigation has been implemented at the Basic Parole Agent Academy. Refresher training will be provided for all agents, including during the Field Training Program (FTP).

Staff members whose conduct violates Department standards receive intervention training, such as referral to FTP for evaluation and monitoring. During FTP, daily evaluations will be documented on the FTP daily observation report to ensure the staff member has appropriately rectified their behavior to fall within Department standards.

DAI has already established a process that requires monitoring of staff that receive intervention as it relates to staff misconduct. They are monitored by their supervisor during the employee's performance evaluation process, and the supervisor provides counseling and training as needed. If continued intervention is necessary, progressive discipline will be utilized.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

We look forward to reviewing CDCR's implementation of an early intervention system that addresses all of the key elements that we describe in the recommendation and in the text of our report.

Recommendation #15 To: Corrections and Rehabilitation, Department of

To ensure that it adequately responds to potentially biased conduct, CDCR should continue to carry out its planned reforms of its misconduct investigation process. In doing so, it should adopt a clear and comprehensive definition of biased conduct, specify criteria for determining whether conduct meets that definition, document formal analysis of officers' conduct using the criteria, and provide training about how to perform these assessments.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2023

Revisions to DOM are completed and under stakeholder review.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

We look forward to reviewing the revised policies when CDCR submits them for review.

1-Year Agency Response

1-Year Update: Language for multiple DOM revisions is in development and on track to be completed in May 2023. Following that, 15 stakeholder offices have been identified that will each need time for review of revisions being made to their respective sections of the DOM. Because of the number of stakeholders, RPMB's expected completion date is January 2024.

Proposed Action Plan: Develop a CDCR definition of bias conduct (to include the definition of explicit and implicit bias) affecting employees and the population we serve by consulting with stakeholders within CDCR and also by consulting with other law enforcement agencies. Will also seek review by OLA.

Develop guidance for how to determine whether bias influenced an employee's conduct.

- Issue memo to all staff with dual signature from Secretary and Receiver.

- Add language to applicable parts of DOM and CCR.

Finalize the proposed regulations for staff misconduct, which includes analysis of complaints and training of investigators.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

6-Month Agency Response

Develop a CDCR definition of bias conduct (to include the definition of explicit and implicit bias) affecting employees and the population we serve by consulting with stakeholders within CDCR and also by consulting with other law enforcement agencies. Will also seek review by OLA.

Develop guidance for how to determine whether bias influenced an employee's conduct.

- Issue memo to all staff with dual signature from Secretary and Receiver.

- Add language to applicable parts of DOM and CCR.

Finalize the proposed regulations for staff misconduct, which includes analysis of complaints and training of investigators.

6-Month Update: The drafted memo is being circulated for review, with an estimated signature date of October 31, 2022.

With the definition of bias completed, DOM revisions will be initiated.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

60-Day Agency Response

Develop a CDCR definition of bias conduct (to include the definition of explicit and implicit bias) affecting employees and the population we serve by consulting with stakeholders within CDCR and also by consulting with other law enforcement agencies. Will also seek review by OLA.

Develop guidance for how to determine whether bias influenced an employee's conduct.

- Issue memo to all staff with dual signature from Secretary and Receiver.

- Add language to applicable parts of DOM and CCR.

Finalize the proposed regulations for staff misconduct, which includes analysis of complaints and training of investigators.

CDCR has developed a definition for biased conduct:

Biased Conduct refers to the conduct of an employee which is motivated, implicitly or explicitly, by an employee's beliefs about someone based on the person's actual or perceived personal characteristics, i.e., race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, religion, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability. Conduct is biased if a reasonable person would conclude so using the facts at hand; such conduct may occur in an encounter with the inmates, parolees, the public, with other employees, or online, such as conduct on social media. An employee need not admit biased or prejudiced intent for conduct to reasonably appear biased.

Communication has been initiated with responsible parties within CDCR (RPMB, OPEC, OLA, OOR), and OIA's definitive plan and memo to staff will be developed for implementation by October 2022. Language to be added to the DOM will be completed by May 2023 and CCR language (if applicable) will be submitted.

Revisions to CCR may take additional time based upon the established processes and timelines for revisions to regulations.

The regulations are currently being developed and are under review.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

Recommendation #16 To: Corrections and Rehabilitation, Department of

CDCR should specify options for corrective actions beyond punitive discipline that are designed to change officer behaviors associated with biased conduct and require that, when appropriate, these corrective actions—such as training and education—be part of the discipline that officers receive when they are found to have engaged in biased conduct.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2023

The Department's response remains the same.

1-Year CAP Update: Because of delayed implementation of related investigative/disciplinary initiatives, the development and implementation of education-based discipline has been delayed. The new anticipated completion date is March 2024.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

1-Year Agency Response

1-Year Update: Because of delayed implementation of related investigative/disciplinary initiatives, the development and implementation of education-based discipline has been delayed. The new anticipated completion date is March 2024.

Proposed Action Plan: POSED is working with the OLA/Employment Advocacy and Prosecution Team to include Education-Based Development as a corrective measure to address attitudes or behaviors that are not inclusive. Updates will be made to the

Employee Discipline Regulations and the Employee Disciplinary Matrix

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

6-Month Agency Response

POSED is working with the OLA/Employment Advocacy and Prosecution Team to include Education-Based Development as a corrective measure to address attitudes or behaviors that are not inclusive. Updates will be made to the Employee Discipline Regulations and the Employee Disciplinary Matrix.

6-Month Update: POSED is working with OLA toward implementation of education-based discipline, and updates to regulations and the disciplinary matrix will be made accordingly. We are on track for implementation by April 2023.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

60-Day Agency Response

POSED is working with the OLA/Employment Advocacy and Prosecution Team to include Education-Based Development as a corrective measure to address attitudes or behaviors that are not inclusive. Updates will be made to the

Employee Discipline Regulations and the Employee Disciplinary Matrix.

A definitive plan will be developed for implementation by October 2022.

Upon completion, proof-of-practice will include:

- Employee Discipline Regulations

- Employee Disciplinary Matrix

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

Recommendation #17 To: Corrections and Rehabilitation, Department of

To improve its ability to effectively investigate allegations of officer misconduct, by April 2023, CDCR should establish a time frame for equipping its remaining facilities with body-worn cameras and begin implementing that plan.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2023

No further action will be taken on this recommendation, and the Department considers this matter closed.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Will Not Implement

1-Year Agency Response

The Department's response remains the same.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Will Not Implement

We stand by our recommendation that CDCR should pursue implementing body-worn cameras at all of its institutions. As we discuss in the report, the lack of body-worn camera footage was a significant hindrance to CDCR's investigation of biased conduct by its officers. Institutions that do not have body-worn cameras are less able to substantiate or refute that their officers have engaged in such conduct, meaning that they are less able to identify and address instances in which officers have failed to treat inmates or other officers with fairness or impartiality.

6-Month Agency Response

While a comprehensive audio/video surveillance system remains one of the highest priorities of the Department, CDCR cannot commit to expansion of fixed and body-worn cameras, as funding is contingent upon available resources and legislative approval through the state's annual budget process. No plans exist to equip the remaining institutions at this time. Currently, CDCR has equipped six institutions with body-worn cameras, and pending approval of the 2022-23 Governor's Proposed Budget, it will equip four more.

No further action will be taken on this recommendation, and the Department considers this matter closed.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Will Not Implement

We stand by our recommendation that CDCR should pursue implementing body-worn cameras at all of its institutions. As we discuss in the report, the lack of body-worn camera footage was a significant hindrance to CDCR's investigation of biased conduct by its officers. Institutions that do not have body-worn cameras are less able to substantiate or refute that their officers have engaged in such conduct, meaning that they are less able to identify and address instances in which officers have failed to treat inmates or other officers with fairness or impartiality.

60-Day Agency Response

While a comprehensive audio/video surveillance system remains one of the highest priorities of the Department, CDCR cannot commit to expansion of fixed and body-worn cameras, as funding is contingent upon available resources and legislative approval through the state's annual budget process. No plans exist to equip the remaining institutions at this time. Currently, CDCR has equipped six institutions with body-worn cameras, and pending approval of the 2022-23 Governor's Proposed Budget, it will equip four more.

No further action will be taken on this recommendation, and the Department considers this matter closed.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Will Not Implement

We stand by our recommendation that CDCR should pursue implementing body-worn cameras at all of its institutions. As we discuss in the report, the lack of body-worn camera footage was a significant hindrance to CDCR's investigation of biased conduct by its officers. Institutions that do not have body-worn cameras are less able to substantiate or refute that their officers have engaged in such conduct, meaning that they are less able to identify and address instances in which officers have failed to treat inmates or other officers with fairness or impartiality.

Recommendation #18 To: Corrections and Rehabilitation, Department of

To enhance CDCR's identification of correctional officer applicants who possess the ability to work with diverse individuals and do not have detectable disqualifying biases, by October 2023, the Commission on Correctional Peace Officer Standards and Training should establish standards for the selection of correctional officers that incorporate the best practices that we describe in this report.

6-Month Agency Response

1. Introduce CPOST Draft Standard, "Pre-Employment/Selection Standard" at the April CPOST

commission meeting. (The draft standard was initiated prior to the release of the CSA

Report; however, the standard incorporates the best practices described in the CSA report.)

2. Take Draft Standard to stakeholders/Subject Matter Experts for review.

3. Present final draft to CPOST for ratification and implementation.

6-Month Update: The CPOST Commission reviewed and approved the "Pre-Employment Selection" standard. The standard has been posted for the public on the CPOST website.

Supporting documentation will be provided, per CSA's instruction.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Fully Implemented

CDCR provided its pre-employment/selection standard, which establishes requirements for hiring entry-level correctional officers, including a review of candidates to determine if they possess the ability to work with diverse individuals and do not have detectable disqualifying biases.

60-Day Agency Response

CDCR will:

1. Introduce CPOST Draft Standard, "Pre-Employment/Selection Standard" at the April CPOST commission meeting. (The draft standard was initiated prior to the release of the CSA Report; however, the standard incorporates the best practices described in the CSA report.)

2. Take Draft Standard to stakeholders/Subject Matter Experts for review.

3. Present final draft to CPOST for ratification and implementation.

Status:

1. Upon ratification of the April CPOST meeting minutes in June, the draft standard will be released.

2. Subject Matter Experts/Stakeholders are reviewing components of the standard. These will be presented at the public CPOST meeting scheduled for June 16, 2022, for vote and approval.

3. The standard will be implemented immediately upon ratification by CPOST.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

Recommendation #19 To: Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department

To improve its ability to recruit qualified applicants who reflect the diversity of its communities, by October 2022, Los Angeles Sheriff should have a process for regularly monitoring data on the diversity of its current personnel, its new hires, and to the extent possible, its applicant pool. It should use these data to evaluate the success of its recruitment efforts and identify needed areas of improvement.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2023

Personnel Administration Bureau (PAB) regularly monitors diversity data. We prepare a monthly demographics report that illustrates the gender and ethnicity breakdown (in raw numbers and percentages) of current LASD employees, new hires, and promotions. The report is distributed to Personnel Command staff, PAB Operations, and personnel at Bureau of Labor Relations and Compliance (BOLRAC).

