June 2026 Executive Summary for the Fourteenth Report of the Federal Monitor, Covering the Period from October 2025 through March 2026

A growing body of evidence leading up to this report clearly indicates that the PRB has reached a plateau of compliance with SARP internal investigations procedures, methodology and compliance with Agreement timelines. Without change, the Monitor's Office sees any near-term increase in compliance levels across multiple paragraphs as highly improbable.

To be fair, the agency has made progress over the past six years. Section IX compliance advances over these last several years are largely attributable to delivering some desperately needed resources to SARP, creating and delivering better training, and making internal some investigative methodology and rules changes – both actual and pending.

To date, the Monitor has interviewed over 175 current and former SARP members who have been assigned to, conducted, supervised, oversaw, directed, and or adjudicated internal police investigations over the past six years. Most of these persons have been interviewed three or more times since the monitoring period began, adding up to hundreds of face to face interviews.

The Monitor has a nearly identical interview record of Complaint Analysis and Evaluation Section (“SEAQA”) and Office of the Legal Advisor (“OAL”) adjudicators, including the colonel overseeing the adjudicatory process for the Superintendent. These departments are jointly and severally responsible for adjudication and verification of complaints in addition to assuring overall quality.

SARP administrative investigators continue to report active caseloads in double digits. This is alarming when one considers the strict timeline of 180 days or less for completion of a SARP administrative investigation. The Monitor sees PRP struggling and failing to keep within the administrative timeframe mandated by the Agreement for both investigations and adjudications. In this current sample, the Monitor's Office detected that approximately 30 percent of SARP administrative cases exceed the 180 (90+90) day rule for completion.

Most SARP investigators described improvements in transportation and basic infrastructure resources, while continuing to mention human resources as less than sufficient. This opinion of insufficiency is more acute among internal affairs and administrative investigators. Clearly there remains a need for some additional human resources; additional administrative and criminal investigators, competent adjudicators, OAL secretaries, etc.

There remains a separate analysis apart from the human resource factor. Specifically, the Monitor questions the efficiency and efficacy of PBP's current internal quality controls, adjudication processes and notification processes. For an agency that routinely fields and investigates well over one hundred citizen complaints each and every month without stop – these processes have consistently fallen well short of agreed-upon timelines and will require change to see any resulting improvement in compliance levels.

The Monitor's Office carefully analyzes each randomlyselected case from receipt of the complaint up to the completion of the investigations and command approvals (Phase I Analysis). This qualitative review looks at the timeliness of each aspect of the case, the investigative methodology and tactics used, thoroughness, whether the conclusion was evidence-based, and whether or not the ultimate conclusion was supported by the “preponderance of the evidence” standard of proof. Phase I cases are all eligible for a later Phase II Analysis once the case has been reviewed thoroughly and signed by the Superintendent.

In Phase II analyses, the Monitor looks at the overall thoroughness of the post-investigation review process, whether final correct findings are based upon all relevant evidence available, whether there was any analysis of the complainant's complaint and disciplinary history, whether any discipline assessed complies with present rules and whether all parties to the complaint were effectively notified within 30 days of the end of the investigation. All of these areas and timelines are mandated by the Agreement.

For this CMR, the Monitor reviewed 38 SARP investigations for Phase I Analysis with 12 additional cases subjected to a Phase II Analysis. It is important to mention that some of the most promising Phase I cases reviewed were among the most recently concluded SARP investigations. Some of the weakest Phase I examples were found in cases originating several years ago, which for a variety of reasons are only now being finalized and adjudicated. Due to SARP's prior and in some cases ongoing practices, the Monitor is left to analyze cases that may easily range as far back as four years. These investigations, including ones that are dated, are paired with recent adjudication and notification data. The Monitor expects that future IT changes will assist PRB in better policing and enforcing its investigative and adjudicative timelines. The Monitor expects to review recently concluded cases more consistently as a result of increased conformance with investigative and adjudicative timelines.

