Follow-up Audit Report on the Case Management Policies and Procedures of the Civilian Complaint Review Board

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

This is a follow-up audit to determine whether the Civilian Complain Review Board (CCRB) has implemented recommendations made in an earlier audit, Audit Report on Case Management Policies and Procedures of the Civilian Complaint Review Board (Audit #MH96-181A, issued June 25, 1998). The earlier report evaluated the CCRB’s performance in relation to its case management policies and procedures. Specifically, the earlier audit determined whether the CCRB processed and completed its investigations of civilian complaints of alleged police misconduct in time for the New York City Police Department (NYPD) to take action within the mandatory 18-month statute of limitations. The audit also evaluated the adequacy and effectiveness of the CCRB’s case management policies and procedures. In addition, it assessed the reliability of the CCRB’s computer operations and the effectiveness of the agency’s performance and case processing indicators. The earlier audit did not evaluate the quality of CCRB investigations.

The earlier report noted that overall, the CCRB had increased its effectiveness and made gains in meeting its civilian oversight goal of investigating complaints of police misconduct, based on reviews of case files and data from July 1993 through June 1997. However, the audit concluded that the agency still had considerable room for improvement in case management. Too many cases still exceeded the 18-month statute of limitations, and many cases, although completed within 18-months, were at-risk because they were sent to the NYPD too late for the NYPD to complete its own investigations and take disciplinary actions. The previous audit also determined that the CCRB had serious data reliability problems involving the accuracy of information in its computerized database. However, the audit noted that the CCRB had taken a number of steps to correct those problems, resulting in significant improvements in data reliability.

The earlier report made ten recommendations for the CCRB to improve the performance of its case management procedures and policies, computer operations, and reporting of operational effectiveness.

This follow-up audit determined that five of the ten recommendations made in the previous audit were implemented, three were partially implemented (or partially implemented—improvement noted), one was not implemented, and one was no longer applicable.The recommendations and their current implementation status are as follows. The CCRB should:

1. Ensure that it sends all substantiated cases to the NYPD well enough in advance so that the NYPD has sufficient time to commence and complete its own review of alleged police misconduct before the end of the 18 month statute of limitations.

2. Continue to track and monitor the age of its case docket and develop further refinements that may be necessary to ensure efficient case management, so that all old cases are closed and all new cases are investigated in a timely manner.

3. Adopt more realistic case processing indicators or thresholds to define the backlog of cases. The CCRB should discontinue its current 4-month or more threshold that is now being used in the City’s Mayor’s Management Report, replacing it with a more relevant indicator.

4. Begin reporting on the length of time that it takes to conduct full investigation cases, either in addition to, or instead of, its current measures. This would present a much more accurate and relevant performance measurement of the real efficiency of the CCRB’s case management in the most critical category of its cases.

5. Continue to work with the NYPD to expedite the process for obtaining investigation-related documents from the NYPD’s Internal Affairs Bureau.

6. Convene a panel of experts in the area of effectiveness and law enforcement to develop and recommend a comprehensive set of relevant performance indicators that the CCRB should use to measure its effectiveness.

7. Work with the NYPD to set up a systematic procedure to get formal feedback from the NYPD to learn the reasons for the final actions for each case submitted.

8. Begin reporting in its semiannual Status Reports on the final outcome of its substantiated cases that match or link the cases that the CCRB sends to the NYPD with the NYPD’s final actions in each of those cases. This information would provide management—and the public—with more results-based data as well as a valuable tool for measuring the CCRB’s effectiveness.

9. Design a plan of action to improve the accuracy and completeness of its computer-based data so that its data can be used as an effective and a dependable management tool for compiling, analyzing, and reporting information.

10. Institute quality control and review procedures to verify that data entry is accurate and complete, and promptly reconcile any errors that are identified.

During this current audit, we determined that the CCRB has shown marked improvement in its ability to manage its caseload in a timely and efficient manner. A number of factors have contributed to its success, including a greater ability to obtain from the NYPD information needed to complete investigations and a new time-triggered case review system. These improvements notwithstanding, the audit determined that CCRB investigative managers and supervisors did not consistently make a notation entry in the computerized case log to validate that the required periodic reviews were conducted. Therefore, there is no assurance that all cases are undergoing supervisory review at the specified intervals. Moreover, the CCRB has still not developed more realistic indicators to define the backlog of cases.

To address weaknesses that still exist, we restate the previous recommendations that the CCRB should:

• Continue to work to maintain compliance with its case management procedures and process cases expeditiously to ensure that all substantiated cases are referred to the NYPD with sufficient time remaining on the 18-month statute of limitations for the NYPD to take action.

• Meet with the Mayor’s Office of Operations to discuss discontinuing the "operational backlog" indicator that is now being used in the Mayor’s Management Report (MMR), replacing it with a more relevant indicator that would provide a clearer measure of the agency’s productivity in processing cases. For example, the CCRB could report the age of its caseload from the date the case was reported to CCRB, using intervals (i.e., 0-4 months, 5-12 months, 13-17 months, etc.) similar to those already used in the MMR to report the age of caseload from the date of the incident.

• Continue to work with the NYPD to expedite the process for obtaining investigation-related documents from the NYPD Internal Affairs Bureau.

• Report on a case-by-case basis the NYPD’s final actions on CCRB cases in addition to reporting the number of police officers involved in each case. This could provide a clearer gauge of CCRB effectiveness regarding the outcome of substantiated cases.

To further improve its case processing procedures and management, we now recommend that the CCRB:

• Continue to work to obtain direct CCRB desktop access to the NYPD database.

• Remind investigative supervisors and managers in the time-triggered review procedures or retrain them in these procedures; emphasize that each case log should be validated by supervisory personnel upon the completion of each required case review.

• Consider adding an indicator to the Complaint Tracking System (CTS) database that could be used to evidence the completion of supervisory case reviews at specified intervals. This feature could also be used to flag cases still requiring review.

This audit was conducted in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS) and included tests of the records and other auditing procedures considered necessary. This audit was performed in accordance with the City Comptroller’s audit responsibilities as set forth in Chapter 5, § 93, of the New York City Charter.

The matters covered in this audit report were discussed with officials from the CCRB during and at the conclusion of this audit. A preliminary draft report was sent to CCRB officials and was discussed at an exit conference held on March 22, 2002. On March 27, 2002, we submitted a draft report to CCRB officials with a request for comments. We received a written response from CCRB officials on April 10, 2002. The CCRB generally agreed with all seven recommendations made in this audit, stating:

"Thank you for giving the board the opportunity to formally review and comment upon the New York City Comptroller’s draft of its ‘Follow–up Audit Report on the Case Management Policies and Procedures of the Civilian Complaint Review Board’ (audit number MH01–183F). I also want to thank your audit staff for its diligence and effort in preparation of the audit report.

"The CCRB concurs with the audit conclusion that ‘the CCRB has shown marked improvement in its ability to manage its caseload in a timely and efficient manner. . . .The CCRB also believes that our improvement was and is in part dependent upon the CCRB’s ability to obtain records and other information more expeditiously from the New York City Police Department."