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented

LA Sheriff provided its recruitment strategy document, as well as its demographics report that analyzes the demographics of applicants and current staff. The documentation showed that LASD tracks applicant demographics against the demographics of the county as a whole.

1-Year Agency Response

The recruiting process has remained the same since the last update in October of 2022. In the near future the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department will be contracting with a consulting firm to assist in reaching applicants with diverse backgrounds through social media and other marketing strategies.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

6-Month Agency Response

To improve recruiting qualified applicants to reflect the diversity of the community we have our recruitment team attending multiple community events such as National night out, holiday events, multicultural events, and job fairs throughout LA county. In addition, we have a heavy social media presence which when we post ads they are done geographically and showcase a diverse law enforcement community.

Sworn Exams unit monitors the applicant demographics. Backgrounds uses a program (E-hire) to monitor and record data of the current personnel and new hires. Recruitment monitors the diversity of potential new applicants.

We are additionally in discussions with the County to add to our limited marketing budget along with initiating the procurement process to hire a marketing firm to attract a diversity of applicants.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

60-Day Agency Response

We have a tracking mechanism in place which seeks to maintain the hiring of applicants reflective of the diversity Los Angeles County. We are making strides to seek input from elected officials and non-profit organizations, such as the NAACP and the California Legislative Black Caucus. We will also continue to seek input from other ethnicity focus groups and incorporate their valued suggestions into upcoming revisions our marketing plan in cooperation with the County CEO's Office.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

Recommendation #20 To: Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department

To better assess whether peace officer applicants have the ability to work with diverse members of their communities and whether they possess detectable disqualifying biases, by no later than October 2022 Los Angeles Sheriff should begin conducting standardized interviews of officer applicants that include questions designed to assess their experience working with diverse communities and their ability to do so effectively.

1-Year Agency Response

We conduct the "Structure Interview" at the beginning of the hiring process which includes two questions regarding Community Involvement/Awareness. The applicant has the opportunity to describe current issues in their community and how they would address those issues. This interview is used to assess their experience and if there are disqualifying biases.

The "Structure Interview" process has remained the same since the last update in October 2022.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

LA Sheriff has not yet provided documentation substantiating its implementation of this recommendation.

6-Month Agency Response

We conduct the "Structure Interview" at the beginning the hiring process which includes two questions regarding Community Involvement/Awareness. The applicant has the opportunity to describe current issues in their community and how they would address those issues. This interview is used to assess their experience and if there are disqualifying biases

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

60-Day Agency Response

We have a tracking mechanism in place which seeks to maintain the hiring of applicants reflective of the diversity Los Angeles County. We are making strides to seek input from elected officials and non-profit organizations, such as the NAACP and the California Legislative Black Caucus. We will also continue to seek input from other ethnicity focus groups and incorporate their valued suggestions into upcoming revisions our marketing plan in cooperation with the County CEO's Office.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

Recommendation #21 To: Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department

To better assess whether peace officer applicants have the ability to work with diverse members of their communities and whether they possess detectable disqualifying biases, by no later than October 2022 Los Angeles Sheriff should proactively seek and attempt to contact secondary references to obtain more candid information about applicants, such as information about past biased conduct or affiliation with hate groups.

1-Year Agency Response

We have been implementing the use of secondary references who can be used to detect any potential disqualifying biases.

This process of checking secondary references has remained the same from the last update in October 2022.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Partially Implemented

The department has not provide evidence of a policy or procedure requiring background investigators to contact secondary references when references provide them.

6-Month Agency Response

We have been implementing the use of secondary references which can be used to detect any potential disqualifying biases.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Partially Implemented

Los Angeles provided a reference questionnaire that asks references to provide a secondary reference. However, it still does not have a policy or procedure requiring background investigators to contact secondary references when references provide them.

60-Day Agency Response

We have a tracking mechanism in place which seeks to maintain the hiring of applicants reflective of the diversity Los Angeles County. We are making strides to seek input from elected officials and non-profit organizations, such as the NAACP and the California Legislative Black Caucus. We will also continue to seek input from other ethnicity focus groups and incorporate their valued suggestions into upcoming revisions our marketing plan in cooperation with the County CEO's Office.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

Recommendation #22 To: Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department

To better assess whether peace officer applicants have the ability to work with diverse members of their communities and whether they possess detectable disqualifying biases, by no later than October 2022 Los Angeles Sheriff should begin using documented procedures that adhere to best practices to identify and review applicants' public social media profiles for content indicative of disqualifying biases, such as hate group affiliation.

1-Year Agency Response

The process of checking social media for disqualifying biases has remained the same since the update in October 2022.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

Los Angeles Sheriff did not provide documentation to support that it has developed procedures for identifying and reviewing applicants' social media pages for potentially biased conduct.

6-Month Agency Response

The Department members are currently using Google and Lexis Nexus to identity unreported social media accounts for all applicants that could be displaying any disqualifying

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

Los Angeles Sheriff lacks documented procedures for identifying and reviewing applicants' social media pages for potentially biased conduct.

60-Day Agency Response

Effective April 11, 2022, our Background Unit investigators will consistently use multiple databases to verify reported and identify unreported social media accounts for all applicants.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

Los Angeles Sheriff provided an order directing investigators to review social media profiles for applicants; however, it does not set forth procedures for how investigators will identify content indicative of disqualifying biases. Additionally, it does not specify that investigators should attempt to independently identify social media activity beyond that which the applicant discloses.

Recommendation #23 To: Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department

To strengthen its relationships with its community and mitigate the effects of bias on its officers, Los Angeles Sheriff should develop and begin implementing a documented
strategy to do all of the following by April 2023:
- Collaborate with its communities to establish or leverage community advisory boards consisting of representatives of diverse groups. The strategy should specify how it will partner with the boards in the areas of recruitment, hiring, training, and community engagement, as well as how it will leverage the boards to obtain feedback on how it can better serve its community.
- Ensure that officers at all levels regularly participate in community engagement activities.
- Periodically survey its community to assess the effectiveness of its community engagement efforts and solicit feedback on how to improve its operations.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2023

The LASD established the Office of Constitutional Policing (OCP) in 2023 to ensure a Department-wide focus on engaging and collaborating with the community and obtaining community feedback. The OCP is in the process of establishing a Department-wide formal community engagement plan, to be distributed throughout the Department. Next, the Department is enhancing its community engagement efforts. Patrol station captains host bi-monthly Captain's Advisory Committee meetings which consist of community leaders, members, and sworn personnel. The Department is in the process of implementing a Community Engagement database to track community engagement events, meetings, and activities. The database will allow the Department to analyze meetings, noteworthy events, and participation by community members.To ensure that our engagement efforts are effective and allow for discussion of difficult and challenging topics, the Department recently partnered with the Department of Justice Community Relation Services to conduct "Community Dialogue" meetings throughout the County. Furthermore, on June 14, 2023, the Department entered into a partnership with the Center Policing Equity. This organization works with research institutes to advance knowledge of law enforcement on sociological and psychological dynamics in policing and community relations. The Department has begun the formation of Advisory Committees.The first such group consists of representatives of the LGBTQ+ community who are already actively engaged to assist the department in better addressing the needs of this community. Additional advisory groups are in the process of being formed and are aimed to ensure those groups traditionally under-served have a voice in their Sheriff's Department. In addition, the Department is directly engaging the community in our training programs. For example, in October of this year the Department is hosting a hate crimes summit where deputies receive annual training on hate crimes.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

We look forward to reviewing LASD's community engagement plan when it is completed.

6-Month Agency Response

Due to staffing shortages, I still do not have a team, which makes it difficult to make substantive accomplishments. The strategic plan is still in progress.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

60-Day Agency Response

We have a tracking mechanism in place which seeks to maintain the hiring of applicants reflective of the diversity Los Angeles County. We are making strides to seek input from elected officials and non-profit organizations, such as the NAACP and the California Legislative Black Caucus. We will also continue to seek input from other ethnicity focus groups and incorporate their valued suggestions into upcoming revisions our marketing plan in cooperation with the County CEO's Office.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

Recommendation #24 To: Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department

To proactively identify signs that officers may need additional training or supports to address possible biased behavior, Los Angeles Sheriff should, by April 2023, adopt a policy and implement procedures that align with best practices for an effective early intervention system. The system should do the following:
- Track and incorporate data at the officer level related to complaints, uses of force, and other indicators as appropriate, and use these data to identify officers who could benefit from early intervention. The system should include analysis of stops data that identifies officers based on indications of possible biased conduct.
- Specify a range of early intervention options—such as trainings, mentoring or other supervisory approaches, mental health services, or reassignment—with guidance about how to apply them to the particular circumstances of each officer's conduct. The system should require prompt interventions that address the identified issues with or patterns in the officers' conduct, including conduct related to bias.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2023

None at this time

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

1-Year Agency Response

The LASD Data Systems Bureau is currently working on an early intervention system to address concerning patterns of behavior which may require Department personnel to receive additional training, remediation, and/or discipline if warranted.

In addition, the Antelope Valley North Compliance Team is evaluating an "off the shelf product" which can track similar information and identify patterns of concern for the Antelope Valley stations.

To date, both systems/products are under review.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

6-Month Agency Response

There is no change to the status of this recommendation from the previous response.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

60-Day Agency Response

The definition of Bias behavior in policing has been fiercely debated in the past, and to date, a clear and exhaustive definition of actions or behavior considered to be bias have not been identified by the state or any other governmental entity. Therefore, independently modifying or establishing an obtainable, realistic, and all-inclusive investigative process and discipline matrix would be difficult at this time.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

As we state in the report, Los Angeles Sheriff already has a bias-free policing policy, and therefore it is already incumbent on Los Angeles Sheriff to have a thorough and consistent method for assessing whether its officers have violated this policy. We state in the report that a statewide definition of biased conduct would clarify expectations for law enforcement departments; however, the lack of a statewide definition does not leave Los Angeles Sheriff incapable of implementing our recommendations for improvements to its misconduct investigations. In our report we provided guidelines for how it should do so, including example criteria for identifying biased conduct and specific elements that a definition of biased conduct should include.

Recommendation #25 To: Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department

To ensure that it adequately investigates possible biased conduct and implements effective corrective actions, Los Angeles Sheriff should ensure it has implemented
policies or procedures by January 2023 that require that misconduct investigations formally analyze whether an officer has acted in a biased manner whenever a complainant alleges bias, the facts of the incident indicate bias might have influenced an officer's behavior, or investigators recognize potential indications of bias during other reviews, such as use-of-force reviews.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2023

The Department has developed a documented process specifically to address Senate Bill 2. The Bill has identified several criteria including "Demonstrating Bias" as one of the allegations to be considered for ineligibility or revocation of POST certification.

The Department has developed SMART, Senate Bill 2 Misconduct Allegation Reporting Tracking System, to report all allegations of misconduct.

Any allegations of this and other serious misconduct are reported to POST within 10 days for investigation. In addition, any completed Department investigations of serious misconduct are reported to POST as well.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Partially Implemented

LA Sheriff provided a policy and procedures for complying with statutory requirements for reporting allegations of serious misconduct, including biased conduct, to POST. The department also provided its policy on bias free policing, which requires department personnel to report incidents of biased policing and requires supervisors to respond to the scene if a person alleges racial bias. The policies do not require that misconduct allegations formally analyze whether an officer has acted in a biased manner outside of specific allegations of biased conduct. For example, when the facts of the incident indicate bias might have influenced an officer's behavior, or investigators recognize potential indications of bias during other reviews, such as use-of-force reviews.

