Panel to Screen Requests for LAPD Studies

Responding to revelations that 16 consultants simultaneously are advising the Los Angeles Police Department--at a cost of more than $3 million--members of the city’s Police Commission asked Tuesday that future consulting projects be submitted to them in advance.

“It is a little surprising . . . that we have 16 projects going on at once,” said Commissioner Art Mattox, who proposed that any requests to hire consultants be evaluated first to determine how much staff time they might consume. The commission unanimously agreed, even as Mattox and other members of the panel emphasized that many of the consultants who have worked with the LAPD have contributed valuable insights to the organization.

Some of Police Chief Willie L. Williams’ senior staff members have complained about the time and energy required to work with so many consultants at once. After the meeting, Williams commended the commission for a move that he said would better focus attention on the hidden costs of the consulting projects.

“I think that being mindful of the staff time will help us be more judicious,” he said. “It will allow us to focus on total costs, not just dollars but total resources.”

During the meeting, Williams said he responded to a City Council member just this week by warning that one council request would require 700 hours of staff time to fulfill. And Assistant Chief Frank Piersol, appearing before the commission to answer questions generated by the department’s survey of outside projects, said he had received a call from a consultant offering to do a study to get rid of other consultants.

“It sounded appealing at first,” he said wryly, adding that he turned the offer down.

In his presentation to the commission, Piersol stressed that the majority of the consultants have been hired by the mayor, the City Council and others outside the LAPD. Of the 16 consultants at work as of the end of 1995, only seven were hired by the department and the majority of those are doing their work for free, Piersol said.

By contrast, the nine consultants hired by others have rung up bills of more than $3 million. Despite the tab, however, several have won wide praise for their work--particularly in the areas of engineering and real estate acquisition and development, in which the LAPD is thin on expertise.

Senior LAPD staffers say some consultants have brought important management skills to the department, but they also warn that the bevy of outside advisors has sometimes been distracting. Piersol made that point Tuesday.

Ever since the Rodney G. King beating in 1991, “this has probably been the most examined, analyzed department in the history of law enforcement,” Piersol said. “There is an imposition on management-level people.”

Still, Piersol and other officials stressed that the consultants often bring important perspectives to Police Department issues, either by supplementing the expertise within the force or by reassuring outsiders that the LAPD is performing its mission. Studies of LAPD facilities and computerization, for instance, have helped propel modernization efforts, and officials familiar with those consultants’ work commend them.

Other consultants have drawn more skeptical reactions, and commissioners probed a few of the more controversial projects during Tuesday’s meeting.

When the LAPD tested commanders during a recent promotional exam, the Police and Personnel departments adopted a new procedure overseen by an outside consultant who ran a so-called “assessment center” for 15 candidates applying for jobs as deputy chiefs. The consultant was paid $10,000, but the new test drew protests from some candidates who took it and from a few others who raised questions about the new method.

Piersol acknowledged that the new testing method was greeted with some anxiety inside the Police Department but defended it as a fairer system for evaluating candidates. The new method next will be extended to candidates for commander, a larger group of officers than those who apply for deputy chief.

In response to commission questions, Williams also defended the new testing procedure and said he expected that the costs of administering the test will drop in future rounds as the Personnel Department budgets for them in advance.

Commissioner Edith R. Perez asked Williams to supply her with copies of the consultants’ work in preparing that exam, as well as materials relating to a $12,000 project that studied various aspects of LAPD management. The consultant for the latter project was asked to help prepare a Police Department management summit last fall, and both Williams and Piersol said the group had more than earned its payment.

“It was a significant amount of work,” said Williams. “They are committed to the city and committed to the department.”

While those two studies attracted some interest for their work as well as their cost, another consulting firm has come under scrutiny even though it has not charged the city anything. According to the police chief, McKinsey & Co. agreed to study certain aspects of LAPD management and organization, beginning in early 1995.

The company interviewed some LAPD managers and, according to sources, uncovered significant criticisms of Williams as well as different opinions about the Police Department organization. Rumors about the McKinsey work have long circulated in the LAPD and through City Hall, and Commissioner Raymond C. Fisher gently broached the topic with the chief Tuesday, asking him whether the firm had prepared a written report detailing its findings.

Williams acknowledged that McKinsey had “pointed out some of the conflicts regarding philosophy,” but said the firm had not produced a written report. At Fisher’s request, the chief said he would ask McKinsey officials whether they contemplated writing a report or whether they already had completed their project.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Consultants and the LAPD

In a report to the Los Angeles Police Commission, the LAPD found that 16 different consultants were examining various parts of the department as of the end of 1995. Here are the consultants, in order of contract amount:

Consultant: Kosmont & Associates

Amount: $638,720

Services: Providing facilities program for the department.

*

Consultant: RAM Communications Consultants Inc.

Amount: $500,000

Services: Planning Proposition M systems and construction.

*

Consultant: Mitre Corp.

Amount: $459,955

Services: Study of automating and reengineering the LAPD.

*

Consultant: David M. Griffith & Associates

Amount: $325,580

Services: Citywide fleet management audit.

*

Consultant: Blue Marble

Amount: $300,000

Services: Studying support services, especially Scientific Investigations Division.

*

Consultant: EIGER TechSystems

Amount: $300,000

Services: Report on communications traffic loads.

*

Consultant: Wilkes, Aris, Hendrick & Lane

Amount: $300,000

Services: Legal advice on licensing 10 radio channels.

*

Consultant: MicroAge Corp.

Amount: $173,000

Services: Engineering system support.

*

Consultant: USC School of Education

Amount: $25,000

Services: Advice on modifying training curricula.

*

Consultant: Sharon Jeffers / Consultant: Educational Kinesiology

Amount: Not over $25,000

Services: Training for academy firearms instructors

*

Consultant: KBK Enterprises Inc.

Amount: $12,000

Services: Management consulting for Executive Development Workshop.

*

Consultant: Dennis A. Joiner

Amount: $10,000

Services: Assessing deputy chief exam.

*

Consultant: McKinsey & Co. Consultants

Amount: Pro bono

Services: Reviews organizational matters as needed.

*

Consultant: Northrop/Grumman

Amount: Pro bono

Services: Work on software for crime analysis database.

*

Consultant: Sagon-Phior Group

Amount: Pro bono

Services: Public relations to improve LAPD’s image.

*

Consultant: Tom Drucker’s Corporate Innovations

Amount: Pro bono

Services: Planning for West Bureau.

Source: Los Angeles Police Department