january 9, 2015 14.2 from: chief of police subject ...2014/09/23 · january 9, 2015 14.2 to: the...

INTRADEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE

January 9, 201514.2

TO: The Honorable Board of Police Commissioners

FROM: Chief of Police

SUBJECT: PERSONNEL SELECTION CRITERIA AND PROCESS AUDIT(IAID No. 13-059)

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

1. It is recommended that the Board of Police Commissioners REVIEW and APPROVE theattached Personnel Selection Criteria and Process Audit.

2. It is recommended that the Board of Police Commissioners REVIEW and APPROVE theattached Executive Summary thereto.

DISCUSSION

Internal Audits and Inspections Division conducted the Personnel Selection Criteria and ProcessAudit to evaluate compliance with related Department directives. The audit was originallypresented before the Board of Police Commissioner's meeting on May 13, 2014; the Board ofPolice Commissioners did not approve the audit report, pending clarification with Table No.7 inthe audit report. On September 23, 2014, the Personnel Selection Criteria and Process Audit waspresented, and not approved, pending additional information requested by the Board of PoliceCommissioners. The Personnel Selection Criteria and Process Audit is hereby beingsubmitted for your review and approval with the additional information.

If additional information regarding this audit is required, please contact Arif Alikhan,Special Assistant for Constitutional Policing, at (213) 486-8730.

Respectfully,

CHARLIE BECKChief of Police

Attachment

Los ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT

PERSONNEL SELECTION CRITERIAAND

PROCESS AUDIT

(LAID No. 13-059)

Conducted by

INTERNAL AUDITS AND INSPECTIONS DIVISION

CHARLIE BECKChief of Police

December 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTSPERSONNEL SELECTION CRITERIA AND PROCESS AUDIT

PAGENO.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i

PURPOSE 1

BACKGROUND 1

METHODOLOGY 1

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 2

DETAILED FINDINGS 3

OBJECTIVE NO. 1- Completeness of Selection Package 3

Commanding Officer's Rationale ContainedOBJECTIVE No. 2 -

Justification of Selection4

OBJECTIVE No. 3 - Review of Selected Candidate's Disciplinary History 5

OBJECTIVE No. 4 - Sufficient Justification in Interview Worksheets 6

OBJECTIVE No. 5 - Completion of the Interview Worksheets 6

Consistency Between the Ratings and Comments ofOBJECTIVE No. 6 -

the Interview Worksheets7

Completeness of All Non-Selected Applicant SelectionOBJECTIVE No. 7 -

Packages 8

Comparison of Candidate's Attributes — InformationOBJECTIVE No. 8 -

Only9

Diversity Among the Selected Candidates and Non-OBJECTIVE No. 9 -

Selected Candidates10

Diversity Among the Selection Board Members —OBJECTIVE No. 10 -

Information Only11

RECOMMENDATIONS 12

ACTIONS TAKEN/MANGEMENT'S RESPONSE 12

ADDENDA A — RANK DIVERSITY

ADDENDA B — ETHNIC DIVERSITY

ADDENDA C — GENDER DIVERSITY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYPERSONNEL SELECTION CRITERIA AND PROCESS AUDIT

Conducted byInternal Audits and Inspections Division

First Quarter FY 2013/2014

PURPOSE

In accordance with the Los Angeles Police Department (Department) Audit and Inspections Plan forFiscal Year (FY) 2013/2014, Internal Audits and Inspections Division (IAID) conducted the PersonnelSelection Criteria and Process Audit to evaluate adherence with Department policies and procedures aswell as the Hunter-La Ley Transition Plan. The audit included a review of procedures that wereconducted throughout the selection and interview process.

Internal Audits and Inspections Division conducted this audit under the guidance of generally acceptedgovernment auditing standards, specifically pertaining to performing the audit to obtain sufficient,appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on the auditobjectives. Internal Audits and Inspections Division has determined that the evidence obtained providesa reasonable basis for the findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

BACKGROUND

On August 25, 1992, the City of Los Angeles (City) entered into the Hunter-La Ley (HLL) ConsentDecree (Decree) to settle an employment discrimination lawsuit by African-American, Hispanic, andAsian sworn personnel. Although female sworn personnel were not defined as an aggrieved class in thelitigation, the City adopted a motion in November 1992 to apply Decree provisions to female swornpersonnel as well, prior to entering into the Decree. As a result, all HLL reports, which provided astatus on the implementation of the Decree, included information regarding promotions, paygradeadvancements, and assignments to "coveted positions" for female sworn employees.