1-Year Agency Response

The Peace Officer's Standards and Training (POST) provide certification to all peace officer's employed by law enforcement agencies in the state of California.

Senate Bill 2 establishes a process to suspend or revoke a peace officer's POST certification. The Bill has identified several criteria including "Demonstrating Bias" as one of the allegations to be considered for ineligibility or revocation of POST certification.

As of January 1, 2023, any allegations of this and other serious misconduct must be reported to POST within 10 days for investigation. In addition, any completed Department investigations of serious misconduct must be reported to POST as well. Currently the LASD Risk Management Bureau has implemented a separate Team to monitor the requirements of Senate Bill 2.

Additionally, the allegation of bias triggers a supervisory inquiry and/or complaint review in which information is collected and analyzed for an administrative review, if necessary.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

Los Angeles Sheriff has not provided a policy or procedure requiring that it investigate allegations of bias as it describes in its response. Additionally, the recommendation includes that the department should formally analyze whether an officer acted in a bias manner not only when a complainant alleges bias, but also when the facts of the incident indicate bias might have influenced an officer's behavior, or investigators recognize potential indications of bias during other reviews, such as use-of-force reviews.

6-Month Agency Response

There is no change to the status of this recommendation from the previous response.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

60-Day Agency Response

The Department does recognize the value of examining Bias behavior in policing. However, to date, a clear and exhaustive definition of actions or behavior considered to be bias have not been identified by the state or any other governmental entity. Therefore, independently modifying or establishing realistic policies would be difficult at best at this time.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

Los Angeles Sheriff raises the same objection to this recommendation as it did to our recommendation 24. We disagree that the present lack of a statewide definition of bias prevents it from improving its investigations into biased conduct consistent with our recommendations. We summarize the reasons for our disagreement in our assessment of Los Angeles Sheriff's response to recommendation 24, and describe them more fully in the text of the report.

Recommendation #26 To: Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department

To ensure that it adequately investigates possible biased conduct and implements effective corrective actions, Los Angeles Sheriff should ensure it has implemented
policies or procedures by January 2023 that require that the investigations apply a definition of bias that incorporates the following: biased conduct can include conduct
resulting from implicit as well as explicit biases; conduct is biased if a reasonable person would conclude so using the facts at hand; an officer need not admit biased or prejudiced intent for conduct to reasonably appear biased; and biased conduct may occur in an encounter with the public, with other officers, or online, such as
conduct on social media.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2023

The Department Manual of Policy and Procedure has updated the Bias-Free Policing policy as of March 30, 2023 to include definitions of Racial or Identity Profiling, Biased-Based Policing, Implicit Bias, Bias by Proxy, and Stop. In addition the policy outlines specifically that "Department members shall not use actual or perceived race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, gender identity, disability, sexual orientation, or age as a factor, to any extent or degree, in establishing reasonable suspicion or probable cause, except as part of actual and reliable information and description of a specific suspect or suspects in any criminal investigation."

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Partially Implemented

The department's bias-free policing policy includes definitions of racial or identity profiling, bias-based policing, and implicit bias. However, it does not require investigators to apply a definition of bias that includes that conduct is biased if a reasonable person would conclude so using the facts at hand; an officer need not admit biased or prejudiced intent for conduct to reasonably appear biased; and biased conduct may occur in an encounter with the public, with other officers, or online, such as conduct on social media.

1-Year Agency Response

The Department Manual of Policy and Procedure has updated the Bias-Free Policing policy in March 2023 to include definitions of Racial or Identity Profiling, Biased-Based Policing, Implicit Bias, and Bias by Proxy. The policy also includes requirements for Department members to attend mandated training.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

The department has not yet provided the updated policy to substantiate its implementation of this recommendation.

6-Month Agency Response

There is no change to the status of this recommendation from the previous response.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

60-Day Agency Response

The Department does recognize the value of examining Bias behavior in policing. However, to date, a clear and exhaustive definition of actions or behavior considered to be bias have not been identified by the state or any other governmental entity. Therefore, independently modifying or establishing realistic policies would be difficult at best at this time.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

Los Angeles Sheriff raises the same objection to this recommendation as it did to our recommendation 24. We disagree that the present lack of a statewide definition of bias prevents it from improving its investigations into biased conduct consistent with our recommendations. We summarize the reasons for our disagreement in our assessment of Los Angeles Sheriff's response to recommendation 24, and describe them more fully in the text of the report.

Recommendation #27 To: Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department

To ensure that it adequately investigates possible biased conduct and implements effective corrective actions, Los Angeles Sheriff should ensure it has implemented
policies or procedures by January 2023 that require that the individuals handling bias-related investigations follow detailed investigative guidelines for identifying biased
conduct and be specifically trained in how to perform these assessments.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2023

No update at this time.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

1-Year Agency Response

Department investigators are provided detailed training and guidelines on how to investigate serious misconduct of all levels within the Department.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

The department has not provided documentation substantiating that it has provided training or guidelines regarding investigating possibly biased conduct.

6-Month Agency Response

There is no change to the status of this recommendation from the previous response.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

60-Day Agency Response

The Department does recognize the value of examining Bias behavior in policing. However, to date, a clear and exhaustive definition of actions or behavior considered to be bias have not been identified by the state or any other governmental entity. Therefore, independently modifying or establishing realistic policies would be difficult at best at this time.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

Los Angeles Sheriff raises the same objection to this recommendation as it did to our recommendation 24. We disagree that the present lack of a statewide definition of bias prevents it from improving its investigations into biased conduct consistent with our recommendations. We summarize the reasons for our disagreement in our assessment of Los Angeles Sheriff's response to recommendation 24, and describe them more fully in the text of the report.

Recommendation #28 To: Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department

To ensure that it adequately investigates possible biased conduct and implements effective corrective actions, Los Angeles Sheriff should ensure that by January 2023 it has formalized policies - such as through discipline matrices or broader discipline guidelines - specifying options for corrective actions beyond punitive discipline that are designed to change officer behaviors associated with biased conduct. The department should require that, when appropriate, these corrective actions—such as training and education—be part of the discipline that officers receive when they are found to have engaged in biased conduct.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2023

No update at this time.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

1-Year Agency Response

The Department has established the Guidelines For Discipline and Education Based Alternatives designed to assist in deciding when and how to impose discipline. The guidelines are, designed to ensure that discipline should be corrective in nature and impressed upon the employee the necessity for proper conduct and performance. The imposition of proper discipline stems from a determination of the facts, an evaluation of whether the facts reflect the employee misconduct, a judgement on the significance of the misconduct and the proper disciplinary action response.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

The department has not provided updated discipline guidelines demonstrating that it has developed guidelines for corrective actions specific to biased conduct.

6-Month Agency Response

There is no change to the status of this recommendation from the previous response.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

60-Day Agency Response

The definition of Bias behavior in policing has been fiercely debated in the past, and to date, a clear and exhaustive definition of actions or behavior considered to be bias have not been identified by the state or any other governmental entity. Therefore, independently modifying or establishing an obtainable, realistic, and all-inclusive investigative process and discipline matrix would be difficult at this time.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

Los Angeles Sheriff raises the same objection to this recommendation as it did to our recommendation 24. We disagree that the present lack of a statewide definition of bias prevents it from improving its investigations into biased conduct or its disciplinary procedures consistent with our recommendations. We summarize the reasons for our disagreement in our assessment of Los Angeles Sheriff's response to recommendation 24, and describe them more fully in the text of the report.

Recommendation #29 To: Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department

To ensure that it adequately investigates possible biased conduct and implements effective corrective actions, Los Angeles Sheriff's policies should require that investigations include a formal determination that makes clear whether biased conduct occurred or not, as well as the rationale for reaching the determination.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2023

No update at this time

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

1-Year Agency Response

As stated in the above guidelines, investigations regarding serious misconduct are determined through the investigative process and formal determinations are made in order to impose appropriate discipline, if any.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

LA Sheriff has not provided documentation to substantiate that it has implemented this recommendation through developing a policy requiring formal determinations regarding biased conduct or the rationale for those determinations.

6-Month Agency Response

There is no change to the status of this recommendation from the previous response.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

60-Day Agency Response

The definition of Bias behavior in policing has been fiercely debated in the past, and to date, a clear and exhaustive definition of actions or behavior considered to be bias have not been identified by the state or any other governmental entity. Therefore, independently modifying or establishing an obtainable, realistic, and all-inclusive investigative process and discipline matrix would be difficult at this time.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

Los Angeles Sheriff raises the same objection to this recommendation as it did to our recommendation 24. We disagree that the present lack of a statewide definition of bias prevents it from improving its investigations into biased conduct consistent with our recommendations. We summarize the reasons for our disagreement in our assessment of Los Angeles Sheriff's response to recommendation 24, and describe them more fully in the text of the report.

Recommendation #30 To: Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department

To ensure that it accurately reports information about all complaints as required by state law, Los Angeles Sheriff should ensure that it reports to DOJ about all public complaints related to racial or identity profiling, including those that initially appear to be unfounded, and the disposition of those complaints.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2023

No update at this time.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

1-Year Agency Response

The Professional Standards Division is responsible for the annual reporting of complaints associated with racial or identity profiling.

The Department is currently revising the Watch Commander Service Complaint form to include allegations of bias or profiling to more efficiently identify those complaints associated with those categories.

In response Assembly Bill 953, the Racial Identity and Profiling Act, the Department has developed the Sheriff's Automated Contact Reporting form which requires that sworn Department members to answer a series of questions regarding their interactions with civilians, based on their perceptions, observations and actions. All data has been reported to the State of California DOJ annually, as required.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

6-Month Agency Response

There is no change to the status of this recommendation from the previous response.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

60-Day Agency Response

The definition of Bias behavior in policing has been fiercely debated in the past, and to date, a clear and exhaustive definition of actions or behavior considered to be bias have not been identified by the state or any other governmental entity. Therefore, independently modifying or establishing an obtainable, realistic, and all-inclusive investigative process and discipline matrix would be difficult at this time.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

Under state law, Los Angeles Sheriff, and other law enforcement departments, are required to report to DOJ about complaints they receive from the public, including those specifically alleging racial and identity profiling. We look forward to reviewing Los Angeles Sheriff's efforts to implement this recommendation and achieve compliance with its responsibilities under state law.

Recommendation #31 To: Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department

To improve its ability to effectively investigate allegations of officer misconduct, by April 2023, Los Angeles Sheriff should finish its planned partial implementation of body-worn cameras, and should establish and begin implementing a time frame for equipping officers in each of its custody settings with body-worn cameras.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2023

The Board of Supervisors approved $5.44 million to fund the initial deployment of body-worn cameras into Custody Division (TTCF/IRC Complex Only). The anticipated deployment of the BWCs is expected to begin between April - June 2024. The Department will be requesting funding to complete the entire deployment of BWCs into Custody Division over the next two fiscal years.

