In response to a citizen’s complaint the Grand Jury investigated the East Palo Alto Police Department (EPAPD) with a focus on the department’s efforts to improve its performance, personnel, disciplinary and training practices in accordance with recommendations from PSComm, a police management consulting firm engaged by the City of East Palo Alto in July 2000.

The Grand Jury noted these key findings:

Violent crime continues to be a problem in East Palo Alto.
The crime rate in East Palo Alto is a primary issue of the citizens who have voiced their concern in the past to the local press blaming the Chief of Police’s inability to effectively manage the department and appropriately discipline his staff. East Palo Alto led all cities in the County in the number of homicides and robberies in 2002, and in 2003 reached its highest homicide level since 1997.

Many police department improvement recommendations from the consultant are still not implemented.
If the City Council and the Police Chief had been more diligent in implementing all of the PSComm recommendations from July 2000, it is likely the department would have been better equipped to control the escalating crime level.

The quality of the force remains questionable.
The EPAPD must upgrade the qualifications of its present personnel. The Police Chief continues to hire officers who have been discharged from other law enforcement agencies. Nearly half of the force has lapsed in meeting Continuing Professional Training (CPT) ongoing requirements in the last five years; all but one have failed to meet the CPT specific course requirements mandated as of January 1, 2002; 25% of the force has not received basic certification; and management seems uninterested in enforcing training standards. Mentoring and management staff development in general is neglected.

The leadership of EPAPD does not enforce policies consistently.
An officer of EPAPD continues to work at headquarters while under felony indictment in Santa Clara County for activities prior to being employed by EPAPD. Objections from the community to the Police Chief's decision to keep this officer on-the-job were reported in the local press. This action raises the question whether another accused officer could have a reasonable expectation of similar treatment. However, the Police Chief handled a subsequent disciplinary matter quite differently by placing an officer on paid administrative leave pending the results of an internal investigation of inappropriate police behavior.

A leadership succession plan is not being followed.
The consultant recommended in 2000 that immediate attention be given to creating and filling a Captain's position. The Grand Jury learned no job description or requisition has been developed for a Captain's position and that the City intends to hire a Human Resources Director before hiring a Police Captain. The City Council's priority to hire a Human Resources Director before hiring a Police Captain does not serve the best interests of public safety.

Overview of Recommendations:

• The City Council should aggressively seek qualified candidates for the budgeted Police Captain's position and fill it within 90 days with someone who has demonstrated leadership and motivational skills, and has potential to succeed the current Police Chief.
• The City Council should immediately enforce policies for timely performance evaluations, timely completion of training requirements, and initiate a professional development program for all employees of the East Palo Alto Police Department.
• The City Council should ensure that adequate financial resources and staff are allocated to enable the East Palo Alto Police Department to implement fully the recommendations of the organizational assessment provided by PSComm, LLC/Joseph Brann and Associates, LLC (Attachment A of the full report); report the current status to the Grand Jury by August 1, 2004; and require the Police Chief to report status to the City Council quarterly.
• The City Council should hold the Police Chief accountable for implementation of the recommendations on Attachment A; his decisions and actions; and reflect his progress in an annual performance evaluation properly recorded in his personnel record.
• By December 31, 2004 the City Council should take appropriate disciplinary action if the Police Chief does not make substantial progress in implementing the recommendations in this report, including hiring a Captain.

In the past the Grand Jury investigated the East Palo Alto Police Department (EPAPD) in response to complaints from citizens of that city. It found a department ill qualified to deal with uncontrolled drug dealing, street crimes and drive-by shootings. Assistance from adjoining law enforcement agencies, California Highway Patrol and the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office (Sheriff) was necessary to assist EPAPD in managing crime and violence in its jurisdiction.

Media coverage of the Police Department's problems caused a serious decline in the department's morale and public image. With the decline of the image of the City of East Palo Alto (City) as a whole, established businesses were anxious to leave and new businesses were reluctant to come to the City. The tax base declined further. The City seemed to be in a downward spiral.

In 2000 the City Council engaged a consultancy, PSComm, LLC of Hayward, California, to study the Police Department and make recommendations to improve the performance of the department. The consultancy issued an assessment of the department in July of that year. The assessment included 71 specific recommendations suggesting improvements in management and supervisory accountability, human resources, workplace environment, technology infrastructure and utilization, training, community policing and problem solving and crime reduction strategies.

The Grand Jury studied the report, "Policing East Palo Alto - the Organizational Assessment," issued by PSComm, LLC (PSComm) and investigated how the City and EPAPD responded to the recommendations in the areas of hiring, firing, recruitment, promotional, disciplinary and training practices. During the investigation the Grand Jury evaluated personnel records and policies regarding training and performance, reviewed the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the East Palo Alto Police Officers Association, and researched the San Mateo County and East Palo Alto crime statistics from the California Department of Justice. The Grand Jury conducted interviews with PSComm, now Joseph Brann & Associates, LLC (Brann & Associates), and with the City Management.

A significant number of residents believe that neighborhood coalitions are effective in addressing crime issues and a third of the community believes the police services are below average.