The original term of the Decree was for a 15-year period, with the possibility of being terminated earlyif substantial compliance was attained, or extended to demonstrate further compliance. In October 1994,its term was extended by two years due to delays in the initial implementation efforts. The Decree wasinitially scheduled to end in August 2009; however, it officially expired on March 22, 2010.

In addition, a post-HLL Decree Transition Plan was finalized to outline the best management practicesthe Department intended to pursue in their continued progress made during the term of the Decree. Thereport indicated that in moving forward, the Department pledged to continue fulfilling the core mandateof the Decree; to ensure the employee selection process is fair, open, based on merit, and does notdiscriminate against any Department employee.

Personnel Selection Criteria and Process AuditExecutive SummaryPage ii of ii

METHODOLOGY

The audit period encompassed Deployment Period No. 7, 2012 through Deployment PeriodNo. 7, 2013 (June 17, 2012 through July 13, 2013).1 All selections were identified that met thedefinition of 'coveted positions' and paygrade advancements as provided by the HLL Consent Decree.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Overall the Department did well in the selection of personnel process. Areas for improvement appear tobe attributable to ensuring proper documentation for each requirement during the selection process.Given the fact that the selection process is archived for possible future reference in regard to selectingindividuals, there is an inherent need to ensure full documentation of the process. Objective Nos. 8, 9and 10 were listed as performance measurements, given the Department goals in those specific areas,and not required mandates. Nonetheless, the Department should continue its efforts in providing diverseinterview boards during the selection process.

RECOMMENDATION

None.

ACTIONS TAKEN/MANAGEMENT'S RESPONSE

1. The audit findings were validated with each of the respective Area Commanding Officers, whoexpressed general agreement.

2. The audit report was presented to the Assistant to the Director, Office of Operations and theDirector, Office of Administrative Services; both of which expressed general agreement with theaudit findings.

1 This audit period covered the FY 2012/2013.

Personnel Selection Criteria and Process AuditConducted by

Internal Audits and Inspections DivisionFirst Quarter, FY 2013/2014

PURPOSE

In accordance with the Los Angeles Police Department (Department) Audit and Inspections Plan forFiscal Year (FY) 2013/14, Internal Audits and Inspections Division (IAID) conducted the PersonnelSelection Criteria and Process Audit to evaluate adherence with Department policies and procedures aswell as the Hunter-La Ley Transition Plan. The audit included a review of procedures that wereconducted throughout the selection and interview process.

Internal Audits and Inspections Division conducted this audit under the guidance of generally acceptedgovernment auditing standards, specifically pertaining to performing the audit to obtain sufficient,appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on the auditobjectives. Internal Audits and Inspections Division has determined that the evidence obtainedprovides a reasonable basis for the findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

BACKGROUND

On August 25, 1992, the City of Los Angeles (City) entered into the Hunter-La Ley (HLL) ConsentDecree (Decree) to settle an employment discrimination lawsuit by African-American, Hispanic, andAsian sworn personnel. Although female sworn personnel were not defined as an aggrieved class inthe litigation, the City adopted a motion in November 1992 to apply Decree provisions to femalesworn personnel as well, prior to entering into the Decree. As a result, all HLL reports, whichprovided a status on the implementation of the Decree, included information regarding promotions,paygrade advancements, and assignments to "coveted positions" for female sworn employees.

The original term of the Decree was for a 15-year period, with the possibility of being terminated earlyif substantial compliance was attained, or extended to demonstrate further compliance. In October1994 its term was extended by two years due to delays in the initial implementation efforts. TheDecree was initially scheduled to end in August 2009; however, it officially expired onMarch 22, 2010.

In addition, a post-HLL Decree Transition Plan was finalized to outline the best management practicesthe Department intended to pursue in their continued progress made during the term of the Decree.The report indicated that in moving forward, the Department pledged to continue fulfilling the coremandate of the Decree; to ensure the employee selection process was fair, open, based on merit, anddid not discriminate against any Department employee.