The Department completed the deployment of BWCs to all regular patrol stations and most specialized bureaus in December 2021. There are only two remining locations to deploy to (Community Colleges Bureau and County Services Bureau), which we anticipate deployment to begin by the end of 2023.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

6-Month Agency Response

The pilot project of BWCs in custody has been completed and the Department is recommending moving forward with a deployment plan. Once funding has been identified, a timeline will be established for deployment of BWCs in custody.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

60-Day Agency Response

The expected timeline for the completion of the current BWC project for patrol remains the same and is dependent on the supply chain for completion. Regarding the pilot project for the deployment of BWCs in Custody Division, the pilot program was completed as of May 30, 2022. The Department is in the process of authoring the assessment of the program which will include the funding and timelines required to establish BWCs in that environment. That report is due to be completed by July/August 2022.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

Recommendation #32 To: San Bernardino Police Department

To improve its ability to recruit qualified applicants who reflect the diversity of its communities, by October 2022, San Bernardino Police should have a process for regularly monitoring data on the diversity of its current personnel, its new hires, and to the extent possible, its applicant pool. It should use these data to evaluate the success of its recruitment efforts and identify needed areas of improvement

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2023

The Department has added the recommended language and formalized its intent to review applicant diversity data quarterly to inform its recruitment and hiring strategies.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Partially Implemented

San Bernardino Police has not provided an updated plan demonstrating that it has addressed the concerns we identified. In our previous assessment of its recruitment plan, we noted that the plan shows that the department collects data on the diversity of its applicants and current staff, and that it uses those data related to its current staff to inform recruitment and hiring strategies. However, the plan does not yet formalize San Bernardino Police's stated intent to review applicant diversity data quarterly to inform its recruitment efforts. When San Bernardino Police demonstrates that it has formalized that strategy into its recruitment plan, we will assess this recommendation as fully implemented.

6-Month Agency Response

The Department tracks the diversity of its employees through voluntary statements and visual assessments. In addition, human resources track the applicant candidate pool diversity. The candidates provide this data voluntarily, so it may not reflect the entire candidate pool. Beginning June 2022, the Department will solicit candidate pool diversity data quarterly. The Department will use this data to assess and modify recruitment efforts.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Partially Implemented

San Bernardino Police provided a new recruitment plan that includes a strategy for monitoring data on the diversity of its current personnel to assess its recruitment strategies. It also provided evidence that it has collected data on both the diversity of its current personnel and its applicant pool. However, its recruitment plan does not formalize San Bernardino Police's stated intent to review applicant diversity data quarterly to inform its recruitment efforts. When that strategy is formalized into its recruitment plan, we will assess this recommendation as fully implemented.

Recommendation #33 To: San Bernardino Police Department

To improve its ability to recruit qualified applicants who reflect the diversity of its community, by April 2023, San Bernardino Police should develop and begin implementing a documented strategy aligned with best practices for recruiting officers who reflect the diversity of its community.

6-Month Agency Response

In response to the report and recommendations, the Department researched best practices from surrounding jurisdictions and drafted a recruitment strategy focused on recruiting candidates that reflect the diversity of our community.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Fully Implemented

San Bernardino Police provided its new recruitment plan, which contains strategies for reaching applicants who reflect the diversity of its community and strategies for monitoring the effectiveness of those efforts.

Recommendation #34 To: San Bernardino Police Department

To better assess whether peace officer applicants have the ability to work with diverse members of their communities and whether they possess detectable disqualifying biases, by no later than October 2022 San Bernardino Police should begin conducting standardized interviews of officer applicants that include questions designed to assess their experience working with diverse communities and their ability to do so effectively.

6-Month Agency Response

The Department has developed interview questions and corresponding evaluation criteria that assess a candidate's experience working with diverse communities and ability to do so effectively.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Fully Implemented

San Bernardino provided its new set of interview questions that contain questions to assess an applicant's ability to work with diverse communities and the criteria it will use to evaluate applicants' answers.

Recommendation #35 To: San Bernardino Police Department

To better assess whether peace officer applicants have the ability to work with diverse members of their communities and whether they possess detectable disqualifying biases, by no later than October 2022 San Bernardino Police should begin using documented procedures that adhere to best practices to identify and review applicants' public social media profiles for content indicative of disqualifying biases, such as hate group affiliation.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2023

The Department continues to exceed POST standards and best practices regarding systematic review of all social media sites possessed by peace officer applicants.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

San Bernardino Police has not provided procedures for its background investigators to follow when conducting social media reviews.

1-Year Agency Response

The Department exceeds POST standards and best practices by systematically reviewing all social media sites possessed by peace officer applicants. To assist in identifying all social media accounts, the Department developed a document used by applicants to identify all of there social media sites and usernames. This provides Background Investigators with a thorough understanding of the applicant's public and private social media presence. The primary intent in this practice is to determine an applicant's judgement, potential bias, the character of their chosen community, and any disqualifying group affiliation. The Investigator then provides an analysis of their findings specific to this inquiry.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

The documentation that San Bernardino Police provided did not contain a set of procedures for reviewing applicants' public social media profiles.

6-Month Agency Response

The Department follows POST standards established in the POST Background Investigations Manual to check all applicants' social media for disqualifying bias. In addition, the Department has established procedures to document findings in the Background Investigation Summary prepared for each candidate.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

San Bernardino Police has not yet provided updated background investigation procedures for our review, so we could not verify its implementation of this recommendation.

60-Day Agency Response

The Department reviews all applicants' social media for disqualifying bias. The Department will develop documented procedures by the next reporting period.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

Recommendation #36 To: San Bernardino Police Department

To strengthen its relationships with its community and mitigate the effects of bias on its officers, San Bernardino Police should develop and begin implementing a documented strategy to do all of the following by April 2023:
- Collaborate with its communities to establish or leverage community advisory boards consisting of representatives of diverse groups. The strategy should specify how it will partner with the boards in the areas of recruitment, hiring, training, and community engagement, as well as how it will leverage the boards to obtain feedback on how it can better serve its community.
- Ensure that officers at all levels regularly participate in community engagement activities.
- Periodically survey its community to assess the effectiveness of its community engagement efforts and solicit feedback on how to improve its operations.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2023

The Department has implemented this recommendation as described in the previous response.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

San Bernardino Police has not provided documentation supporting that it has established a documented strategy for community engagement that addresses the elements of our recommendation.

6-Month Agency Response

The Department will work with community-based organizations such as the African American Advisor Board, Chaplains Committee, and Public Safety Commission to gain insight into recruitment, hiring, training, and community engagement. The strategy is documented in the Department's Recruitment and Hiring Plan. Additionally, the Department has also generated a call code identifier that officers are encouraged to use when participating in community engagement activities. Finally, District Officers attend over 300 events annually and will periodically solicit feedback from the community.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

60-Day Agency Response

The Department is researching best practices and assessing resources to develop a documented strategy and anticipates completing all recommendations before the next reporting period.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

Recommendation #37 To: San Bernardino Police Department

To proactively identify signs that officers may need additional training or supports to address possible biased behavior, San Bernardino Police should, by April 2023, adopt a policy and implement procedures that align with best practices for an effective early intervention system. The system should do the following:
- Track and incorporate data at the officer level related to complaints, uses of force, and other indicators as appropriate, and use these data to identify officers who could benefit from early intervention. The system should include analysis of stops data that identifies officers based on indications of possible biased conduct.
- Specify a range of early intervention options—such as trainings, mentoring or other supervisory approaches, mental health services, or reassignment—with guidance about how to apply them to the particular circumstances of each officer's conduct. The system should require prompt interventions that address the identified issues with or patterns in the officers' conduct, including conduct related to bias.
- Require monitoring of the officers who receive intervention to evaluate whether their performance improves or whether additional interventions are needed.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2023

The Department identified the degree of implementation in the previous response and has not received further information.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

In its previous response San Bernardino reported that it had not yet implemented this recommendation. Because San Bernardino noted in this update that it has fully implemented the recommendation, we requested documentation supporting that implementation, but the department has not yet provided any.

6-Month Agency Response

The Department uses Lexipol LLC. to maintain the most current policies that are regularly updated in response to new state and federal laws and relevant court decisions. The Department utilizes CI Technologies IAPro-Blue Team to document and track incidents related to complaints, uses of force, and other indicators that require supervisory oversight. Supervisors review incidents before Blue Team entry for Department Policy Violations, including bias-based policing. Upon completion, Blue Team entries are reviewed by a manager. The Department sets alert criteria for incidents that will signal additional manager review to determine if any early intervention is necessary. The Department uses Brazzos software to report stop data to the Department of Justice so the RIPA Board may analyze and produce public reports. A Department manager reviews all stop data before submission. As stated in the audit report, there is no published technical guidance on how departments should incorporate stop data into early intervention systems. The Department appreciates that the audit report recognizes the nuances and complexities involved in using stop data to identify trends indicating potential bias and will strive to identify and prevent biased behavior.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

60-Day Agency Response

The Department is working on these recommendations and anticipates completing them by the next reporting period.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

Recommendation #38 To: San Bernardino Police Department

To ensure that it adequately investigates possible biased conduct and implements effective corrective actions, San Bernardino Police should ensure it has implemented policies or procedures by January 2023 that require that misconduct investigations formally analyze whether an officer has acted in a biased manner whenever a complainant alleges bias, the facts of the incident indicate bias might have influenced an officer's behavior, or investigators recognize potential indications of bias during other reviews, such as use-of-force reviews.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2023

The Department will review for any evidence of bias or lack thereof in every administrative investigation. The Department will document findings in the administrative reports.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented

San Bernardino provided excerpts from its Investigations Manual showing that it had added requirements to investigate potential policy violations including explicit and implicit bias regardless of the nature of the allegation, and that this be identified and documented in the findings.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2023

The Department will review for any evidence of bias or lack thereof in every administrative investigation. The Department will document findings in the administrative reports.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented

San Bernardino provided excerpts from its Investigations Manual showing that it had added requirements to investigate potential policy violations including explicit and implicit bias regardless of the nature of the allegation, and that this be identified and documented in the findings.

6-Month Agency Response

The Department will review for any evidence of bias or lack thereof in every administrative investigation. The Department will document findings in the administrative reports.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

San Bernardino Police has not provided documentation showing that it has developed or implemented the policies or procedures that we describe in the recommendation.

60-Day Agency Response

In every administrative investigation, the Department will review for any evidence of bias or lack thereof. Findings will be documented in the administrative report.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

Recommendation #39 To: San Bernardino Police Department

To ensure that it adequately investigates possible biased conduct and implements effective corrective actions, San Bernardino Police should ensure it has implemented policies or procedures by January 2023 that require that the investigations apply a definition of bias that incorporates the following: biased conduct can include conduct resulting from implicit as well as explicit biases; conduct is biased if a reasonable person would conclude so using the facts at hand; an officer need not admit biased or prejudiced intent for conduct to reasonably appear biased; and biased conduct may occur in an encounter with the public, with other officers, or online, such as conduct on social media.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2023

The Department's previous response remains true.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

San Bernardino Police previously provided an excerpt of the Lexipol policy that it uses and which includes a definition of biased conduct. However, that definition does not address all elements of the recommendation, such as by clarifying that bias can be either implicit or explicit.

