U.S. Department of Justice 
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 
LaW EnforCEMEnT TECH GUIDE for 

Creating Performance
Measures That Work

A Guide for Executives and Managers 

Chart: CHRI 
Total Index Crime Arrests YTD 97,000 
Total Drug Crime Arrests YTD 94,700 
Percent Change Arrests YTD 3.6% 
Local Agency Inquiries 267 

Chart: CRASH 
Accidents Year to Date 859 
Change Year Over Year .90 
Fatalities Year to Date 948 
Change Year Over Year .113 

Chart: Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) 
Missing Persons 12 
Open Major Cases 78 
IA Open Cases 21 
Officers Assigned to JTTF 43 
Arrest Rate 80.23% 
DA Filings 77.22% 
Conviction Rate 65.21% 



Copyright  2006 SEARCH Group, Incorporated. The U.S. Department of Justice 
reserves a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, or 
otherwise use, and to authorize others to use, this book for Federal Government purposes. 
This document may be freely distributed and used for noncommercial and educational 
purposes. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by any means (including 
electronic, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) for commercial purposes without the 
prior permission of the U.S. Department of Justice or the author(s). 


U.S. Department of Justice 
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

LaW EnforCEMEnT TECH GUIDE for 

Creating Performance
Measures That Work

A Guide for Executives and Managers 

By David J. Roberts 

This publication was supported by cooperative agreement #2003CKWXK054 awarded 
by the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services to 
SEARCH Group,Incorporated,7311 Greenhaven Drive,Suite 145,Sacramento,CA 95831. 
The opinions or recommendations contained herein are those of the author(s) and do not 
necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
References to specific organizations, products, or services should not be considered an 
endorsement of the product by the author(s) or the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, 
the references are illustrations to supplement discussion of the issues. 


U.S. Department of Justice 
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

Office of the Director 
1100 Vermont Avenue, NW 
Washington, D.C. 20005 

Dear Colleague: 

With increasing frequency, law enforcement agencies are being called on to systematically 
examine the impact of their policing practices. Many are using performance measures 
to do so. Performance measures, when conceived as part of a broad management 
perspective, can provide officers, supervisors, and executives with an increased level of 
understanding that can result in more effective and efficient services. Developing valid and 
reliable performance measures are necessary for assessing and reporting on the impact of 
policing efforts, whether those efforts include adopting a new technology or adopting new 
community policing initiatives. 

The Law Enforcement Tech Guide for Creating Performance Measures That Work is 
intended to help readers develop their own insightful measures that can be relied on to make 
improvements to individual programs and initiatives, and to improve the effectiveness of a 
departments overall operations. This publication emphasizes that performance evaluation 
is more than just an academic exercise conducted at a single point in time. It is a complete 
strategic approach that can become an intrinsic component of police management and, if 
practiced on an ongoing basis, has the potential to have numerous benefits. 

This Guide is one of the many resources that the Office of Community Oriented Policing 
Services (COPS) offers to law enforcement. In fact, it is one in a series of Law Enforcement 
Tech Guides that can be used as a stand-alone reference or used to complement the Law 
Enforcement Tech Guide: How to Plan, Purchase and Manage Technology. These tech 
guides and many of our other knowledge-based resources can be downloaded from 
www.cops.usdoj.gov, or they can be ordered free of charge by contacting the COPS Office 
Response Center at 800.421.6770 or via e-mail at askCOPSRC@usdoj.gov. 

I hope that you find the Law Enforcement Tech Guide for Creating Performance Measures 
That Work to be both informative and helpful, and I encourage you to share it with other law 
enforcement practitioners. 

Carl R. Peed 
Director 


Contents

Acknowledgments .................................................................... 
x
About the Author .................................................................... xi

Section (About the Guide) 

About the Guide ....................................................................... 
3
Assumptions About You and Your Agency ............................... 
4
How this Guide Is Organized.................................................... 
5
Definition of Icons ................................................................... 
6
How to Use this Guide .............................................................. 
7

Section (Eight Facts about 
Performance Measurement 
of Technology Projects)
 
Eight Facts About Performance Measurement 
of Technology Projects ........................................................... 11 

Part I: 
Performance 
Measurement 

Chapter 1 
What Is Performance Measurement 
and Why Is It Important?............................................... 17 