METHODOLOGY

The audit period encompassed Deployment Period No. 7, 2012 through Deployment PeriodNo. 7, 2013 (June 17, 2012 through July 13, 2013).1 All selections were identified that met thedefinition of "coveted positions" and paygrade advancements as provided by the HLL Decree.The Master Transfer List in Position Control Section, Personnel Division, was reviewed to identify themethod for filling the inspected coveted positions and paygrade advancement positions. The original

This audit period covered the FY 2012/2013.

Personnel Selection Criteria and Process AuditPage 2 of 1214.2

transfer material and selection documents for each were reviewed to determine if the selection paneland hiring entities completed the relevant documents correctly and conducted the processes accordingto policy. The list of coveted positions identified 116 selection packages for the selected period.

Internal Audits and Inspections Division randomly selected a statistically valid sample from thepopulation identifying 35 selection packages.2 The paygrade advancement list consisted of 103selection packages. A randomly selected statistically valid sample from the population identified 35selection packages used for the selected period.3 The total population for selected candidates was 219with a sample of 70 selection packages. Of those 70 selection packages, there was a total population of1022 non-selected candidate packages that were also reviewed.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Overall the Department did well in the selection of personnel process. Areas for improvement appearto be attributable to ensuring proper documentation for each requirement during the selection process.Given the fact that the selection process is archived for possible future reference in regard to selectingindividuals, there is an inherent need to ensure full documentation of the process. Objective Nos. 8, 9and 10 were listed as performance measurements, given the Department goals in those specific areas,and not required mandates. Nonetheless, the Department should continue its efforts in providingdiverse interview boards during the selection process.

TABLE No. 1 — SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Objective No.

Description of Audit ObjectivesRESULTS

FY 2013/14

1 Completeness of Selection Package 57/70 (81%)

2 Commanding Officer's Rationale Contained Justification of Selection 63/70 (90%)

3 Review of Selected Candidate's Disciplinary History 60/70 (86%)

4 Sufficient Justification in Interview Worksheets 169/169 (100%)

5 Completion of Interview Worksheets 154/169 (91%)

6 Consistency Between the Ratings and Comments of the Interview Worksheets 169/169 (100%)

7 Completeness of All Non-Selected Applicant Selection Packages 973/1022 (95%)

8 Comparison of Candidate's Attributes Performance Information

9 Diversity Among Selected Candidates and Non-Select CandidatesSee Table Nos. 5 and 6Performance Information

10 Diversity Among the Selection Board MembersSee Table No. 7

Performance Information

2 The sample sizes for both coveted positions and paygrade advancement positions were obtained by utilizing a one-tail testwith a 95 percent confidence level and a five percent error rate.3 Central Area had three selected candidates which were part of the audit; however, Central Area was unable to locate thepackages. The selected candidates from Central Area were replaced from the randomized list.


DETAILED FINDINGS

Objective No. 1 - Completeness of Selection Package

Criteria

Office of Administrative Services Notice, Sworn Checklist - Paygrade Advancement and LateralTransfer Opportunity Competitive Selection Process, dated April 11, 2012, states, "The attachedSworn Selection Checklist (Checklist) will now accompany all selection packages provided toDepartment entities conducting competitive selection testing for paygrade advancements and lateraltransfer opportunities."

Los Angeles Police Department Employee Selection Manual, Section VIII. Making The Selection, D.Post-Interview Documentation — states, "The Sworn/Civilian Selection Checklist will be provided byEmployee Selection Section to the hiring entity for a selection package. The Sworn/Civilian SelectionChecklist lists all of the items that must be retained by the hiring entity as documentation for theselection process.

Audit Procedures

Internal Audits and Inspections Division examined the Selection Package Files to determine theinclusion of the following documents:

• Selection Matrix;• Rationale;• Paygrade Advancement/Lateral Advanced Paygrade Transfer (15.02.00 (15.2) to Personnel

Division Commanding Officer (CO));• Transfer and/or Change in Paygrade, Form 01.40.00 (1.40);• Transfer Application Data Sheet, Form 15.88.00 (only accept form dated: 03/09);• TEAMS Report (Promotion/Paygrade Advancement TEAMS Report, Form 01.78.04, only);• FTO Acknowledgement Receipt (for FTO candidates only);• TEAMS Evaluation Report (TER), Form 01.78.04 or Transfer Action Item (TAI),

Form 01.78.20;• Standards Based Assessment (SBA), Form 70 - 01.87.00 (dated: 11/08); and,• Interview Worksheet or Package Review Worksheet.