Not all subpar areas are being actively remediated or addressed by the agency. The Monitor has yet to see a single complaint of criminal nature against a PRPB being assigned within 5 working days to both criminal and SARP administrative investigators for simultaneous investigation. This is mandated under Paragraph 173 of Agreement. In a similar vein, the practice of re-assigning SARP administrative cases to Asuntos Internos criminal investigators – most of whom have just completed a criminal investigation based upon the exact same facts - continues. Besides constituting a violation of the Agreement, this practice will eventually cause legal problems for the agency, especially in a scenario involving the misuse of the Garrity Warning. This is clearly a preventable risk.

The Monitor's desk study of the current investigative case sample reveals a discouraging and lower level of compliance than seen in recent CMRs. Of the 38 cases analyzed for this CMR, the Monitor found only 1 in 4 cases as substantially compliant, 2 out of 5 were found in partial compliance, and over one third were found as non-compliant. While PRB had previously made some positive changes to address SARP's dire lack of resources, the quality errors seen here appear to be more related to a lack of due care and proper oversight exercised at each of SARP's five levels of internal supervision and review.

The Monitor concludes, after having interviewed every SARP investigator multiple times over the past six years, that the majority of SARP investigators are competent to handle their very difficult mission. With few exceptions, the Monitor's Office also concludes that current SARP investigative and adjudicative workforce is both trained and motivated. However, despite this level of training, readiness and competence, many of these SARP investigators, Hearings Officers and adjudicators describe being overtasked, and others report being severely overtasked. Over-tasking in any profession that imposes strict timelines on product delivery increases the likelihood that oversights or errors will occur. No amount of training, preparation and competence can compensate for an insufficient level of human resources in any agency or enterprise. The Monitor concludes that the present insufficiency of human resources and ongoing miscalculations in SARP's division of labor are among the principal causes of defects in internal investigations and internal adjudicative findings.

Similarly, the adjudicative units of SEAQA, OAL and the Office of the Superintendent have been incapable of helping SARP reach substantial compliance as currently comprised. A significant number of completed investigations lack adjudication and notification of all parties within the 30-day limit post-investigation period. With a paucity of “adjudicators” assigned to this task, including some without any legal training at all, investigator errors and oversights are often missed.

During the March 2026 field study visit in Puerto Rico, the Monitor was encouraged to hear that the PRB is in the early planning stage to increase its SARP staffing. PRB is looking at a special convocatoria for SARP Metropolitan delegations in dire need of additional investigators. As recommended by the Monitor on previous occasions, those responding to this convocatoria should be informed that the purpose of this convocatoria is only to fill vacancies in the depleted metropolitan delegations, and that transfers out of these assignments to the metropolitan area will not be considered for a minimum of three years. This will help SARP ensure that investigators are assigned to work in areas where they are desperately needed, and not necessarily where an investigator prefers to report for work.

The Monitor's Office is mindful that some internal administrative investigations should be assigned outside the area of occurrence to avoid a potential conflict of interest or appearance thereof. Six years of review reveals that SARP “ethical dilemma” assignments are the exception, not the rule. PRP efforts to balance case distributions and SARP workloads across the island have not yielded anticipated results. Underused investigators assigned to investigate cases located on the other side of the island commute for hours in traffic in a fleet that is just beginning to show some sufficiency and roadworthiness. Investigators from the west report being assigned cases located far from their assignment, frequently in the Metropolitan area. These investigations involve in-person interviews of civilian complainants and witnesses in other parts of the island, securing transportation to these locations, and driving back and forth from these sites during the work day, almost invariably in heavy traffic conditions. While the majority of SARP investigators now report access to a fleet of safer, roadworthy vehicles assigned to meet their needs, most SARP investigators, particularly those conducting administrative and Internal Affairs investigations, continue to cite human resources as lacking.