Why Measure?........................................................................ 18
Know Your Purpose ................................................................ 20
You Have To!........................................................................... 21
Why Performance Measures Fail ............................................ 22
Why People Are Afraid of Performance Measurement .......... 23
Connect Your Project to the Broader Mission......................... 23

Chapter 2 
Establish an Integrated Performance 
Management Framework ............................................... 27 

Its Not Just About Whether Crime Went Up or Down........... 27
Balanced Scorecard Provides Template .................................. 28
The Seven Dimensions of a Balanced Scorecard .................... 28


Part II: 
Performance 
Management 

The Six Steps to Establishing a Performance-Based 
Management Program ......................................................... 31 

Part I Checklist............................................................... 32

Chapter 3 
Define Mission and Strategic Performance Objectives .. 37 

Step One Checklist ......................................................... 45

Chapter 4 
Establish a Performance Management Framework ....... 49 

The ABCs of Performance Management ................................ 50 

Major Elements in Creating a Performance
 Management Framework ..................................................... 50

Step Two Checklist ......................................................... 61

Chapter 5 
Establish Accountability for Performance..................... 65 

Whos Accountable? ............................................................... 67

Step Three Checklist ...................................................... 70

Chapter 6 
Develop a Data Collection Plan...................................... 73 

Identify Information Requirements........................................ 75
Identify Information Sources.................................................. 76
Pitfalls to Avoid ...................................................................... 76
Define Data Collection Process............................................... 78
Define Data Collection and Reporting Frequency .................. 80
Identify Data Collection Costs ................................................ 80
Address Data Protection......................................................... 82
Ensure Data Quality ............................................................... 82
Complete a Trial Run.............................................................. 82

Step Four Checklist ........................................................ 83



Chapter 7 
Analyze, Review, and Report Performance Data ........... 87 

Data Analysis Strategies ......................................................... 88
Create an Executive Dashboard .............................................. 95

Step Five Checklist ......................................................... 97

Chapter 8 
Use Performance Information to 
Drive Improvement.......................................................101 

Shape Organizational Culture .............................................. 102
Make Information Broadly Available.................................... 103
Reengineer Business Processes ............................................. 103

Step Six Checklist ......................................................... 105

Part III: 
Performance Management 
in Everyday Policing 

Chapter 9 
Build Performance Management into 
Everyday Policing..........................................................111 

Executive Support and Organizational 
Commitment Required .......................................................111 
Comprehensive System of Accountability and 
Responsibility Required ..................................................... 112 
Flatten the Organization....................................................... 112 
Identify Problems Early .........................................................113 
Ensure Progress and Keep Projects on Target ........................113 
Demonstrate Value ................................................................114 

Part III Checklist .......................................................... 115

Conclusion ....................................................................116

Appendixes

A. Bibliography .....................................................................119

B. Glossary........................................................................... 125

C. Sample Assessment Measures ......................................... 133

D. Examples of Performance Management in 
Justice Agencies ................................................................141 

E. Endnotes.......................................................................... 157


Acknowledgments 

This publication was prepared by SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice 
Information and Statistics, Francis X. (Paco) Aumand III, chair, and Ronald P. Hawley, 
executive director. The project director was Kelly J. Harris, deputy executive director of 
programs. David J. Roberts, Global Justice Consulting, wrote this publication. Twyla R. 
Putt, manager, corporate communications, and Linda Townsdin, senior writer/editor, 
edited this publication, and Jane L. Bassett, publishing specialist, provided layout and 
design. Chris Roebuck, webmaster, provided web site coordination. The federal project 
manager was Debra Cohen, Ph.D., of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of 
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS). 

Suggested Citation 

Roberts, David J., Law Enforcement Tech Guide for Creating Performance Measures That 
Work: A Guide for Executives and Managers, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice 
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2006. 

About Us 

SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, is dedicated 
to improving the quality of justice and public safety through the use, management, and 
exchange of information; application of new technologies; and responsible law and 
policy, while safeguarding security and privacy. 

We assist local, tribal, county, regional, and state agencies and organizationsincluding: 
law enforcement and public safety; first responders; prosecution; defense; adjudication; 
detention; corrections and probation; and other disciplines, such as transportation, 
drivers licensing, vehicle registration, public health, and social servicesthrough a 
broad array of activities, resources, and products. Our focus is on criminal history 
systems, integrated justice information systems, information technology (planning, 
purchasing, managing), and cybercrime investigation. Our services include in-house and 
onsite technical assistance and training, resource development (web sites, publications, 
white papers, conferences, workshops), public policy assistance, and model development 
(model legislation, standards and procedures, best practices) in these focus areas. 
SEARCH online resources provide information on law enforcement information 
technology (IT), integrated justice, justice software solutions, and IT acquisition at 
www.search.org. 