Many Police Department improvement recommendations from the consultant are still not implemented.

In the Management and Supervisory Accountability section of its assessment of EPAPD, PSComm cites the following that illustrate the poor condition of the department in July 2000:

• There is a lack of an experienced or skilled management staff.
• There is a Department-wide failure to conduct performance evaluations.
• Roles and expectations of department staff are unclear.
• There is an absence of a training and professional development strategy.
• Discipline is not delivered in a consistent and timely manner.
• There is a lack of recognition and/or rewards for outstanding performance.
• Staffing levels are critically low.
• The City does not offer an adequate or competitive compensation package.
• EPAPD's hiring criteria and employment standards need to be strengthened.

The significant recommendations made by PSComm involved:

• Immediate attention to filling critical vacancies, including creation of a new Captain's position;
• Significant improvement in the compensation and benefits package;
• Standards necessary for suitability for employment, training and personnel evaluations;
• The necessity of weekly management meetings.

The detailed recommendations made by PSComm in these areas are included in Attachment A.

In September 2001 Brann and Associates issued a progress report on the implementation of recommendations from the PSComm organizational assessment of EPAPD. The progress report cites improvement in some areas and no progress in other areas. Relative to Management and Supervisory

Accountability, it notes that a variety of efforts had been launched to improve the knowledge, skills and abilities of the managers and supervisors, and to ensure adequate managerial oversight of operations. Training standards had been developed, but the training guide had not been updated, and only management employees were receiving training. Ongoing staff shortages were still a problem, but the compensation and benefits package was improved, and hiring criteria were established.

In March 2003 Brann & Associates issued an update to the progress report noting areas in which no progress had been made and areas in which "back sliding" occurred where progress had been seen at the time of the first progress report. In the area of Management and Supervisory Accountability the report commended management and supervision of resources and personnel especially in the patrol arena. While there was progress in development of job skills, more training actions are necessary in order for management to be effective. Initially there was improvement in completing performance evaluations and dealing with disciplinary actions in a timely manner; however, management had declined in their follow-through.

The quality of the force remains questionable.
For years the City, hampered by a small tax base, did not offer a competitive salary and benefits package to attract qualified officers. The Grand Jury was told that in the past the City had often hired persons who were not considered qualified by other police departments. Candidates were hired who had been discharged by other departments or who had previously been allowed to resign in order to avoid disciplinary action. Large sums of money have been paid to settle lawsuits because of the inappropriate actions of some officers.

A review of the personnel records provided by EPAPD² for its current 36 sworn officers indicates that as late as December 2002 the department continued to hire officers discharged from other police departments and officers who have large gaps in their police work experience. There are four officers currently on the payroll that had been discharged from one or more of their previous police jobs, including one later promoted to lieutenant by EPAPD. There are three officers currently on the payroll that had less than a year's experience when they resigned from a previous police job, and their record shows no further police work for several years prior to being hired by EPAPD. In addition to the gap in police work experience, three of the officers had no training for three and a half years when hired by EPAPD.

Exhibit 1 - Hiring Information

*A Sheriff's Office

California Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) offers training required by law for peace officer qualification and ongoing employment. POST awards professional certificates to recognize peace officer achievement and proficiency. The Basic Certificate is awarded to currently employed full-time peace officers of a POST-participating agency who have satisfactorily completed the prerequisite Basic Course requirement and the employing agency's probationary period. Other certificates are Intermediate, Advanced, Supervisory, Management, Executive, Public Safety Dispatch, Records Supervisor, and Reserve Officer. There are only 11 officers on the force, including the Police Chief, who have more than the Basic Certificate. There are two officers whose records indicate they have been assigned full-time peace officer positions, but have never taken the Regular Basic Training Course. They have taken some reserve training modules.

POST regulations require continuing education for the purpose of maintaining, updating, expanding, and/or enhancing an individual's knowledge and/or skills. It is training which exceeds the training required to meet or requalify entry-level minimum standards. POST regulations state that every peace officer must satisfactorily complete the Continuing Professional Training (CPT) requirement of 24 or more hours of training every two years. For all police officers below the rank of middle management that means two years from the completion date of the Regular Basic Training Course; for middle management and above it is based on date appointed or July 1, 2000, whichever is later; for reserve officers it is based on date appointed or July 1, 1995 (Level I Reserve Officer) and July1, 1999 (Level II Reserve Officer) whichever is later.

The following exhibit lists pertinent data regarding officers whose training records indicate lapses in meeting CPT requirements, over 40% of the force.

Exhibit 2 - Training Information³

Exhibit 3 - Probation Period

Three officer recruits have been on the force longer than 18 months, but have no POST certificate noted. One of these has been on the force over two years. Records also indicate an officer appeared to be on probation nearly three years before receiving the Basic Certificate.

POST also encourages law enforcement agencies to participate in its agency program by agreeing to abide by the standards established by POST. The more than 600 agencies in the POST program are eligible to receive the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training's services and benefits, such as job-related assessment tools, research into improved officer selection standards, management counseling services, the development of new training courses, reimbursement for training, and quality leadership training programs. If it appears a department fails to adhere to the regulations, it may be deemed ineligible to receive these services and benefits. EPAPD is a participating agency.