Before moving an administrative or internal criminal investigation posing no apparent ethical dilemma from any given area, the Monitor's Office strongly recommends that SARP decision makers consider the assigned investigators' estimated travel time to this outside location, the sufficiency and safety of transportation available, the estimated amount of time the investigator will spend away from their assigned area, and the number and type of cases that are presently assigned to that officer. Assigning a case located hours away from an investigator carrying a full caseload of 12 or more SARP cases is an unproductive practice and will remain a factor adverse to findings of increased compliance.

Overall training of the workforce in SARP and PAE related matters has now become a compliance issue for the PRB. The lack of proper training or citing officers for 2026 mandatory training has resulted in a number of downgrades in compliance across multiple Section IX paragraphs where training is cited as a compliance factor. These failures should be cured once PRB trains these members or cites them for training over the near term.

The Monitor requested a special sample of 8 current reprisal cases investigated during this reporting period so as to have sufficiently reliable data to analyze. With this review now concluded, the Monitor found that some of the investigative procedures used lacked quality. All of these cases involved an allegation of reprisal or discrimination against a PRB of lower rank. In this desk study, the Monitor was deeply troubled to find that two cases – one quarter of this sample – were sent out for preliminary investigation by SARP instead of being sent out for a full administrative investigation from the very beginning. This is highly irregular. Moreover, both cases were archived instead of being forwarded for a full investigation. Out of the eight reprisal cases analyzed in the desk review, half were non-compliant. Out of the 8 reprisal cases, the Monitor found only one case to be substantially compliant, the 3 remaining were assessed as only partially compliant.

Everyone understands that Internal Affairs is the only unit in the PRB responsible for conducting sensitive, clandestine criminal investigations concerning alleged criminal misconduct on the part of any PRP member. As has been reported in every CMR since the beginning of the monitoring phase six years ago, these Internal Affairs delegations continue to operate from police areas where every person assigned there knows their identity and what official and private vehicles they operate. Nothing written in the Agreement obligates the PRB to move these offices into proper locations not within or in proximity to active police installations. However, the Monitor's observations in over 350 analyzed cases and hundreds of private interviews with SARP investigators leads to one irrefutable conclusion - it is impossible for PRB Internal Affairs units billeted in police facilities to successfully achieve a mission of investigating criminal behavior committed by co-workers. It is wholly untenable to expect investigators to use sensitive, clandestine measures, methodologies and covert surveillance to successfully investigate the same officers that they serve alongside with and see every day.

Overall, the Commonwealth's compliance with the 46 paragraphs assessed during this reporting period within Civilian Complaints, Internal Investigations, and Discipline reflects some regressed levels of compliance with what was noted in previous CMRs. In CMR-13, 48% of paragraphs (22 paragraphs) were found to be partially compliant and 15% (7 paragraphs) were found to be substantially compliant, in comparison to the current reporting period, where 57% of paragraphs (26 paragraphs) were found to be partially compliant and 7% (3 paragraphs) were found to be substantially compliant. See figure 7.

Most paragraphs in this Section are assessed on an annual basis during odd numbered reporting periods. Accordingly, a comprehensive assessment of Community Engagement and Public Information will be conducted during CMR-15. During this reporting period, the Monitor assessed compliance with Paragraphs 211, 212, and 217 only. Although these paragraphs are generally reviewed on a semiannual basis, this CMR is limited to the specific compliance targets designated for assessment during this cycle, which are bolded throughout the section. As a result, all compliance ratings during this reporting period are carried over from the last CMR.

During this reporting period, PRP introduced Reform Stat as its primary self-monitoring mechanism and prioritized reviewing activities related to Paragraphs 208 and 212. While Reform Stat reflects an effort to formalize internal monitoring, it does not yet include comprehensive policy review, approval, or corrective action processes sufficient to support compliance across this Section. Foundational policies required by the Agreement, including the Community Policing Policy (GO 803) and the Encuentros Comunitarios/Open Meetings for Public Information Policy (GO 805), were finalized and approved on April 13, 2026. The CIC Rules and Regulations Manual, intended to supplement GO 801, was also finalized and approved on April 23, 2026. The approval of these Bureau wide policies closes the gap that has impeded PRP's development and implementation of a required Bureau wide Community Engagement Plan and the supplemental plans for each of the 13 police areas. Without approved plans supported by area specific strategies, PRP was unable to demonstrate compliance with multiple paragraphs in this Section. Operational deficiencies relevant to Paragraphs 206 and 207, which are subject to compliance assessment in CMR-15, further limit PRP's ability to meet Agreement requirements.