About the Author 

David J. Roberts is principal of Global Justice Consulting, an international consultancy 
focusing on justice information technology planning, integrated/joined-up justice 
initiatives, and Justice Information Exchange Model (JIEM) analysis. He previously 
served as director of the Justice & Public Safety Practice, Global Public Sector for Unisys 
Corporation, and for 17 years as deputy executive director of SEARCH, The National 
Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics. He has provided technical assistance 
in a host of local, state, and national jurisdictions in planning and implementing 
integrated/joined-up justice information sharing, directed Unisys in development of its 
integrated justice information sharing (IJIS) solution, and directed a series of national 
conferences, including the 2002, 1999, and 1996 Bureau of Justice Assistance/SEARCH 
Symposia on Integrated Justice Information Systems. Mr. Roberts has served as director of 
a variety of U.S. federally-funded justice IT projects, including the SEARCH project to 
identify and model information exchange (JIEM), and a joint Bureau of Justice Statistics/ 
FBI project on National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) implementation 
among law enforcement agencies. He is a frequent speaker on justice information 
technology and integrated/joined-up justice both in the United States and abroad, and a 
published author. Mr. Roberts holds graduate degrees in criminal justice from the State 
University of New York at Albany and Oklahoma City University. 

Performance Measures Tech Guide 
Review Committee 

SEARCH extends its deepest thanks and appreciation to the following members of the 
Performance Measures Tech Guide Review Committee, who participated in an advisory 
capacity during the preparation of this Guide. 

Colonel Kenneth Bouche 

Deputy Director, Information and Technology Command, Illinois State Police 

Major Piper Charles 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg (North Carolina) Police Department 

Sara Phillips 

Assistant Director, Mayors Office of Homeland Security, Boston 

Captain Jon Shane 

Newark City (New Jersey) Police Department 


We would also like to thank members of the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the U.S. 
Department of Justices Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative (Global) for lending 
their expertise in a review of this document. 



About
the
Guide


A Library of Tech Guide Resources

This Tech Guide on creating performance measures is intended to serve as 
a companion guide to Law Enforcement Tech Guide: How to plan, purchase 
and manage technology (successfully!). The original Tech Guide was published 
in 2002 by the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented 
Policing Services (COPS) and was developed as a step-by-step guide to help 
law enforcement agencies as they implement new technologies. 

This Performance Measures Tech Guide is intended to complement and 
be used along with the original Law Enforcement Tech Guide. As such, this 
Guide makes frequent references to content in the original Tech Guide. It 
may help to keep the original Tech Guide close at hand so you can refer to 
particular pages and sections as needed. 

This Performance Measures Tech Guide is one of a series of four topic-specific 
Tech Guides funded by the COPS Office. The four companion Tech Guides 
that will form a comprehensive library of technology resources, along with 
the original Law Enforcement Tech Guide, are: 

-Law Enforcement Tech Guide for Small and Rural Police Agencies: A Guide 
for Executives, Managers, and Technologists 

-Law Enforcement Tech Guide for Creating Performance Measures That Work: 
A Guide for Executives and Managers 

-Law Enforcement Tech Guide for Communications Interoperability: A Guide 
for Interagency Communications Projects 

-Law Enforcement Tech Guide for Information Technology Security: How to 
Assess Risk and Establish Effective Policies 

See page 7 for details on how to download or order your own copy of the 
original Law Enforcement Tech Guide. 


About the Guide

From the earliest days of law enforcement, there was an enduring belief that 
technology could address nearly every problem encountered. In contemporary times, 
simply computerizing something was sometimes perceived as modernizing it and 
thereby improving it. It was only after very specific experiences with automation 
and computerization, and with the practical experiences of projects that failed by 
many different measures (e.g., took much longer than expected, cost much more 
than projected, had a negative impact [i.e., changed] on business practices, or 
were terminated for failure to reach completion or achieve fundamental business 
objectives) that we began to recognize that computerization, in and of itself, was not 
a panacea. It was clear that automation would not succeed without careful project 
management. Moreover, even if the project succeeded, the consequences might not 
generate the program or agency impact that had been expected. 