Findings

Fifty-seven (81%) of the 70 Selection Packages included all of the required documents. The remaining13 Selection Packages had either missing and/or incorrect documents as indicated on Table No. 2.


TABLE No. 2 — SUMMARY FINDINGS FOR OBJECTIVE No. 1

Area/Division Package(s) Discrepancy in Selection Package(s)Central Area I Missing Selection Matrix, CO's Rationale, Intradepartmental

Correspondence 15.2, and TAI.Harbor Area 1 Transfer and/or Change in Paygrade, not signed by selected

candidate.Jail Division 1 Missing Transfer and/or Change in Paygrade and Selection Matrix not

complete.Training Division 1 Missing commanding officer rationale.Commercial Crimes DivisionFoothill Area

11

Wrong TEAMS Reports "Employee Request."

Commercial Crimes DivisionMajor Crimes Division

21 Inconsistencies within the Transfer and/or Change in Paygrade.

Operations — West BureauWilshire AreaPacific Area

2The number of applicants who interviewed was unable to bereconciled between the Selection Matrix and the Transfer and/orChange in Paygrade Form.

Operations — West BureauWilshire AreaPacific Area

2The number of applicants who interviewed was unable to bereconciled between the Selection Matrix and the Transfer and/orChange in Paygrade Form.

Total 13 Selection Packages

Objective No. 2 - Commanding Officer's Rationale Contained Justification of Selection

Criteria

Operations Notice No. 9, Deficiencies Identified During Recent Sworn Paygrade Selection Processes,dated November 10, 2006, states, "Note: Written rationale shall contain ample insight andjustification to support the final selection.

Los Angeles Police Department Employee Selection Manual, Section VIII. Making the Selection, B.Selection — states, "For all selections, the commanding officer or officer-in-charge must ensure that awritten rational for selecting the candidate(s) above all others is prepared. Detailed comments as tothe specific job-related factors setting this candidate apart shall be included. Depending on individualOffice, Bureau, or Group policy, this document is often in the form of a 15.2, IntradepartmentalCorrespondence, from the commanding officer to the bureau head or other manager responsible forfinal approval of the selection. In the absence of an Office, Bureau, or Group policy, the minimumrequirement is that a memorandum "to file" be prepared and signed by the commanding officer. Inany case, the document should be retained with the final selection package (see Section VIIID).

Audit Procedures

Internal Audits and Inspections Division examined the CO's rationale to determine if it containedample insight and justification to support the final selection. A discussion with Employee SelectionSection revealed that the documentation of the rationale justifying the CO's selection is acceptable if itwas included in the Paygrade Advancement/Lateral Advanced Paygrade Transfer 15.2 and did notnecessarily have to be a stand-alone document.


Findings

Sixty-three (90%) of the 70 CO's rationale contained ample insight and justification to support thefinal selection. The remaining seven CO rationales are indicated below.

• Central Traffic Division and Training Division: missing CO's rationale.• Operations - West Bureau: CO's rationales contained canned language.4

Objective No. 3 - Review of Selected Candidate's Disciplinary History

Criteria

Human Resources Bureau Notice, Paygrade Advancement and Lateral Advanced PaygradeTransfer Procedures, dated March 29, 2001,5 states, "The Intradepartmental Correspondence shallindicate that the commanding officer has reviewed and completed an analysis of the selectedemployee's TEAMS report, with particular emphasis on the employee's disciplinary history. Thisinformation is provided in the new TEAMS classification screen entitled, "Final Selection by C/O;Transfer. Commanding officers shall indicate that they have contacted Internal Affairs Groupregarding pending personnel complaints that may not have been included on the TEAMS report andshall indicate that they have addressed all issues regarding personnel complaints. Commandingofficers shall also explain the reason(s) why the employee was selected should there be issues, such asdiscipline, on the TEAMS report."

Audit Procedures

The Paygrade Advancement/Lateral Advanced Paygrade Transfer 15.2s, were examined to determineif a review and analysis of the selected employee's disciplinary history was appropriately completed.

Findings

Sixty (86%) of the 70 Paygrade Advancement/Lateral Advanced Paygrade Transfer, 15.2s, met thestandard. The remaining ten 15.2s, did not document a review and analysis of the selectionemployee's disciplinary history.