The overall quality of the force remains low primarily due to lack of a professional development plan, training, and a performance assessment plan with equitable standards for progressive discipline. Upward mobility of officers is blocked by their unwillingness to seek required training independently. Some officers choose to undergo only the minimum training required to maintain the POST Basic Certificate.

Mentoring and management staff development in general is neglected. EPAPD does not have its own detective division, which normally requires more highly trained personnel. The detective function in East Palo Alto is provided by the Sheriff. The Grand Jury was advised that the only current mentoring activity is rotation of some of the department's better officers through temporary assignments working with the Sheriff's detectives to build some detective experience on the force.

There is no agreement for jointly developed goals and objectives between officers and supervisors. Performance evaluations are not current for many of the managers. The department was unable to provide any evidence to the Grand Jury that an evaluation of the Police Chief's performance had been completed in the last five years. There is little evidence that all personnel had received annual written performance evaluations. This is in violation of City personnel policies and the agreement with the police officers' union. The City Personnel Policies and Procedures clearly define the requirement for performance evaluations every twelve months of actual service, and upon termination of service. All performance evaluations are to be forwarded to the Personnel Office. The forms currently used for performance evaluations are outdated, inconsistent with current procedures and do not meet the department's needs.

The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City and the East Palo Alto Police Officers Association states, "Upon completion of twelve months of actual initial or promotional probationary service, after receiving a satisfactory performance evaluation, a merit increase . . . shall be granted." It continues that each twelve months of actual service thereafter, "each employee receiving a satisfactory performance evaluation shall receive a merit increase."

The MOU also establishes salary adjustments for Intermediate and Advanced Certificates from POST, and longevity pay for officers with ten years continuous service with the City as a motivation to improve professionalism and stability of the force.

The leadership of EPAPD does not enforce policies consistently. The Police Chief has been in this position since 1994 working under an employment contract, and reports to the City Manager. During the past six years the City had several acting, appointed, or contract City Managers. The Police Chief operated semi-autonomously without effective oversight, and some questionable managerial decisions were made during this period.

The Police Chief's handling of personnel matters presents numerous questions relative to the fairness and consistent application of disciplinary action in the department.

An officer of EPAPD continues to work at headquarters while under felony indictment in Santa Clara County for activities prior to being employed by EPAPD. When notified of the indictment of one of his officers, the Police Chief sought advice from the City Attorney regarding the question of the officer's continued employment. The Police Chief was provided three alternatives by counsel:

1. Put the indicted officer on administrative leave with pay.

2. Seek termination of the officer.

3. Keep the officer on the job in some non-sensitive position.

Since EPAPD is experiencing a shortage of personnel and limited budget, the Police Chief opted to assign the officer to work in the office at EPAPD headquarters. The Grand Jury was advised that it is common practice in law enforcement and the standing practice of this Police Chief in the past, to relieve an accused officer from duty immediately when the mere allegation of wrongdoing by a sworn officer surfaces. The accused officer usually remains on administrative leave pending resolution of the charges. Objections from the community to the Police Chief's decision to keep this officer on-the-job were reported in the local press.

This action raises the question whether another accused officer could have a reasonable expectation of similar treatment. However, the Police Chief handled a subsequent disciplinary matter quite differently. It was recently reported in the local press that a sergeant of EPAPD was placed on paid administrative leave pending the results of an internal investigation of inappropriate police behavior, which was estimated to take at least two weeks.

In a different instance the Police Chief followed the hiring criteria recommended by the consultant. An officer who was fired for cause sued the City for wrongful termination, and was ordered reinstated. The reinstatement is on hold since the officer allowed his POST certification to lapse. Before being reinstated the Police Chief has required the officer be POST re-certified by the State of California and pass specified physical and mental suitability examinations.

A leadership succession plan is not being followed. The consultant recommended in 2000 that immediate attention be given to creating and filling a Captain's position. The Grand Jury was advised the current pool of officers in the department offers no qualified candidates for possible replacement of the current Police Chief. The Grand Jury was led to believe the new Captain's position had a written job description and a requisition had been issued with requirements for a college degree that would preclude any current EPAPD officers from qualifying for that position. It seemed that the interviewing of external candidates was about to commence. Neither has taken place. The Grand Jury learned the personnel department has no such job description or requisition and that the City intends to hire a Human Resources Director before hiring a Police Captain.

The search to fill this position has not been given top priority. Funding for this position is the first cut volunteered by the Police Chief when budget cuts are necessary. There has been little pressure from the City Council or City Manager to fill the position.

8.1  Ensure that any officer returning to the department after a protracted absence from law enforcement:

• Obtains re-certification in accordance with POST regulations.
• Is current with all ongoing Continuing Professional Training.
• Passes all physical and mental evaluations by the appropriate agencies for suitability for this assignment.

8.2  Develop joint goal-setting procedures as a basis for performance evaluations.

8.3   Ensure progressive disciplinary procedures are followed as mutually agreed.

8.4   Communicate any changes that result from implementation of the recommendations to their members.