For these and many other reasons, performance measurement, effective program 
management, continuous assessment of interim project milestones, and 
implementation of midcourse corrections where necessary, are crucial steps in 
effective planning and implementation of technology (indeed, of all) projects. It also 
underscores the importance of clearly defining measurable objectives up front and 
ensuring that projects we are planning and implementing are directly related to broad 
program and agency objectives, goals, and mission. 

In many cases, technology has proven successful. Radios and cell phones have made 
instant communication possible. Automated fingerprint identification systems 
(AFIS), DNA profiling, and other forensic techniques have helped in establishing 
positive identification and greatly assisted law enforcement in solving crimes that 
historically would not have been cleared. Mobile computers have armed officers on 
the street with the ability to instantly record and access a variety of information that 
traditionally would have taken days, weeks, or even years to discover. 


About the Guide 

As in other business and government endeavors, however, technology has not always 
achieved the results intended or promised. Decision makers and funding bodies 
have increasingly asked agencies to demonstrate the tangible business benefits of 
technology expenditures. Too often agencies cannot specifically articulate their claim 
of success, or even how such results were measured. In light of concerns over effective 
government and efficient expenditure of public funds, government funding bodies, 
political leaders, agency decision makers, and the taxpaying public are demanding 
greater accountability for information and technology systems implementation. 

This Guide responds to the need to define success in technology programs and 
beyond. It is part of the broader Law Enforcement Tech Guide series created by the 
U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS)1 
and SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics.2 It 
is designed to assist agencies in assessing and managing performance, particularly 
as it relates to measuring the impact of federally funded programs. Performance 
management, of course, is much more than simply assessing the impact of specific 
federally funded grant projects. As a consequence, the approach taken here is to define 
an Integrated Performance Management Framework that can be broadly applied in 
law enforcement at the enterprise level. The principles of this framework, however, 
can easily be scaled to address performance measurement issues at individual 
program and project levels, thereby providing guidance to managers in assessing and 
managing the performance of specific programs and initiatives, as well as relating 
these programs to broader agency objectives and mission. 

This Tech Guide is designed to introduce the role of performance measurement 
in contemporary law enforcement management, and to teach core dynamics of 
performance management, monitoring, and reporting. The structure of this Tech 
Guide follows the general flow presented in the original Law Enforcement Tech 
Guide,3 and is meant to be complementary to other Tech Guides in the series, 
addressing Communications Interoperability, Small and Rural Police Agencies, etc. 
Whenever possible, we have included real-life examples from police departments that 
have successfully implemented performance management in their jurisdictions. 

FYI: 
We tell you how to 
get your own copy 
of the original Law 
Enforcement Tech 
Guide on page 7. 

Assumptions About You and Your Agency 

This Performance Measures Tech Guide is geared to chiefs, sheriffs, commanders, 
managers, and operational staff. It focuses on addressing the core business objectives 
of law enforcement, and relates performance measurement, assessment, and 
monitoring from the perspective of building effective, efficient organizations that 
can consistently evaluate and achieve success. This Guide provides examples of law 
enforcement agencies around the nation that have demonstrated success in measuring 
and managing their performance on specific projects and as part of broader 


Page 5

management mandates. Highlights of these real examples are provided 
throughout the Guide. 

This Tech Guide presumes that law enforcement agencies have developed, or are 
actively developing, effective enterprisewide strategic business plans. As noted on 
page 19 of this Tech Guide, It is only by clearly articulating the objectives of agencies, 
understanding the current environment within which they operate, establishing 
baseline measures on critical factors related to the overall success in meeting agency 
objectives, and constantly measuring the impact of agency actions taken to achieve 
defined objectives that we can be effective. The strategic planning process is 
fundamental to establishing objectives and a management paradigm that will enable 
effective performance management. Readers are encouraged to familiarize themselves 
with the strategic planning principles outlined in the original Law Enforcement Tech 
Guide, and to build the Integrated Performance Management Framework presented 
here into their broader strategic planning process. 

How this Guide Is Organized 

This Guide is organized into three parts that reflect the key elements of the 
performance measurement process: 

Part I Performance Measurement
Part II Performance Management
Part III Performance Management in Everyday Policing 

If you already have some background on the subject of performance measures, you 
could easily skip to Part II, which gets right to the heart of the subject by offering 
six steps that guide you through the process. We believe it is important, however, to 
understand the context before moving on to the steps, so we recommend that you 
read all parts and chapters. They provide key guidance and real-life examples from 
police departments that discuss what works and what doesnt. 