6-Month Agency Response

The Department uses Lexipol LLC. to maintain the most current policies regularly updated in response to new state and federal laws and relevant court decisions. The policy defines bias-based policing as "An inappropriate reliance on actual or perceived characteristics

such as race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or

expression, economic status, age, cultural group, disability, or affiliation with any non-criminal

group (protected characteristics) as the basis for providing differing law enforcement services or

enforcement (Penal Code section 13519.4)." Bias-based policing is strictly prohibited by the Department.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

60-Day Agency Response

The Department is researching best practices to develop policies and procedures to implement this recommendation.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

Recommendation #40 To: San Bernardino Police Department

To ensure that it adequately investigates possible biased conduct and implements effective corrective actions, San Bernardino Police should ensure it has implemented policies or procedures by January 2023 that require that the individuals handling bias-related investigations follow detailed investigative guidelines for identifying biased conduct and be specifically trained in how to perform these assessments.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2023

The Department added additional language to the Professional Standards Bureau Manual at the recommendation of the State Auditor. The new language requires all Professional Standards Investigators to attend the POST-accredited internal affairs investigator training. The POST curriculum includes training on identifying bias and determining underlying motivators for officer actions. Furthermore, the manual requires investigators to investigate for potential bias, whether implicit or explicit. Reviewers are directed to assess for bias as a motivator or passive existence during the incident.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

San Bernardino Police did not provide documentation showing its new training requirement for internal affairs investigators. Additionally, it did not provide documentation of detailed investigative guidelines for identifying bias.

1-Year Agency Response

The San Bernardino Police Department policy states that bias will not be tolerated by any of its members. The Department sends all San Bernardino Police Department Professional Standards Investigators to POST accredited internal affairs investigator training. POST curriculum includes identifying bias and determining underlying motivators for officer action. These investigations are then thoroughly reviewed by both a supervisor and manager to ensure that misconduct has been identified and addressed. Furthermore, the Professional Standards Bureau Manual has been modified based on the above recommendation stating that investigators will inspect for all potential policy or legal violations to include the presence of bias whether implicit or explicit. Reviewers are directed to assess for bias as a motivator or passive existence during the incident.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Partially Implemented

San Bernardino Police provided excerpts from its updated investigations manual. Although the manual requires the inspection and analysis of the presence of implicit or explicit bias, it does not contain detailed investigative guidelines for investigating bias or require that investigators be specifically trained on how to perform the assessments.

6-Month Agency Response

The Department is reviewing this recommendation to determine the most appropriate response.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

60-Day Agency Response

The Department is researching best practices to develop this policy.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

Recommendation #41 To: San Bernardino Police Department

To ensure that it adequately investigates possible biased conduct and implements effective corrective actions, San Bernardino Police should ensure that by January 2023 it has formalized policies - such as through discipline matrices or broader discipline guidelines - specifying options for corrective actions beyond punitive discipline that are designed to change officer behaviors associated with biased conduct. The department should require that, when appropriate, these corrective actions—such as training and education—be part of the discipline that officers receive when they are found to have engaged in biased conduct.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2023

The Department understood the original recommendation was to formalize policies "such as through discipline matrices or broader discipline guidelines" when correcting biased behavior. The Department responded that Senate Bill 2 would make discipline matrices with a nonpunitive level of discipline out of policy since the Department does not tolerate bias of any kind. The State Auditor's response clarified that the recommendation was not to develop a discipline matrix but to ensure the Department's discipline policy require consideration of nonpunitive corrective action whenever such actions may help address possible biased behavior. The Department has implemented the recommendation by adding language to The Professional Standards Bureau Procedures Manual that requires consideration of nonpunitive outcomes, such as education-based training to promote corrective behavior.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

San Bernardino Police did not provide its updated procedure manual demonstrating that it has incorporated requirements to consider nonpunitive corrective action when warranted.

1-Year Agency Response

The Department does not use discipline matrices. Senate Bill 2 requires that law enforcement agencies employ peace officers who hold current and valid Basic POST Certificates. Additionally, it requires that POST revoke certificates based on serious misconduct, including, "Demonstrating bias on the basis of any legally protected status." Consequently, developing a matrix that identifies various degrees of discipline or training based on an investigation concluding that an officer used bias conduct is not in line with San Bernardino Police Department standards, as any bias will not be tolerated.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

San Bernardino Police's response does not accurately reflect our recommendation. As we describe in the report, in some circumstances involving biased conduct, strong punitive discipline—such as termination—is warranted. However, in other circumstances, such as when an officer's conduct is influenced by implicit biases, a more beneficial approach may be corrective action—such as training—that is meant to change the officer's behavior. This is consistent with guidance from both US Department of Justice and state civil service guidelines, which state that the goal of discipline should be not to punish officers, but to correct their behavior—and creative alternatives to traditional punitive discipline may be most effective in doing so. Contrary to San Bernardino Police's assertion in its response, we do not recommend that the department develop a discipline matrix, nor do we recommend that San Bernardino Police avoid taking punitive discipline when it is warranted. Our recommendation is that the department ensure that its discipline policies require consideration of nonpunitive corrective actions whenever such actions might effectively help address possible biased behavior, even in conjunction with punitive discipline.

6-Month Agency Response

The Department is reviewing this recommendation to determine the most appropriate response.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

60-Day Agency Response

The Department is researching best practices to develop this policy.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

Recommendation #42 To: San Bernardino Police Department

To ensure that it adequately investigates possible biased conduct and implements effective corrective actions, San Bernardino Police's policies should require that investigations include a formal determination that makes clear whether biased conduct occurred or not, as well as the rationale for reaching the determination.

1-Year Agency Response

The Department makes a formal determination in every internal investigation as to whether the allegation occurred or did not occur. The determination includes the supporting rationale. According to Senate Bill 2, law enforcement agencies must employ peace officers with current and valid Basic POST Certificates. Additionally, it requires that POST revoke certificates based on serious misconduct, including "Demonstrating bias on the basis of any legally protected status." If an officer is determined to have acted in a bias manner, the Department must report that action to POST.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Fully Implemented

San Bernardino provided excerpts from its Investigations Manual showing that it had added requirements to investigate potential policy violations including explicit and implicit bias regardless of the nature of the allegation, and that this be identified and documented in the findings.

6-Month Agency Response

The Department is reviewing this recommendation to determine the most appropriate response.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

60-Day Agency Response

Administrative investigations will include a section that identifies whether biased behavior occurred and the rationale for that determination.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

Recommendation #43 To: San Jose Police Department

To improve its ability to recruit qualified applicants who reflect the diversity of its communities, by October 2022, San José Police should have a process for regularly monitoring data on the diversity of its current personnel, its new hires, and to the extent possible, its applicant pool. It should use these data to evaluate the success of its recruitment efforts and identify needed areas of improvement.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2023

The recruiting system we currently use does ask their gender on the general profile. It is a voluntary field and they can chose they do not want to provide that information. The recruitment unit is able to see this question as part of the recruitment. There is a separate diversity section in their general profile that asks about race/gender/ethnicity/disabilities. this section is also optional for the candidate. The recruiting unit are not able to see this information. This information only appears on the hiring documentation when we are processing the hire. The department uses NEOGOV. Once an academy class starts, the Recruiting Unit asks the recruit officers to take an optional survey asking diversity questions. All the questions are optional and recruits can opt to not answer any of the questions.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Partially Implemented

As noted previously, San Jose Police analyzes data for current staff, but not for applicants. We will consider this recommendation fully implemented when San Jose Police analyzes the diversity of applicants and uses that analysis to inform his recruitment strategies.

1-Year Agency Response

Updated Response-The recruiting system we currently use does ask their gender on the general profile. It is a voluntary field and they can chose they do not want to provide that information. The recruitment unit is able to see this question as part of the recruitment. There is a separate diversity section in their general profile that asks about race/gender/ethnicity/disabilities. this section is also optional for the candidate. The recruiting unit are not able to see this information. this information only appears on the hiring documentation when we are processing the hire. In July, we will no longer use the current recruitment software and City-wide we will use NEOGOV. it is an assumption the process of asking the diversity questions will be the same with NEOGOV.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Partially Implemented

San Jose Police evaluates data on the diversity of new hires and current personnel, but does not analyze diversity of applicants.

6-Month Agency Response

On August 18, 2022, the Recruiting Unit presented the Police Department Recruitment and Hiring Activity Annual Report. In this report, the Department detailed its efforts to boost applications and hiring of women, veterans, and a diverse applicant pool. These include recruiting at diversity-specific community events, colleges rated high in racial diversity, career and job fairs, military events, maintaining an online presence, and utilizing a recruiting website.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Partially Implemented

San Jose Police provided its annual report, which describes an analysis of the diversity of its new hires and current personnel. However, the report does not contain an analysis of applicant diversity, which is an important tool for evaluating the success of its efforts to recruit an applicant pool that reflects the diversity of its community.

60-Day Agency Response

A public-facing webpage showing the statistics of Department members' voluntary self-disclosed ethnic identification is in development. This information will be able to be dissected by rank and gender, including those in the Police Academy. Applicant pool data will not be posted to the website due to the constant influx and disqualification or withdrawal of candidates.

When first applying to the Department, candidates are not asked to voluntarily disclose their gender or ethnicity. Upon meeting the minimum qualifications, and after having completed the written and oral assessments, candidates are provided the Personal History Questionnaire. This is the first time candidates are asked to voluntarily provide their gender and ethnicity. Neither gender, nor ethnicity disclosures by candidates are required, and the ethnicity inquiry has the option of "decline to state." Therefore, there is a possibility a candidate may complete the entire application and hiring process without choosing to disclose their gender and ethnicity. Once hired and upon entering the Police

Academy, candidates' have the opportunity to voluntary self-disclose their genders and ethnic information again, which is collected by Human Resources.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

We stand by our recommendation that San Jose Police collect and analyze demographic information of applicants, which is a key best practice for assessing the effectiveness of its recruitment efforts.

Recommendation #44 To: San Jose Police Department

To improve its ability to recruit qualified applicants who reflect the diversity of its community, by April 2023, San José Police should develop and begin implementing a documented strategy aligned with best practices for recruiting officers who reflect the diversity of its community.

6-Month Agency Response

On August 18, 2022, the Recruiting Unit presented the Police Department Recruitment and Hiring Activity Annual Report. In this report, the Department detailed its efforts to boost applications and hiring of women, veterans, and a diverse applicant pool. These include recruiting at diversity-specific community events, colleges rated high in racial diversity, career and job fairs, military events, maintaining an online presence, and utilizing a recruiting website.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Fully Implemented

San Jose provided its updated recruitment plan, which includes strategies for recruiting a workforce that reflects the diversity of its community.

60-Day Agency Response

As outlined in the previous Recommendation the updated Procedural Manual containing a documented recruiting strategy will be completed by October 2022. The implementation of the revised recruiting efforts will begin immediately upon completion of the Procedural Manual. Upon completion, the document will be publicly available via the Department's Public Document Library.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

Recommendation #45 To: San Jose Police Department

To better assess whether peace officer applicants have the ability to work with diverse members of their communities and whether they possess detectable disqualifying biases, by no later than October 2022 San José Police should proactively seek and attempt to contact secondary references to obtain more candid information about applicants, such as information about past biased conduct or affiliation with hate groups.

