LAPD LAGGING ON WAY TO SPOT ITS ROGUE COPS.

Byline: James Nash Staff Writer

A computer program critical to reforming the Los Angeles Police Department has run into new delays, putting it far behind schedule and jeopardizing the city's chances of getting a federal consent decree lifted by the 2006 deadline, officials said Monday.

The delay in developing an early warning system to identify problem officers in the LAPD means the U.S. Department of Justice likely will seek to extend terms of the consent decree beyond the scheduled June 2006 expiration date.

The Police Department already has spent $18.3 million to develop the computer system, known as TEAMS II, but doesn't expect to have it fully functional until the end of 2005 - some four months to six months behind schedule, Deputy Chief David Doan said. The LAPD has an additional $16.4 million earmarked for TEAMS II but not yet spent it.

The Warren Christopher Commission called for an early warning system on police in the early 1990s. City officials, blaming technological limitations and a lack of money, ignored the recommendation until it became part of the terms subject to strict federal oversight under the decree.

Doan, who is in charge of TEAMS II, told the council's Public Safety Committee that the LAPD is committed to building a reliable and accurate computer system, even if that means missing the deadline.

``We did not succeed in getting everything done in the first phases,'' Doan said. ``The key for us always has been getting it done right. TEAMS has to be properly implemented and used in conjunction with the rest of the consent decree.''

TEAMS II is supposed to tie together data on police officers - such as civilian complaints and reports on incidents in which officers use force - to flag potential problems, such as those that led to the Rampart Division scandal in the 1990s.

Almost since its inception, however, the TEAMS system has been plagued by technological shortcomings and inability to adapt to changes in LAPD policies.

The LAPD was supposed to activate a system to track use-of-force incidents by Nov. 8, but now doesn't expect to have the system running until January or February.

The monitor overseeing the federal consent decree, Kroll Associates, wrote in a Nov. 15 report that the LAPD's lagging compliance on TEAMS II ``may very well necessitate'' extending the consent decree beyond June 2006.

City officials called that prospect troubling.

``It does appear that there's going to be some slippage (in meeting the deadline) - no doubt there's going to be some slippage,'' said City Councilman Bernard Parks, who was police chief when the consent decree took effect.

``It will be up to the judge to determine what that slippage means. It's pretty clear that we're not going to achieve that one year of substantial compliance (on TEAMS II).''

By some accounts, the LAPD spends $30 million a year to comply with the consent decree, devoting 300 officers and civilian personnel to the effort.

LAPD officials, however, say they cannot break out the cost of the consent decree because it is inseparable from the overall push to make the LAPD more accountable and less prone to abuses.

Gerald Chaleff, the civilian LAPD official in charge of the consent decree bureau, downplayed the significance of the new delays in TEAMS II.

``We always knew we would not have two years of implementation with regard to TEAMS II,'' Chaleff said. ``It's a change, but it doesn't mean we can't achieve compliance by (June 2006). We were trying to get everything out simultaneously, and now we're doing it piece by piece.''

U.S. Circuit Court Judge Gary Feess is expected to rule in June 2006 whether the LAPD has achieved ``substantial compliance'' with the 152 provisions of the consent decree, which include protections for people who report complaints against police and a requirement to separate officers involved in violent incidents.

Some city officials say they doubt Feess will lift the decree before TEAMS II has been up and running for at least a year.

Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski said the LAPD may have to settle for relaxed federal oversight after June 2006, rather than a full lifting of the decree. Feess could lift most of the decree's provisions but leave federal monitoring of TEAMS II in place.

``What we're doing is trying to narrow this down as much as possible, so if there's any remnant of a (monitoring program), it will be a very small one and not a very costly one,'' Miscikowski said.

In its Nov. 15 report on the LAPD's compliance with the consent decree, Kroll Associates identified TEAMS II as one of two major areas in which the LAPD fell short of federal goals. The other was in staffing and funds for the Office of the Inspector General, a civilian office that oversees internal LAPD investigations.

Overall, Kroll Associates reported that the LAPD achieved full compliance on 27 of 55 monitored provisions and failed to achieve compliance on 18. Kroll withheld judgment on 10 provisions.

James Nash, [phone]

james.nash(at)dailynews.com