PRP initiated the community engagement operational plan under a pilot program at the conclusion of CMR-13, implemented in the police areas of Arecibo, Aguadilla, Guayama, and Humacao. Demonstration of progress toward compliance under the pilot required PRP to submit comprehensive deliverables, including assessments of pilot areas; the identification of challenges and lessons learned; documentation of community and stakeholder feedback obtained through the CICs; and corresponding corrective action plans. PRP submitted evidence addressing these elements on March 31, 2026. Notwithstanding the Monitor's mid-period guidance advising against expansion prior to completing assessment and corrective planning, amid the risk of replicating deficiencies without specific corrective plans, the Commonwealth proceeded with full implementation of the operational plan, extending it to the remaining police areas in February 2026 while the pilot remained under implementation.

The Monitor's Office reviewed PRP's pilot analysis and supporting documentation submitted for this reporting period. Through the pilot's analysis, PRP internally validated the Monitor's Office's previously documented findings, including the need to strengthen mechanisms for integrating, planning, documenting, evaluating, and reporting initiatives more cohesively. The documentation further identifies the need to assign responsible parties and to define roles and responsibilities for communication, internal controls, monitoring, and follow up, including the need for the development of technological tools and unified processes intended to promote consistency, data integrity, and quality controls to enhance the reliability of decision making. Of equal importance, documentation reflects the need to strengthen personnel capacity through training to support effective implementation of operational plans.

Implementing and expanding the operational plan within the organization is a foundational step toward developing a Bureau wide community engagement plan. A continuing challenge remains in establishing feasible timelines to bridge gaps in structural practices, documentation, and effective community engagement; to demonstrate progress toward reducing delinquency and crime; and to improve the community's quality of life. A complete assessment of the operational plan implemented under the pilot program will be conducted during the CMR-15 reporting period. This forthcoming evaluation will provide a comprehensive review of the pilot's effectiveness, extending to other areas under the Monitor's sample, including its operational components, the outcomes achieved, and its alignment with broader compliance requirements. The assessment will encompass all relevant deliverables associated with the pilot, ensuring that progress, challenges, and lessons learned are thoroughly analyzed as part of the full evaluation cycle and corrective action plans.

During the CMR-12 reporting period, PRP reported that nearly 95 percent of its personnel received training. Despite this high level of participation, no further training related to community-oriented policing was conducted in the current cycle. However, the expansion of PRP's 2026 in-service training plan, which now includes revisions to REA 803 and the addition of a course in effective and active communication, offers an opportunity to address previously identified training gaps. These gaps were highlighted and validated through lessons learned during the Pilot program. The updated training plan also forecasts participation from the Community Interaction Councils (CICs) in the review process supporting ongoing efforts to strengthen community engagement initiatives in alignment with Agreement requirements. However, the specific scope and definition of CIC participation in this process require further clarification and streamlining. Technological and data management limitations continue to affect PRP's institutional capacity to fully demonstrate compliance. Ongoing administrative and technical challenges affecting data collection, analysis, and validation within the electronic Community Policing module limit PRP's ability to produce consistent, reliable, and verifiable evidence supporting Agreement requirements related to community engagement, alliances, and problem-solving activities. These limitations undermine effective performance measurement, timely corrective action, accurate reporting, and the institutionalization of compliant practices. Strengthening and stabilizing these systems is necessary to support performance measurement, informed corrective action, accurate reporting, effective implementation of practices, and transparent communication with community stakeholders and the public.