• (1) Olympic• (5) Operations-West Bureau6• (1) Mission Area• (1) Valley Traffic Division• (2) Major Crimes Division

4 Operations-West Bureau conducted interviews for West Bureau Areas: (1) West Los Angeles, (2) Pacific, (2) Wilshire.5 This Notice is an attachment to Operations Notice No. 9, dated September 10, 2006.6 Operations-West Bureau conducted interviews for West Bureau Areas: (2) Wilshire, (2) Pacific, (1) West Los Angelesand (1) Olympic.


Objective No. 4 - Sufficient Justification in Interview Worksheets

Criteria

Operations Notice No. 9, Deficiencies Identified During Recent Sworn Paygrade Selection Processes,dated November 10, 2006, states, "Note: All Interview Worksheets shall contain sufficient justification(comments) to support the final interview rating and category placement."

Audit Procedures

The Interview Worksheets were examined to determine whether the Tentative Numeric Score (rater'sscore before discussion) and Numeric Score (rater's score after discussion) of each interview boardmember were justified by the checked boxes and comments. The checked boxes and comments werealso reviewed to determine if they were consistent with each other.

Each interview board consisted of two to four interview board members. Each interview boardmember must complete an interview worksheet which assessed the candidates' responses to theinterview. Of the 70 Selection Packages, there were a total of 169 board members involved in theinterviewing process, which resulted in 171 Interview Worksheets that were reviewed.

The Department met the standards if the Interview Worksheets contained sufficient justification tosupport the final interview rating and category placement.

Findings

Each (100%) of the 169 Interview Worksheets met the standards.

Objective No. 5 - Completion of the Interview Worksheets

Criteria

Office of Administrative Services Notice, dated April 11, 2012, Sworn Checklist - PaygradeAdvancement and Lateral Transfer Opportunity Competitive Selection Process, states, "The attachedSworn Selection Checklist (Checklist) will now accompany all selection packages provided toDepartment entities conducting competitive selection testing for paygrade advancementsand lateral transfer opportunities."

The checklist is comprised of the following:

• Interview Worksheet OR Package Review Worksheet;• There is one Interview OR Package Review Worksheet per rater filled out per

Candidate;• All Worksheets have candidate name, serial number, and consistent interview date;• All Worksheets have rater name, serial number, signature, and rank;• All Worksheets have a tentative and final rating;• All final ratings on the Worksheets are computed correctly;


• There are checks in the boxes/markings to indicate rating in each category;• The checks in the boxes/markings, comments written, and tentative/final ratings all

correspond to each other, there are no inconsistencies;

• There are comments in each category to justify the rating in that category; and,

• There are comments in the "Additional Comments" section to justify any change in rating if thetentative and final ratings are different.

Audit Procedures

The Interview Worksheets were reviewed for completeness. The Department met the standard if theInterview Worksheets were appropriately completed.

Findings

One hundred fifty-four (91%) of 169 Interview Worksheets met the standards. The remaining 15contained deficiencies, listed in Table No. 3.

TABLE No. 3 - SUMMARY FINDINGS FOR OBJECTIVE No. 5Area/Division Package(s) Discrepancy in Selection Package(s)Central Traffic DivisionOlympic AreaProfessional Standards BureauLegal Affairs DivisionUse of Force Review Division

11312

Missing checked/marked boxes

77th Street Area1

Missing checked/marked boxes and missing Tentative, Final andNumeric Scores

Hollywood AreaFoothill Area

13

Missing Tentative, Final and Numeric Scores

Operations-Valley BureauDevonshire Area

2 Missing checked/marked boxes and Final Rating left blank.

Total 15 Selection Packages

Objective No. 6 — Consistency Between the Ratings and Comments of the Interview Worksheets

Criteria

Los Angeles Police Department Employee Selection Manual, Section VIII. Making the Selection, A.Scoring — states, "The Interview Worksheets contain factors and the rating criteria on which thecandidates will be evaluated. It is the interviewer's job to rate each candidate's ability to perform theduties of the position as described within each factor. ...Interviewers should make specific,appropriate, job related comments to justify their rating of each of each factor for each candidate."

Los Angeles Police Department Hunter-La Ley Transition Plan — Auditing, states, "7) The Departmentshall annually review and audit Interview Rating Forms for comprehensive assessments of thecandidates and justifications for the rating category assigned."