60-Day Agency Response

This recommendation is completed. In March 2022, the Background Unit developed a standardized process for identifying and documenting secondary references. Contacting secondary references is a requisite portion of the background process. Any information provided by the secondary references is documented in the Background Summary. To preserve the integrity of the background process, the procedure will remain confidential, but a copy will be provided to the State Auditor's Office for verification.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Fully Implemented

San Jose Police provided evidence supporting that it had fully addressed this recommendation.

Recommendation #46 To: San Jose Police Department

To better assess whether peace officer applicants have the ability to work with diverse members of their communities and whether they possess detectable disqualifying biases, by no later than October 2022 San José Police should begin using documented procedures that adhere to best practices to identify and review applicants' public social media profiles for content indicative of disqualifying biases, such as hate group affiliation.

60-Day Agency Response

This recommendation is completed. In March 2022, the Background Unit developed a standardized process for identifying and documenting an applicant's social media history. In addition, all Background Investigators have attended a 1-hour open-source social media search class. To preserve the integrity of the background process, the procedure will remain confidential, but a copy will be provided to the State Auditor's Office for verification.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Fully Implemented

San Jose Police provided its procedure, which requires a broad review of applicant social media activity, including review for content indicative of biases.

Recommendation #47 To: San Jose Police Department

To strengthen its relationships with its community and mitigate the effects of bias on its officers, San José Police should develop and begin implementing a documented strategy to do all of the following by April 2023:
- Collaborate with its communities to establish or leverage community advisory boards consisting of representatives of diverse groups. The strategy should specify how it will partner with the boards in the areas of recruitment, hiring, training, and community engagement, as well as how it will leverage the boards to obtain feedback on how it can better serve its community.
- Ensure that officers at all levels regularly participate in community engagement activities.
- Periodically survey its community to assess the effectiveness of its community engagement efforts and solicit feedback on how to improve its operations.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2023

The Department is in the process of preparing a workplan for a community engagement consultant. The Department will be seeking the consultant's evaluation and recommendations on community engagement, relationship building, participation in Department activities, training, and policy direction. Allocation of budget resources for this item will be evaluated through the budget process, in the context of the City's overall fiscal condition and other Departmental program needs. The Department is continuing the selection process for a consultant.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

1-Year Agency Response

The Department is in the process of preparing a workplan for a community engagement consultant. The Department will be seeking the consultant's evaluation and recommendations on community engagement, relationship building, participation in Department activities, training, and policy direction. Allocation of budget resources for this item will be evaluated through the budget process, in the context of the City's overall fiscal condition and other Departmental program needs. The Department has meeting on 04/27/23 with a final candidate for the community engagement consultant.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

6-Month Agency Response

The Department is in the process of preparing a workplan for a community engagement consultant. The Department will be seeking the consultant's evaluation and recommendations on community engagement, relationship building, participation in Department activities, training, and policy direction. Allocation of budget resources for this item will be evaluated through the budget process, in the context of the City's overall fiscal condition and other Departmental program needs.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

60-Day Agency Response

The Department is in the process of developing a Request for Proposal for a community engagement consultant. The consultant will work with stakeholders to create a comprehensive community engagement plan, both for the Department, as well as for each of the four patrol Divisions. As part of this community engagement analysis, the consultant will provide guidance on community advisory boards, their recommended makeup, and how the Department will partner with those boards in the future. Due to the extensive collaboration, research, and development necessary for a comprehensive community engagement plan, this recommendation will likely not be completed until December 2023.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

Recommendation #48 To: San Jose Police Department

To proactively identify signs that officers may need additional training or supports to address possible biased behavior, San José Police should, by April 2023, adopt a policy and implement procedures that align with best practices for an effective early intervention system. The system should do the following:
- Track and incorporate data at the officer level related to complaints, uses of force, and other indicators as appropriate, and use these data to identify officers who could benefit from early intervention. The system should include analysis of stops data that identifies officers based on indications of possible biased conduct.
- Specify a range of early intervention options—such as trainings, mentoring or other supervisory approaches, mental health services, or reassignment—with guidance about how to apply them to the particular circumstances of each officer's conduct. The system should require prompt interventions that address the identified issues with or patterns in the officers' conduct, including conduct related to bias.
- Require monitoring of the officers who receive intervention to evaluate whether their performance improves or whether additional interventions are needed.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From November 2023

The Department is continuing use the early intervention system. We are currently in the RFP process and are working on full implementation of the early intervention system. The concern is that if we include stop data information in an early intervention system to appropriately evaluate the inclusion of stop data the department will need to consult with experts in the field, research available data and studies on the subject and determine best practices. because we have not completely incorporated an early invention system that does not include stop data, it will not be able be included until the conclusion of the pilot program. We are currently able to monitor Internal Affairs Data, Use of Force Data, and Arrest Data. All of those options are available already. Through the early intervention system that will be monitored by the established of the unit dedicated to this task.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

1-Year Agency Response

Updated response-We are currently in the RFP process and are working on full implementation of the early intervention system. The concern is that if we include stop data information in an early intervention system to appropriately evaluate the inclusion of stop data the department will need to consult with experts in the field, research available data and studies on the subject and determine best practices. because we have not completely incorporated an early invention system that does not include stop data, it will not be able be included until the conclusion of the pilot program. We are currently able to monitor Internal Affairs Data, Use of Force Data, and Arrest Data. 2. All of those options are available already. 3. Through the early intervention system that will be monitored by the established of the unit dedicated to this task.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

6-Month Agency Response

The Department will be evaluating a range of potential early intervention options as part of the Early Intervention System pilot project. It will also develop the process for interventions, including timing, notifications, and documentation. The pilot project is expected to end in December 2022, at which time any recommendations for changes to Department policy will be analyzed and proposed.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

60-Day Agency Response

The Department is currently in a pilot project with a vendor for an Early Intervention System. This pilot project is expected to end in December 2022, at which time the effectiveness of the system will be evaluated.

Regarding the inclusion of stops data, the Department will need to evaluate the effectiveness of its inclusion in an Early Intervention System. The Department is concerned that inclusion of stops data may, inadvertently, flag an officer for early intervention based on an inaccurate assumption. If, for example, an officer works in a community predominantly occupied by a given ethnicity, it would be appropriate to expect the officer to stop community members of that ethnicity at a higher rate. By using the frequency of ethnicity in the stops data, the officer might be flagged for early intervention when the reason for the increased number of stops was based solely on circumstance, not on any potential bias.

To appropriately evaluate the inclusion of stops data, the Department will need to consult with experts in the field, research available data and studies on the subject, and determine

best practices. Because the pilot project is already underway and does not include stops data, it will not be able to be included until, at minimum, the conclusion of the pilot. An analysis on the potential inclusion of stops data will be provided in the report documenting the results of the Early Intervention System pilot project.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

We are glad that San Jose Police intends to consult with experts regarding the use of stops data in its early intervention system. However, in response to the concerns it raises about the use of stops data we reiterate what we said in the report. Numerous authorities have recognized the complexities of using stops data in early intervention systems, but still recommend their use. Some of those authorities have also provided approaches to address the concerns that San Jose Police raises. Additionally, to address its concern that it will inappropriately flag officers, San Jose Police should follow best practices by including in its system appropriate thresholds and review processes to prevent such an occurrence.

Recommendation #49 To: San Jose Police Department

To ensure that it adequately investigates possible biased conduct and implements effective corrective actions, San José Police should ensure it has implemented policies or procedures by January 2023 that require that misconduct investigations formally analyze whether an officer has acted in a biased manner whenever a complainant alleges bias, the facts of the incident indicate bias might have influenced an officer's behavior, or investigators recognize potential indications of bias during other reviews, such as use-of-force reviews.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2023

The City of San José Policy Manual states, "Allegations of discrimination or harassment will be promptly and objectively investigated. The investigation will formally analyze whether an Officer has acted in a biased manner whenever a complaint alleges bias. The investigations findings will be based upon the totality of circumstances and each situation will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis." The Police Department abides by the City Policy Manual. The Department is in the process of developing policies and procedures as well.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

As we have noted previously, the policy that San Jose Police references does not contain requirements that it formally investigate whether an officer has engaged in biased conduct in his or her interactions with the public whenever investigators or other staff recognize potential indications of bias. We look forward to reviewing San Jose Police's new policies and procedures when they are complete and will assess this recommendation as fully implemented if they address all aspects of the recommendation.

1-Year Agency Response

The City of San José Policy Manual states, "Allegations of discrimination or harassment will be promptly and objectively investigated. The investigation and findings will be based upon the totality of circumstances and each situation will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis." The Police Department abides by the City Policy Manual.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

As we have noted previously, the policy that San Jose Police references does not contain requirements that it formally investigate whether an officer has engaged in biased conduct in his or her interactions with the public whenever investigators or other staff recognize potential indications of bias.

6-Month Agency Response

The City of San José Policy Manual states, "Allegations of discrimination or harassment will be promptly and objectively investigated. The investigation and findings will be based upon the totality of circumstances and each situation will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis." The Police Department abides by the City Policy Manual.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

As we have noted previously, the policy that San Jose Police references does not contain requirements that it formally investigate whether an officer has engaged in biased conduct in his or her interactions with the public whenever investigators or other staff recognize potential indications of bias.

60-Day Agency Response

This recommendation is completed. The City of San José Policy Manual states, "Allegations of discrimination or harassment will be promptly and objectively investigated. The investigation and findings will be based upon the totality of circumstances and each situation will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis."3 The Police Department abides by the City Policy Manual.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

As we state in the report, the policy that San Jose Police references is the city of San Jose's existing equal employment opportunity policy, which is focused on city employees' workplace interactions with other city employees. San Jose Police lacks a policy requiring it to formally investigate whether an officer has engaged in biased conduct in his or her interactions with the public whenever investigators or other staff recognize potential indications of bias. We will not consider this recommendation fully implemented until San Jose Police adopts such a policy.

Recommendation #50 To: San Jose Police Department

To ensure that it adequately investigates possible biased conduct and implements effective corrective actions, San José Police should ensure it has implemented policies or procedures by January 2023 that require that the investigations apply a definition of bias that incorporates the following: biased conduct can include conduct resulting from implicit as well as explicit biases; conduct is biased if a reasonable person would conclude so using the facts at hand; an officer need not admit biased or prejudiced intent for conduct to reasonably appear biased; and biased conduct may occur in an encounter with the public, with other officers, or online, such as conduct on social media.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2023

Pursuant to the State Auditor's recommendation to the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST), the Department will adopt POST's explanations of implicit and explicit bias, including how they can influence behavior and will mirror them in internal policies. In addition, the Department will develop a policy clarifying that biased conduct may occur in an encounter with the public, with other officers, or online, such as conduct on social media. The expected completion date for this recommendation is unable to be determined at this time, as it is reliant on POST's development of the applicable definitions. These types of investigations are reported to POST and POST reviews them. The Department also sent out a Memorandum/Duty Manual Revision department wide addressing online presence conduct.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

To clarify, we specifically recommended that the Legislature, not POST, create a definition of biased conduct for law enforcement departments to use in their misconduct investigations. We also made a similar recommendation directly to San Jose Police Department. A recently adopted state law now requires POST to develop a definition of biased conduct.