Continued progress in future reporting periods is contingent upon several key factors: completion, implementation, and monitoring of a Bureau-wide Community Engagement Plan supported by corresponding area-specific plans; the delivery of relevant personnel training; and the deployment of community policing tools in collaboration with technology vendors. Sustained advancement will depend on consistent execution and demonstrated alignment of these activities with the Community Engagement Plan and associated compliance controls.

As noted above, because this section is comprehensively assessed in odd CMRs and only select targets are reviewed during this reporting period, compliance ratings for all paragraphs are carried over and remain the same as in CMR-13. The Monitor refers to CMR-13 for the last comprehensive review of Community Engagement.

Compliance for IT remains “deferred” as PRP continues its efforts to implement Axon and Benchmark. However, the Benchmark implementation was stalled four months due to the expiration of its contract without immediate renewal and the Axon development was halted due to a file management (incident reporting and supervisory review) and user access flaws that could not meet chain of custody requirements thereby leading to suspension of development until Axon could propose a solution. Schedule and cost risks associated with these implementations are therefore elevated.

PRP also confirmed in March 2026 that it will further develop its legacy Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system. This approach differs from the Monitor's recommendation that PRP conduct an Analysis of Alternatives to assess industry options and identify a competitive solution through a full and open process.

Throughout compliance monitoring the Monitor's Office has urged that PRP focus intently on IT management details, resources, rigor and planning and to also seek third party expertise to support management in order for the Parties to be confident that PRP and the Bureau of Technology (BT) are eventually capable of effectively sustaining its pursuit of technology solutions beyond the end of monitoring. During CMR-14, PRP showed signs that its planning capacity had begun trending upward. Its collaboration improved with the Monitor and contractor subject matter experts, Gartner for research and programmatic support, and AHD in a “quasi” staff role as the recognized PRP data managers. That said, more collaboration and transparency are necessary to achieve optimal outcomes while noting that contract renewal for all SME's supporting BT is imminent (June 2026). It is critical for PRP to ensure smooth contracting to avoid any break in service regarding access to SMEs. The consequences of failing to contract in a timely manner will include an immediate “stop work” and schedule delays that will elevate the ensuing implementation risks. It is the Monitor's Office opinion that PRP is not yet capable of sustaining its efforts independently at this time. Details are as follows.

Management, Discipline, and Cadence

PRP is managing through and must overcome current schedule delays related to the functional capabilities of RMS and the contract processing mandates of the Government. For instance, beginning in October 2025 the Benchmark solution development was stopped due to expiration of their contract and the need for a new Purchase Order. This breakdown led to suspension of PRP's collaboration with Benchmark and several months of effort were halted, impacting not only Benchmark but also leading to inefficiencies with the PMO project team. To which, similar issue befell the program office contract project lead overseeing training. Furthermore, Axon experienced a schedule slide that will push its planned initial implementation minimally into the fall of 2026 from July. The slippage is traceable to Axon's processing of incident reports that when being edited do not comply with PRP's chain of custody standards. And although not compliant with PRP's processing workflow, the question should be asked as to why the issue wasn't identified sooner. The Monitor's Office has concluded that needed resources were not available to adequately support requirements development and/or review of use cases. A requisite Quality Control/Quality Assurance process could have spotted this flaw but one doesn't exist at PRP, although raised by the Monitor and SMEs during previous CMRs. Positively speaking, it is notable that the PRP team eventually diagnosed the flaw in the Axon system that needed to be rectified. Had it not been found prior to launch the results could have been significant to incident record keeping and user acceptance. But delays associated with this issue will be appreciable and are arguably attributable to the limited management resources available to the Bureau of Technology at PRP.

Associated IT risk will remain significant and PRP must recognize it as such. Comprised of numerous indicators, effective technology management is a composite of procedural rigor, a sense of urgency, and extensive communication and transparency, all of which are characteristics essential to PRP's eventual self-sustainability. To deliver tools, systems, processes and useful data that enable effective policing and staff operations while also being able to harvest essential data from IT systems It follows that PRP will need to continue to elevate its strategy, planning and resource management to achieve and maintain self-sustainability and rely on subject matter experts who can offer additional insight, options and research. Shaping its aspirations as well as the next generations of technology and data without this hyper vigilance as schedules converge will be daunting.