Audit Procedures

The Interview Worksheets were examined to determine whether the interviewing board memberssufficiently documented comments in each category to justify the rating in that category.

The Department met the standards if the Interview Worksheets contained sufficient justification tosupport the final interview rating and category placement.

Findings

Each (100%) of the 169 Interview Worksheets contained sufficient justification to support the finalinterview rating and category placement.

Objective No. 7 — Completeness of All Non-Selected Applicant Selection Packages

Criteria

A review of all non-selected applicant Selection Packages was conducted to ensure they were incompliance with all of the aforementioned objectives as required per Department policies andprocedures.

Office of Administrative Services Notice, Sworn Checklist - Paygrade Advancement and LateralTransfer Opportunity Competitive Selection Process, dated April 11, 2012, states, "The attachedSworn Selection Checklist (Checklist) will now accompany all selection packages provided toDepartment entities conducting competitive selection testing for paygrade advancementsand lateral transfer opportunities."

Los Angeles Police Department Employee Selection Manual, Section VIII. Making The Selection, D.Post-Interview Documentation — states, "The Sworn/Civilian Selection Checklist will be provided byEmployee Selection Section to the hiring entity for a selection package. The Sworn/Civilian SelectionChecklist lists all of the items that must be retained by the hiring entity as documentation for theselection process.

Audit Procedures

Internal Audits and Inspections Division examined the 1,022 non-selected applicant SelectionPackages to determine the inclusion of all required documents. Table No. 4 provides the SelectionPackage deficiencies.

Internal Audits and Inspections Division examined the 1,022 Non-Selected applicant selectionpackages to determine the inclusion of the following documents:

• Transfer and/or Change in Paygrade;• Transfer Application Data Sheet (only accept form dated: 03/09);• TEAMS Report (Promotion/Paygrade Advancement TEAMS Report only);• Standards Based Assessment (SBA), (dated: 11/08); and,• Interview Worksheet OR Package Review Worksheet.


Findings

Nine hundred seventy-three (95%) of the 1,022 required documents were properly documented in thenon-selected applicant Selection Packages. The remaining 49 findings from the non-selectionpackages that were deficient are identified in Table No. 4.

TABLE NO. 4 - DEFICIENT NON-SELECTED PACKAGES

Documents Identified ResultsMissing Non-Selected Applicant Package 2

Paygrade Advancement/Lateral Advanced Paygrade Transfer (15.2 to Personnel Division CO) N/A

Transfer Application Data Sheet, (only accept form dated: 03/09) 4TEAMS Report (Promotion/Paygrade Advancement TEAMS Report only) 6

Standards Based Assessment, (dated: 11/08) 1Interview Worksheet or Package Review Worksheet 35

Sworn Selection Checklist not signed or dated 1

Total Findings 49

Objective No. 8 — Comparison of Candidate's Attributes — Information Only

Criteria

Los Angeles Police Department Hunter-La Ley Transition Plan — Auditing, states, "5) The Departmentshall continue to audit paygrade advancements and coveted assignments for the ranks of Police OfficerIII and above and provide statistics by sex, race, and ethnicity. This audit shall compare thecandidates' background, experience, education, ratings, and oral interview skills and writtencommunications skill if required "

Los Angeles Police Department Hunter-La Ley Transition Plan — Auditing, states, "7) The Departmentshall annually review and audit Interview Rating Forms for comprehensive assessments of thecandidates and justifications for the rating category assigned. Included in this review shall be anassessment of the qualifications of the candidates, comparing background, experience, education,tenure, and any other criteria pertinent to the position applied for."

Audit Procedures

The selected candidates' interview packages were reviewed for the above contents and compared withthe same contents in the interview packages of the non-selected candidates. An objective assessmentwas conducted to determine whether or not the selected candidate, given the totality of the contentsand candidate's interview package, was competitive with the non-selected candidate's.

A valuable aspect of the selection process that was not evaluated during this audit, was the oralinterview. This was due in large part to the fact that the interviews are not tape-recorded orvideotaped. This assessment also did not take into consideration the calls that were made to theapplicant's references listed on the 15.88, as well as contacts that have worked with, or for the


candidate, and whereby such contacts may assist in the decision-making process. This assessment issolely based on the attributes indicated in the criteria above.Findings

Each (100%) of the 70 selected candidates possessed attributes that were competitive with thecandidates that were not selected.