1-Year Agency Response

Pursuant to the State Auditor's recommendation to the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST), the Department will adopt POST's explanations of implicit and explicit bias, including how they can influence behavior and will mirror them in internal policies. In addition, the Department will develop a policy clarifying that biased conduct may occur in an encounter with the public, with other officers, or online, such as conduct on social media. The expected completion date for this recommendation is unable to be determined at this time, as it is reliant on POST's development of the applicable definitions.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

It was specifically recommended that the Legislature, not POST, create a definition of biased conduct for law enforcement departments to use in their misconduct investigations. We also made a similar recommendation directly to San Jose Police Department. San Jose Police may choose to implement the Legislature's definition of bias if and when it develops such a definition. However, given the importance of officers exercising their duties with fairness and impartiality, and the benefit of clarity regarding what constitutes biased conduct by a peace officer, San Jose Police should not wait for the Legislature to implement our recommendation.

6-Month Agency Response

Pursuant to the State Auditor's recommendation to the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST), the Department will adopt POST's explanations of implicit and explicit bias, including how they can influence behavior and will mirror them in internal policies. In addition, the Department will develop a policy clarifying that biased conduct may occur in an encounter with the public, with other officers, or online, such as conduct on social media. The expected completion date for this recommendation is unable to be determined at this time, as it is reliant on POST's development of the applicable definitions.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

The San Jose Police Department continues to misunderstand the intended subject of our recommendations related to developing a definition of bias. Specifically, we recommended that the Legislature, not POST, create a definition of biased conduct for law enforcement departments to use in their misconduct investigations. Nonetheless, we also made a similar recommendation directly to San Jose Police. Although the San Jose Police Department may choose to implement the Legislature's definition of bias if and when it develops such a definition, given the importance of officers exercising their duties with fairness and impartiality, and the benefit of clarity regarding what constitutes biased conduct by a peace officer, San Jose Police should not wait for the Legislature to implement our recommendation.

60-Day Agency Response

Pursuant to the State Auditor's recommendation to the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST), the Department will adopt POST's explanations of implicit and explicit bias, including how they can influence behavior and will mirror them in internal policies. In addition, the Department will develop a policy clarifying that biased conduct may occur in an encounter with the public, with other officers, or online, such as conduct on social media. The expected completion date for this recommendation is unable to be determined at this time, as it is reliant on POST's development of the applicable definitions.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

San Jose Police misunderstands the intended subject of our recommendations related to developing a definition of bias. Specifically, we recommended that the Legislature, not POST, create a definition of biased conduct for law enforcement departments to use in their misconduct investigations. Nonetheless, we also made a similar recommendation directly to San Jose Police. Although San Jose Police may choose to implement the Legislature's definition of bias if and when it develops such a definition, given the importance of officers exercising their duties with fairness and impartiality, and the benefit of clarity regarding what constitutes biased conduct by a peace officer, San Jose Police should not wait for the Legislature to implement our recommendation.

Recommendation #51 To: San Jose Police Department

To ensure that it adequately investigates possible biased conduct and implements effective corrective actions, San José Police should ensure it has implemented policies or procedures by January 2023 that require that the individuals handling bias-related investigations follow detailed investigative guidelines for identifying biased conduct and be specifically trained in how to perform these assessments.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2023

The Department is continuing to train all Internal Affairs personnel in investigating bias-related allegations. The Department will develop investigative guidelines for identifying biased conduct, and require all Internal Affairs investigators follow those guidelines. The Department recently had IA investigators attended a POST accredited course called "Why did you stop me?" This course deals with a variety of topics related to bias-based policing.

The expected completion date is unable to be determined at this time. The Department will continue to evaluate its ability to implement this recommendation in its annual report to City Council on pending recommendations.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

1-Year Agency Response

The Department will train all Internal Affairs personnel in investigating bias-related allegations. The Department will develop investigative guidelines for identifying biased conduct, and require all Internal Affairs investigators follow those guidelines. The Department recently had IA investigators attended a POST accredited course called "Why did you stop me?". This course deals with a variety of topics related to bias-based policing.

The expected completion date is unable to be determined at this time. The Department will continue to evaluate its ability to implement this recommendation in its annual report to City Council on pending recommendations.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

6-Month Agency Response

The Department will train all Internal Affairs personnel in investigating bias-related allegations. The Department will develop investigative guidelines for identifying biased conduct, and require all Internal Affairs investigators follow those guidelines.

The expected completion date is unable to be determined at this time. The Department will need to identify the appropriate training for investigating bias-related allegations, secure ongoing funding to send all 16 investigators to the training, and schedule the training in a manner that does not affect the functioning of the unit. The Department will continue to evaluate its ability to implement this recommendation in its annual report to City Council on pending recommendations.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

60-Day Agency Response

The Department will train all Internal Affairs personnel in investigating bias-related allegations. The Department will develop investigative guidelines for identifying biased conduct, and require all Internal Affairs investigators follow those guidelines.

The expected completion date is unable to be determined at this time. The Department will need to identify the appropriate training for investigating bias-related allegations, secure ongoing funding to send all 16 investigators to the training and schedule the training in a manner that does not affect the functioning of the unit. The Department will continue to evaluate its ability to implement this recommendation in its annual report to City Council on pending recommendations.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

Recommendation #52 To: San Jose Police Department

To ensure that it adequately investigates possible biased conduct and implements effective corrective actions, San José Police should ensure that by January 2023 it has formalized policies - such as through discipline matrices or broader discipline guidelines - specifying options for corrective actions beyond punitive discipline that are designed to change officer behaviors associated with biased conduct. The department should require that, when appropriate, these corrective actions—such as training and education—be part of the discipline that officers receive when they are found to have engaged in biased conduct.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From September 2023

The Department does not have a discipline matrix in which consequences are prescribed based on the actions or category of actions by a Department member. Rather, a recommendation of discipline is made by the Department member's command officer pursuant to Duty Manual section C 1724. In the event potential disciplinary action is likely to be greater than a letter of reprimand, the case is referred to the Disciplinary Review Panel.

The Disciplinary Review Panel is comprised of the commander of Internal Affairs and every level of the Department member's direct chain of command (e.g., their Sergeant, Lieutenant, Captain, Deputy Chief, Assistant Chief, and Chief of Police). The case is discussed, including all extenuating circumstances, the employee's performance history, length of employment and assignments, and any prior history of misconduct. A discussion of discipline is conducted by the Disciplinary Review Panel and a determination is made by the Chief of Police4 in consideration of all the disciplinary actions available in Duty Manual section C 1804:

· Training

· Informal Counseling

· Documented Oral Counseling

· Written Reprimanded

· Disciplinary Transfer

· Suspension

· Demotion

· Dismissal from City service

· Other appropriate disciplinary action that the Chief of Police deems appropriate

In the event of a sustained bias allegation, when appropriate, the Department will ensure training and education are a component of the outcome, in addition to or in lieu of punitive discipline. The Department reports to POST to review cases for possible de-certification as well.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

1-Year Agency Response

The Department does not have a discipline matrix in which consequences are prescribed based on the actions or category of actions by a Department member. Rather, a recommendation of discipline is made by the Department member's command officer pursuant to Duty Manual section C 1724. In the event potential disciplinary action is likely to be greater than a letter of reprimand, the case is referred to the Disciplinary Review Panel.

The Disciplinary Review Panel is comprised of the commander of Internal Affairs and every level of the Department member's direct chain of command (e.g., their Sergeant, Lieutenant, Captain, Deputy Chief, Assistant Chief, and Chief of Police). The case is discussed, including all extenuating circumstances, the employee's performance history, length of employment and assignments, and any prior history of misconduct. A discussion of discipline is conducted by the Disciplinary Review Panel and a determination is made by the Chief of Police4 in consideration of all the disciplinary actions available in Duty Manual section C 1804:

· Training

· Informal Counseling

· Documented Oral Counseling

· Written Reprimanded

· Disciplinary Transfer

· Suspension

· Demotion

· Dismissal from City service

· Other appropriate disciplinary action that the Chief of Police deems appropriate

In the event of a sustained bias allegation, when appropriate, the Department will ensure training and education are a component of the outcome, in addition to or in lieu of punitive discipline.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 1-Year Status: Pending

6-Month Agency Response

The Department does not have a discipline matrix in which consequences are prescribed based on the actions or category of actions by a Department member. Rather, a recommendation of discipline is made by the Department member's command officer pursuant to Duty Manual section C 1724. In the event potential disciplinary action is likely to be greater than a letter of reprimand, the case is referred to the Disciplinary Review Panel.

The Disciplinary Review Panel is comprised of the commander of Internal Affairs and every level of the Department member's direct chain of command (e.g., their Sergeant, Lieutenant, Captain, Deputy Chief, Assistant Chief, and Chief of Police). The case is discussed, including all extenuating circumstances, the employee's performance history, length of employment and assignments, and any prior history of misconduct. A discussion of discipline is conducted by the Disciplinary Review Panel and a determination is made by the Chief of Police4 in consideration of all the disciplinary actions available in Duty Manual section C 1804:

· Training

· Informal Counseling

· Documented Oral Counseling

· Written Reprimanded

· Disciplinary Transfer

· Suspension

· Demotion

· Dismissal from City service

· Other appropriate disciplinary action that the Chief of Police deems appropriate

In the event of a sustained bias allegation, when appropriate, the Department will ensure training and education are a component of the outcome, in addition to or in lieu of punitive discipline.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 6-Month Status: Pending

60-Day Agency Response

The Department does not have a discipline matrix in which consequences are prescribed based on the actions or category of actions by a Department member. Rather, a recommendation of discipline is made by the Department member's command officer pursuant to Duty Manual section C 1724. In the event potential disciplinary action is likely to be greater than a letter of reprimand, the case is referred to the Disciplinary Review Panel.

The Disciplinary Review Panel is comprised of the commander of Internal Affairs and every level of the Department member's direct chain of command (e.g., their Sergeant, Lieutenant, Captain, Deputy Chief, Assistant Chief, and Chief of Police). The case is discussed, including all extenuating circumstances, the employee's performance history, length of employment and assignments, and any prior history of misconduct. A discussion of discipline is conducted by the Disciplinary Review Panel and a determination is made by the Chief of Police4 in consideration of all the disciplinary actions available in Duty Manual section C 1804:

· Training

· Informal Counseling

· Documented Oral Counseling

· Written Reprimanded

· Disciplinary Transfer

· Suspension

· Demotion

· Dismissal from City service

· Other appropriate disciplinary action that the Chief of Police deems appropriate

In the event of a sustained bias allegation, when appropriate, the Department will ensure training and education are a component of the outcome, in addition to or in lieu of punitive discipline.