Technology

In addition to both the Axon and Benchmark developments cited above, legacy IT systems at PRP continue to operate with limited updates as agreed to by the Parties and Monitor's Office in order for the Commonwealth to prioritize resources for Axon and Benchmark.

As far as other information technology demonstrations and assessments, monitors have noted that ongoing efforts have shown limited measurable progress, and that, PRP's 90-day reports are overstating both progress and completion. While PRP highlights activities such as planning, developing checklists, or drafting training modules, the Monitor's findings show very limited measurable progress. For example, most of the Equal Protection and Non-Discrimination requirements remain only in partial compliance, and several core training components have not yet been implemented. The discrepancy appears to be related to how PRP reports present process-level steps as completed actions. On the other hand, the Monitor evaluates compliance based on demonstrated operational performance. Until PRP can show that these reforms are fully implemented, functioning consistently across the agency, and meeting required thresholds, the paragraphs cannot be considered substantially or fully compliant. [DR2.1]

As an example, during a recent technology demonstration in February 2026, manual recording of mileage was discussed. Axon integration may be able to reconcile transport mileage, but it is unclear at this time if it is possible or within the contractual scope. Further, procedurally not all traffic stop data is entered into GTE and only populated if an arrest is made. This protocol does not support a need for gathering all traffic stop data which may be necessary for profiling analysis irrespective of whether an arrest is made or not. Further, it isn't known yet whether the PPR 126.2 Complaint Card is properly linked when multiple perpetrators at an incident may be transported in different vehicles going to different locations. These types of unresolved workflow and technology issues are discouraging in that they are relatively straight forward fixes to be incorporated in technology upgrades and enforced by supervisory oversight, policy revisions and training.

In other areas, at Utuado, the Sexual Assault module timeout issues are no longer occurring although they were reportedly being experienced in Guayama and San Juan. In Bayamon there were unanswered questions about supervisors being notified when a file had been created in GTE. These types of “day-to-day” issues while troublesome should be correctable with proper focus on system upgrades and effective training.

With regard to PRP enterprise-wide training, late in CMR-14 traction was established between the IT Program Manager and Training Monitor but it was also disappointing to note that IT training is largely non-existent at this time but for the workarounds provided by the Bureau of Technology. The relationship between BT and SAEA is inadequate and has been throughout the monitoring period. A telling measure of the disfunction, timelines for SAEA's provisioning of training content are not in-line nor supportive of Axon and Benchmark deployment schedules during 2026 irrespective of the ongoing development delays. This shortcoming would have borne itself out negatively had PRP actually maintained a July 2026 deployment of Axon, but which would have been impacted by a lack of training materials.

Looking Forward

Beyond eventual compliance with the Agreement, PRP's technology management process control maturity will be essential to sustaining reform outcomes. Notwithstanding the significant efforts of the Parties, the Monitor's Office, Subject Matter Experts, and resources directed by the Courts, PRP's capacity to independently transform and improve its technology infrastructure and capabilities has not yet been demonstrated. Questions regarding PRP's long-term self-sustainability in this area therefore remain. The Commonwealth must continue its efforts to comply with the fundamentals of the Decree and institutionalize a professional IT cadre of technology experts with contemporary skills capable of advancing technology solutions through multiple generations of improvement, while also leveraging third-party expertise. Equally important, efforts made to date cannot stop once Axon and Benchmark are initially operationalized. Continuous improvement must become part of PRP's IT culture.

The course of action ahead is formidable and if PRP is to be successful it must maneuver through the bureaucratic obstacles, procurement and contacting noted above in order to plan effectively, manage outcomes and clear obstacles (resources and contracting) in a timely manner, retain its key staff and contractors, and mitigate the issues facing these very risky developments and deployments. With respect to eventually achieving sustainability, process execution and follow-through are essential to effective implementation and sustainability. The following should be formalized.

