police officers in a classroom

Recommendations

Chapter 7

Systems for Supervision, Accountability, Organizational Learning, Remediation, and Discipline

Finding 47

MPD's EIP policy does not sufficiently identify roles and responsibilities related to its EIP.

Please wait while we gather your results.

Recommendation 47.1

MPD should update the EIP policy to include standards and protocols for intervention including roles and responsibilities of the supervisor, commander, the member, and the EIP Coordinator; creation of an intervention plan; reporting and documentation requirements with associated timelines; and outcomes of the process.

Recommendation 47.2

MPD needs to train supervisors on how to create an appropriate intervention plan, how to report and document actions taken in support of the intervention meetings and EIP process, how to comply with timelines for the progression of the EIP process, and requirements for reporting the outcomes of the process. Engaged supervisors are important because they are the individuals most likely to identify early on problematic behaviors by patrol officers.

Recommendation 47.3

MPD should revise all of the benchmarks in EIP to have an alert notification trigger for any employee receiving three incidents in 90 days and over a rolling one-year period.

Recommendation 47.4

MPD should consider additional performance indicators for inclusion in EIP, including past performance evaluations, pedestrian and traffic stops, arrests, weapons qualifications, training history, lawsuit or claim filed, and any management and supervisory action taken pursuant to a review of EIP notifications.

Recommendation 47.4

Current:

In 2012, in an effort to enhance EIP, MPD conducted several surveys with other law enforcement agencies, conducted research by reviewing publications authored by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, New South Wales Police Integrity Commission, International Association of Chiefs of Police and EIP annual reports from other agencies. Nationally, very little research has been conducted on best practices. At the same time, MPD engaged in reverse engineering of the EIP system by reviewing complaint data to identify specific misconduct behaviors. This entailed review of incidents of misconduct to create benchmarks for interventions. This method provided a starting point for determining the efficacy of EIP data, identifying at risk employees exhibiting linear behavior patterns, and providing MPD indicators for behavior detection. The methodology included identifying those employees with the largest number of internal affairs complaints. An extensive review of each member’s employee case history was conducted, to include reviews of pre-employment history, background investigations and Internal Affairs Division complaints. Result of study created EIP indicators for alcohol, battery and sexual assault and supervisor/peer referrals were added to the program. The study’s methodology assisted MPD in developing a comprehensive EIP to provide empirical data, predictive analysis, and union and employee corroboration. In addition, the EIP administrator reviews biannual complaint data trends and pattern behavior.

Community Comments

The following required items were not provided or are in the wrong format. Please provide the required responses and submit again:

* Comment: 1000 characters left

Your comment

* Email or Phone:

Your email address or phone number