Objective No. 9 — Diversity Among the Selected Candidates and Non-Selected Candidates —Information Only

Criteria

Los Angeles Police Department Hunter-La Ley Transition Plan — Auditing, states, "5) ... This auditwill also include an assessment of diversity and whether or not a qualified candidate was chosen forthe position."

Audit Procedures

An objective assessment was conducted of the selected candidate and non-selected candidates toascertain whether or not diversity existed. A review provided the information necessary to determineif the "qualified candidates were chosen for the position."

Findings

A review of the statistical information indicated the following for the 70 selections made during theaudit period of FY 2012/2013.

TABLE No. 5 - GENDER AND ETHNICITY TOTALS OF SELECTED CANDIDATES

Gender Ethnicity

Male Female Asian Black Caucasian Filipino Hispanic

58/70(83%)

12/70(17%)

7/70(10%)

6/70(9%)

34/70(49%)

2/70(3%)

21/70(30%)

100% 100%

TABLE No. 6 - GENDER AND ETHNICITY TOTALS OF NON-SELECTED CANDIDATES

Gender Ethnicity

Male Female Asian Black Caucasian Filipino Hispanic OtherNative

American -801/1022(78%)

221/1022(22%)

89/1022(9%)

152/1022(15%)

340/1022(33%)

22/1022(2%)

410/1022(40%)

8/1022(1%)

1/1022(0.1%)

100% 100%


Objective No. 10 — Diversity Among the Selection Board Members — Information Only

Criteria

Fiscal Year 2009/2010 - Hunter-La Ley Consent Decree Annual Report -Board of Police Commissioners #10-0453 (Background) - Fiscal Year 2009-2010 Goals, states,"Evaluate and further develop the audit/inspection process to examine diversity on the selection boardfor employee selection interviews. This goal was met by LAID on the last two quarterly HLL CovetedPosition Inspections. The purpose of the inspection is to ensure that selections made for "covetedpositions" adhere to federal employee selection guidelines and Department selection standards. Toachieve this goal, the gender and ethnicity of the selection board was added to the objective of theactual inspection which is then reported for each coveted position filled competitively. In addition, theformat of the report was enhanced to follow the same format as the audits conducted by IAID foruniformity. An executive summary has been added to each report as well."

Audit Procedures

A review was conducted of the Interview Worksheets to identify the selection board members. TheDepartment's Deployment Roster-Alpha Sworn/Civilian Personnel with Sex and Descent Roster wasutilized to determine the gender and ethnicity of each of the selection board members. Although thecriteria referred to "coveted positions," it should be considered a best practice to ensure that theDepartment is holding itself accountable to standards held for all positions and not only for "covetedpositions." Therefore, this objective focused on each of the 70 positions, which involved a competitiveselection process to examine the gender and ethnic diversity on the selection boards.

For each of the 70 positions, a review was conducted for gender and ethnic diversity among the boardmembers. The Department met the standards if the genders and ethnicities of each interview boardwere diverse.

Findings

Ethnic Diversity Forty-six (66%) of the 70 interview boards were ethnically diverse. The remaining 24 were notdiverse.

Gender Diversity Thirty-seven (53%) of the 70 interview boards consisted of gender diversity. The remaining 33 werenot diverse.

A review of the 70 interview boards (45 two-member boards, 22 three-member boards, and3 four-member boards) indicated that some of the selection boards consisted of members of the samegender and other boards consisted of members of the same ethnicity. There were several two-memberboards where the members were of the same gender and the same ethnicity. Table No. 7 illustrates abreakdown between the two-member boards, three-member boards, and four-member boards and thelack of diversity for each as it relates to ethnicity and gender.


TABLE No. 7 — GENDER AND ETHNICITY DIVERSITY

No. of InterviewBoards

AllMale

AllFemale

Same Gender AllCaucasian

AllHispanic

AllBlack

AllAsian

Same EthnicityTotal % Total °A

45 2-MemberBoards

22 4 26 58% 15 4 0 1 20 44%

22 3-MemberBoards

4 0 4 18% 3 1 0 0 4 18%

3 4-Member Boards 3 0 3 100% 0 0 0 0 0 0%

Totals 29 4 33 47% 19 5 0 1 24 34%

The attached addenda provide insight on the boards that were reviewed and determined to be diverse.