California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: Pending

Recommendation #53 To: Stockton Police Department

To communicate to both the public and its officers its commitment to performing its duties in a fair and impartial manner, Stockton Police should formalize a policy that
aligns with best practices by, at minimum, declaring that biased conduct is prohibited, describing in detail what constitutes biased conduct, and outlining key compliance mechanisms.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2023

The Department is updating all of its policies, which will include a formalized policy that, at a minimum, will specifically declare that biases are prohibited, describing in detail what constitutes biased conduct and outlining fundamental compliance mechanisms. We anticipate all policies to be updated by December 2024.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

Recommendation #54 To: Stockton Police Department

To improve its ability to recruit qualified applicants who reflect the diversity of its communities, by October 2022, Stockton Police should have a process for regularly monitoring data on the diversity of its current personnel, its new hires, and to the extent possible, its applicant pool. It should use these data to evaluate the success of its recruitment efforts and identify needed areas of improvement.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2023

The Department receives hiring and current demographic data from the City of Stockton Human Resources. This data is analyzed and reported annually to the City Council through the Civil Service Commission. The Civil Service Commission reviews and has the opportunity to question the recruiting and hiring of police staff. The City of Stockton applications now capture ethnicity data, which is pulled semi-annually and reviewed and evaluated by the Recruiting Unit.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Partially Implemented

At the time of our review, Stockton had fully implemented these practices with the exception of having a regular process for analyzing data on the diversity of applicants. We requested from Stockton documentation showing that it analyzes applicant demographic data, but Stockton stated that it does not have a final plan. When Stockton provides documentation showing it has such a process, we will consider this recommendation to be fully implemented.

Recommendation #55 To: Stockton Police Department

To better assess whether peace officer applicants have the ability to work with diverse members of their communities and whether they possess detectable disqualifying biases, by no later than October 2022 Stockton Police should begin conducting standardized interviews of officer applicants that include questions designed to assess their experience working with diverse communities and their ability to do so effectively.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2023

In April 2022, the Department's background investigators began asking and documenting six questions, each based on one of the six mandated interview factors to assess the applicant's ability to work in diverse communities.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Fully Implemented

Stockton provided its interview form and questions, which showed that the department asks questions designed to assess applicants' experience working with diverse communities.

Recommendation #56 To: Stockton Police Department

To better assess whether peace officer applicants have the ability to work with diverse members of their communities and whether they possess detectable disqualifying biases, by no later than October 2022 Stockton Police should proactively seek and attempt to contact secondary references to obtain more candid information about applicants, such as information about past biased conduct or affiliation with hate groups.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2023

The Department had been seeking and contacting secondary contacts for applicants. However, after review, the documentation of such efforts was not documented in the narrative of the background investigation.

Beginning in April 2022, the background investigators are required to have documentation on efforts to obtain secondary contacts and candid information about past conduct or affiliation with hate groups.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

Stockton PD does not have a formal policy or procedure requiring that investigators contact secondary references when provided.

Recommendation #57 To: Stockton Police Department

To better assess whether peace officer applicants have the ability to work with diverse members of their communities and whether they possess detectable disqualifying biases, by no later than October 2022 Stockton Police should should begin using documented procedures that adhere to best practices to identify and review applicants' public social media profiles for content indicative of disqualifying biases, such as hate group affiliation.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2023

The Department has provided training to background investigators on how to use open-source internet and applications such as Accurint to identify and review applicants' social media accounts. Additionally, outside background investigators have the same requirement to search for social media accounts that show indications of disqualifying biases and hate group affiliations.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

Stockton PD does not yet have a documented procedure for identifying and reviewing applicants' public social media profiles for content indicative of disqualifying biases, such as hate group affiliation.

Recommendation #58 To: Stockton Police Department

To strengthen its relationships with its community and mitigate the effects of bias on its officers, Stockton Police should develop and begin implementing a documented
strategy to do all of the following by April 2023:
- Collaborate with its communities to establish or leverage community advisory boards consisting of representatives of diverse groups. The strategy should specify how it will partner with the boards in the areas of recruitment, hiring, training, and community engagement, as well as how it will leverage the boards to obtain feedback on how it can better serve its community.
- Ensure that officers at all levels regularly participate in community engagement activities.
- Periodically survey its community to assess the effectiveness of its community engagement efforts and solicit feedback on how to improve its operations.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2023

1). The Department has and will continue to leverage meetings with the Chief's Community Advisory Board and the City Manager's Review Board to discuss the Department's training, recruitment, and community engagement at quarterly meetings.

2). Officers at all ranks have been active in community engagement and recruiting efforts. In October 2022, the Office of the Chief of Police began its own engagement campaigns that included neighborhood walks, school campus walks, and attending various community events. In this campaign, members from all levels participate in the activities.

3). The Department does not intend to implement a periodic survey at this time.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

Stockton did not provide documentation substantiating its implementation of this recommendation. Additionally, for this recommendation to be fully implemented Stockton will need to conduct a periodic survey to collect information on the effectiveness of its community engagement efforts and to solicit areas for improvement.

Recommendation #59 To: Stockton Police Department

To proactively identify signs that officers may need additional training or supports to address possible biased behavior, Stockton Police should, by April 2023, adopt a policy and implement procedures that align with best practices for an effective early intervention system. The system should do the following:
- Track and incorporate data at the officer level related to complaints, uses of force, and other indicators as appropriate, and use these data to identify officers who could benefit from early intervention. The system should include analysis of stops data that identifies officers based on indications of possible biased conduct.
- Specify a range of early intervention options—such as trainings, mentoring or other supervisory approaches, mental health services, or reassignment—with guidance about how to apply them to the particular circumstances of each officer's conduct. The system should require prompt interventions that address the identified issues with or patterns in the officers' conduct, including conduct related to bias.
- Require monitoring of the officers who receive intervention to evaluate whether their performance improves or whether additional interventions are needed.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2023

The Stockton Police Department is updating its policies through Lexipol, a platform representing nationwide standards and best practices. There will be a new early intervention system policy.

For the past several months, the Professional Standards Section has been in the process of implementing a new program (IAPro/Blue Team/EIPro) that is robust and will incorporate data from several categories, such as officers' use of force, Officer-involved shootings, on-duty vehicle accidents, vehicle pursuits, internal and external complaints, inquiries related to behavioral concerns, etc. IAPro and Blue Team were implemented in August and September 2023. EIPro (Early Intervention) is a system that became operative in October 2023.

This information has thresholds set, and if a police officer passes any threshold, it will alert to review the data to see if early intervention is warranted.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

We look forward to reviewing Stockton's updated policies and procedures regarding its early intervention system when Stockton submits them.

Recommendation #60 To: Stockton Police Department

To ensure that it adequately investigates possible biased conduct and implements effective corrective actions, Stockton Police should ensure it has implemented policies or procedures by January 2023 that require that misconduct investigations formally analyze whether an officer has acted in a biased manner whenever a complainant alleges bias, the facts of the incident indicate bias might have influenced an officer's behavior, or investigators recognize potential indications of bias during other reviews, such as use-of-force reviews.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2023

The Stockton Police Department is updating its policies through Lexipol, a platform representing nationwide standards and best practices. There will be a new early intervention system policy.

The Stockton Police Department Citizen Complaint forms ask the citizens if they are alleging racial or identity profiling. If the citizen responds yes, they are asked to indicate the specific type of profiling alleged with several examples listed.

If the citizen states that they are alleging racial or identity profiling, that is tracked and thoroughly investigated to see if there is any validity to that accusation.

The Professional Standards Section has been in the process of implementing a new program (IAPro/Blue Team/EIPro) that is robust and will incorporate data from several categories, such as officers' use of force, Officer-involved shootings, on-duty vehicle accidents, vehicle pursuits, internal and external complaints, inquiries related to behavioral concerns, etc. IAPro and Blue Team were implemented in August and September 2023. EIPro (Early Intervention) is a system that became operative in October 2023.

This information has thresholds set, and if a police officer passes any threshold, it will alert to review the data to see if early intervention is warranted. Part of this review will include a review for potential indications of bias.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

Recommendation #61 To: Stockton Police Department

To ensure that it adequately investigates possible biased conduct and implements effective corrective actions, Stockton Police should ensure it has implemented policies or procedures by January 2023 that require that the investigations apply a definition of bias that incorporates the following: biased conduct can include conduct resulting from implicit as well as explicit biases; conduct is biased if a reasonable person would conclude so using the facts at hand; an officer need not admit biased or prejudiced intent for conduct to reasonably appear biased; and biased conduct may occur in an encounter with the public, with other officers, or online, such as conduct on social media.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2023

The Stockton Police Department is updating its policies through Lexipol, a platform representing nationwide standards and best practices. Currently, our Personnel Complaints Policy states Penal Code 13670, which defines a law enforcement gang. Lexipol will have a policy dedicated to Bias-Based Policing, which will include a definition of bias-based policing.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

Recommendation #62 To: Stockton Police Department

To ensure that it adequately investigates possible biased conduct and implements effective corrective actions, Stockton Police should ensure it has implemented policies or procedures by January 2023 that require that the individuals handling bias-related investigations follow detailed investigative guidelines for identifying biased conduct and be specifically trained in how to perform these assessments.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2023

The Stockton Police Department is updating its policies through Lexipol, a platform representing nationwide standards and best practices. Stockton Police personnel receive biennial training related to protected classes. Stockton Police Department follows POST guidelines related to bias.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

Recommendation #63 To: Stockton Police Department

To ensure that it adequately investigates possible biased conduct and implements effective corrective actions, Stockton Police should ensure that by January 2023 it has formalized policies - such as through discipline matrices or broader discipline guidelines - specifying options for corrective actions beyond punitive discipline that are designed to change officer behaviors associated with biased conduct. The department should require that, when appropriate, these corrective actions—such as training and education—be part of the discipline that officers receive when they are found to have engaged in biased conduct.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2023

When Bias investigations conclude, the Department will review the potential related training and education available and consider it for the discipline recommended. To include training and/or education as part of the discipline received, has been a practice at the Stockton Police Department.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

Stockton PD reported to us that it does not have a policy that specifies options for corrective actions beyond punitive discipline.

Recommendation #64 To: Stockton Police Department

To ensure that it adequately investigates possible biased conduct and implements effective corrective actions, Stockton Police's policies should require that investigations
include a formal determination that makes clear whether biased conduct occurred or not, as well as the rationale for reaching the determination.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2023

Stockton Police Department thoroughly investigates all complaints of misconduct. Once the investigation is complete, a determination memorandum is authored that documents the allegation/s and the recommended finding.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

Stockton PD reported to us that it does not have a formal policy, but that it will soon have a new policy regarding bias-based policing. If its new policy addresses all aspects of the recommendation, we will consider the recommendation to be fully implemented.

Recommendation #65 To: Stockton Police Department

To ensure that it accurately reports information about all complaints as required by state law, Stockton Police should ensure that it reports to DOJ about all public complaints related to racial or identity profiling, including those that initially appear to be unfounded, and the disposition of those complaints.

Annual Follow-Up Agency Response From October 2023

Stockton Police Department's Professional Standards Section sends DOJ an annual report that includes all public complaints related to racial or identify profiling, which also consists of those complaints that initially appear to be unfounded and the disposition of those complaints.

California State Auditor's Assessment of Annual Follow-Up Status: Pending

Stockton PD reported to us that it does not have a policy or procedure for ensuring that it appropriately reports all complaints regarding racial or identity profiling. We will consider this recommendation fully implemented when it adopts such a policy or procedure.

All Recommendations in 2021-105

Agency responses received are posted verbatim.