1. a) Leadership

   1. Support from all leaders, up to the Superintendent, must be overtly visible.

      • a. Horizontal collaboration with other responsible managers across the Decree is a must. As of mid-March, disconnects are evident between IT delivery and Training including that from SAEA.

   2. PRP must be willing to endure failure and to commit appreciable resources. Implementation of Axon and Benchmark Analytics solutions are foundational first steps and not the end of the transformation effort.

2. b) Planning, Management and Rigor

   1. Planning and reporting should be streamlined to incorporate fewer hygiene details (i.e. meetings held) and focus on key determinants of status. For example, regarding cost, schedule and performance, communicate simply and forthrightly with only the necessary narrative using for example Red/Yellow/Green reporting formats. Current narrative claims of progress and completion without evidence undermine credibility. Eliminate low “return on investment” activities.

   2. Consider recasting the IT Corrective Action Plan, streamlining it, and focusing on critical informative metrics and decisions. Isolate actionable tasks that lead to decisions and outcomes.

   3. The established Master Integration Plan must be used to regulate integration across all systems and initiatives.

   4. Cyber planning, investment and hardening must be in focus and profound.

   5. Risk Management, a critical component of project decision making needs to be addressed as a primary focus when reviewing status and planning actions. Risk should be reviewed in every meeting.

   6. Institutionalize Quality Assurance and Quality Control Practices.

   7. Contract Management must be timely.

   8. Data validation and purification practices critical to the migration from RMS to Axon and EIS to Benchmark must be institutionalized and adhered to.

   9. The Network Maintenance Plan should incorporate more detail and include budget and risks.

   10. IT Management and delivery staff must be adequate and skilled.

   11. An Enterprise/Systems Architecture must be formalized to guide goal setting and decision making and include an established portfolio of technical functionality and capabilities.

   12. The Commonwealth would be well served to institutionalize a Lessons Learned practice.

3. b) Collaboration

   1. Training support must be timely.

   2. Communication between PRP HQ and the field must continuously be exercised and improved.

   3. Transparency and Communication must be fluid at all times.

In Summation

The Commonwealth continues to show progress but there is still much to do and PRP and BT must be willing to seek and accept advice and assistance from outside the Department. Whether the Commonwealth institutionalizes an organic expert IT cadre or it depends on industry experts through contracting, IT management is not trivial and must be embraced as an essential tool to effective policing and supervision. Technology cannot be viewed of as “an IT thing” and supervision must hold themselves accountable for technology success as a force multiplier. Case studies and experience show that without visible support from seniormost leaders, technology implementation is at risk and inefficiently deployed.

The Monitor's Office again reiterates that the Commonwealth, 1) to the fullest extent possible continue to use expert advisory services and subject matter experts when optimal, 2) embrace third party validation and verification in technology and process development and delivery which has not begun, 3) prepare for long term sustainability and rely on succession planning and knowledge transfer strategies to staff the IT cadre, 4) optimize the use of relevant metrics to routinely assess performance across its management and operational domain, and 5) dedicate itself to rigorous cyber planning and hardening as well as continuing infrastructure assessments.

The Monitor's Office remains optimistic that progress will continue, while recognizing that claims of progress must continue to be supported by documented evidence. The shift to evidence-based reviews during CMR-14 was necessitated by the limited verifiability of previously reported progress. Ultimately, to validate proper implementation, functional and data audits will be required of Axon and Benchmark and any legacy capabilities that are carried forward. Accurate data migration is non-negotiable in this regard. Better communication across the IT Team and PRP would go far to eradicate project status misunderstandings in the field and the Parties should remain both skeptical and vigilant to ensure focus and urgency with regard to these projects

Overall, the Commonwealth's compliance with the six Information Systems and Technology paragraphs remains unchanged due to the agreement between the Parties to defer ratings until Axon and Benchmark Analytics implementations are complete. See figure 9.

---