Inspector General reports 129 complaints in March; peer review finds office met national standards

Inspector General Hendricks reported to the Civilian Review Board that the office received 129 complaints in March, closed 105 of them and opened 24 investigations from that intake. She said the office examined 58 allegations among 20 closed investigations for the month and—on a year-to-date basis in 2026—has investigated about 60 cases covering roughly 204 allegations.

Hendricks outlined how intake and investigative workloads are shown in the monthly packet (a precinct-level breakdown of allegations, substantiation status and recommended findings) and said CPD responses to investigative referrals typically take "on average" four to six months. She asked board members to request any additional case findings they want to review once CPD responds so the board can see the department’s follow-up.

"On behalf of the team, I am pleased to advise that we found no reportable instances of failure to meet these standards," Hendricks said, summarizing the Association of Inspectors General peer-review letter covering sampled work products from fiscal years 2024 and 2025.

Hendricks also described the IG office’s work to publish more timely public information. She said the office is testing a public dashboard with city technology staff, with a target for beta review in June and a potential public launch in July pending design and data verification. The dashboard will show counts and status of complaints, investigations opened and closed, and aggregated allegation counts by precinct.

Board members praised the peer review result and asked the IG to circulate the AIG opinion letter when the formal recommendations arrive in the next 60 days. Several members also asked for a standing personnel-review process: the board agreed to form an ad hoc committee to consider an evaluation of the inspector general when the peer-review recommendations are released.

Why it matters: the monthly totals provide oversight metrics the board uses to identify workload patterns, backlogs and precinct-level concentrations of allegations; the peer-review finding provides outside validation of investigatory standards and may shape forthcoming operational recommendations.