RECOMMENDATIONS

None.

ACTIONS TAKEN/MANAGEMENT'S RESPONSE

1. The audit findings were validated with of the respective Area COs, who expressed generalagreement.

2. The audit report was presented to the Assistant to the Director, Office of Operations and theDirector, Office of Administrative Services; both of which expressed general agreement withthe audit findings.

ADDENDA ITEM A

Personnel Selection Criteria and Process AuditObjective No. 10 - Diversity Among the Selection Board Members

Rank Diversity

Rank 45 2-Member Boards 22 3-Member Boards 3 4-Member Boards Totals

Sergeant I 4 4 0 8

Sergeant II 7 7 0 14

Detective II 0 2 0 2

Detective III 5 7 0 12

Lieutenant I 12 4 0 16

Lieutenant II 36 18 7 61

Captain I 3 9 0 12

Captain II 6 2 0 8

Captain III 16 8 5 29

Deputy Chief 0 1 0 1

Public Administrator I 1 0 0 1

CPAB Member 0 1 0 1

Sr Management Analyst I 0 2 0 2

LAPD/FABA 0 1 0 1

Total 90 66 12 168

Personnel Selection Criteria and Process Audit

Objective No. 10 - Diversity Among the Selection Board Members

Ethnic Diversity

Control

Number

Interview Board

Member 1

Interview Board

Member 2

Interview Board

Member 3

Interview Board

Member 4

1 Hispanic Caucasian

2 Hispanic Asian

4 Caucasian Hispanic

13 Black Caucasian

14 Black Caucasian




30 Caucasian Black

35 Caucasian Black

36 Caucasian Black




45 Caucasian Black

48 Caucasian Asian

51 Caucasian Black

57 Caucasian Asian

58 Caucasian Asian


63 Caucasian Asian

64 Caucasian Asian

65 Caucasian Black



5 Caucasian Hispanic Black

6 Caucasian Caucasian Asian

7 Hispanic Hispanic Asian

8 Caucasian Hispanic Black

10 Caucasian Caucasian Black

20 Caucasian Caucasian Hispanic


22 Hispanic Caucasian Asian

26 Hispanic Caucasian Caucasian


41 Hispanic Hispanic Caucasian


46 Caucasian Black Asian

47 Caucasian Black Asian

49 Hispanic Caucasian Black



55 Caucasian Caucasian Asian

23 Caucasian Caucasian Black Asian

24 Caucasian Caucasian Black Asian

43 Caucasian Caucasian Hispanic Hispanic

ADDENDA ITEM B

Selection Boards Caucasian Hispanic Black Asian Totals

25 2-Member Boards 24 (48%) 12 (24%) 8 (16%) 6 (12%) 50

18 3-Member Boards 27 (50%) 13 (24%) 8 (15%) 6 (11%) 54

3 4-Member Boards 6 (50%) 2 (17%) 2 (17%) 2 (16%) 12

46 Total Selection Boards 57 (49%) 27 (23%) 18 (16%) 14 (12%) 116

ADDENDA ITEM C

Personnel Selction Criteria and Process AuditObjective No. 10 - Diversity Among the Section Board Members

Gender Diversity

ControlNumber

Interview BoardMember 1

Interview BoardMember 2

Interview Board

Member 3Interview Board

Member 4

1 Male Female

9 Male Female

13 Male Female

14 Male Female

31 Male Female

34 Male Female

37 Male Female

38 Male Female

39 Male Female

40 Male Female

45 Male Female

48 Male Female

53 Male Female

54 Male Female

56 Male Female

61 Male Female

65 Male Female

67 Male Female

68 Male Female

6 Male Male Female

7 Male Male Female

8 Male Female Female

10 Female Female Male

20 Male Male Female

22 Female Male Male

25 Male Male Female

26 Male Female Male

28 Male Male Female

29 Male Male Female

33 Male Male Female

41 Male Male Female





52 Male Female Male

55 Male Female Male

Selection Boards Male Female Totals

19 2-Member Boards 19 (50%) 19 (50%) 38

18 3-Member Boards 30 (59%) 24 (41%) 54

0 4-Member Boards 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0

37 Total Selection Boards 49 (53%) 43 (47%) 92