This Guide also includes tips, checklists, definitions, and other helpful how-to 
information. Each chapter, for example, begins with a section that answers the four 
Ws about the topic: What is it, Why do it, Who is involved, and When to do it. 

We have included appendixes with references to resources, definitions, assessment 
measures, and endnotes that will enable you to review agency web sites and 
publications for more information on specific issues and topics. 


Page 6

Definition of Icons 

Throughout this Guide, icons are used to draw your attention to important concepts, 
ideas, reference material, and, in some cases, warnings. Below are the icons and what 
they represent: 

Original Tech Guide Reference 

Original Tech Guide Icon

The parent Tech Guide contains many useful tools, charts, and instructions for 
conducting various tasks. When you see this icon, you will be directed to a specific 
page, or range of pages, in the original Law Enforcement Tech Guide. 

Stop Sign 

Stop Sign Icon

When you see a stop sign icon, pay particular attention, as it will indicate where others 
have encountered trouble in their projects. The stop sign indicates pitfalls to avoid. 

Grant Requirements 

Grant Requirements Icon

Be accountable to your grants. This icon will alert you when grant requirements may 
come into play. 

Tips 

Tips Icon

If weve heard or know of shortcuts or have useful ideas on how to tackle a particular 
issue, well use this icon to let you know. 

Web Resource 

Web Resource Icon

Whenever you see this icon, we have presented information that may be accessible via 
the Internet. 

International 

International Icon

This icon symbolizes international performance management efforts, and alerts you 
to another valuable perspective on performance management initiatives. 

Performance Management Team 

Performance Management Team Icon

The Performance Management Team is responsible for leading, implementing, and 
monitoring performance measurement. You will find specific words of advice and 
recommendations wherever this icon appears. 


Page 7

Executive Sponsor 

Executive Sponsor Icon

The executive sponsor is the project spokesperson, decision maker, and leader. You will 
find recommendations and advice just for you when you see this icon in the margins. 

How to Use this Guide 

This Performance Measures Tech Guide is intended to provide strategies, best practices, 
recommendations, and ideas for establishing an Integrated Performance Management 
Framework in your agency or jurisdiction. This Guide should not be construed as legal 
advice for any specific factual situation. It is meant to serve as a guideline for situations 
generally encountered in planning environments. It does not replace or supersede any 
policies, procedures, rules, and ordinances applicable to your jurisdiction. It is not a 
substitute for effective legal counsel and should not be interpreted as a legal service. 

Sources of the Original Law Enforcement 
Tech Guide 

The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 
(COPS) published the original Law Enforcement Tech Guide in 2002. It is available 
electronically from the COPS Office web site at http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/default. 
asp?Item=512. 

There it is broken down into its separate parts as Portable Document Format (PDF) files 
so you can download or read one at a time. 

If youre anxious to download the whole document at onceall 14 megabytesthe 
complete version can be found at SEARCHs web site: 
http://www.search.org/files/pdf/TECHGUIDE.pdf. 

Hard copy versions are distributed by the COPS Office. To request one, call the COPS 
Office Response Center at 800.421.6770 or e-mail askCOPSRC@usdoj.gov. 


Eight Facts About
Performance 
Measurement of 
Technology
Projects



Eight Facts About
Performance Measurement of 
Technology Projects

1. 
Performance measurement improves the management and delivery of products 
and services. 
2. 
Performance measurement improves communications internally among 
employees, as well as externally between the organization and its customers and 
stakeholders. 
3. 
Performance measurement helps justify programs and their costs. 
4. 
Performance measurement demonstrates accountability and stewardship of 
taxpayer resources. 
5. 
Performance measurement is a federal grant-funding program requirement. 
6. 
Performance indicators are useful for diagnosing problems. 
7. 
Performance indicators can be used to assess how well projects and activities 
are working in practice. 
8. 
Valid and reliable performance indicators can be used to construct better 
understanding of the operation of the legal system, the relationship between 
the legal system and larger economic or social development goals, and the 
impacts of various kinds of intervention and reform. 
Read on to learn HOW to implement these eight facts. 


Part I:
Performance 
Measurement

Measurement is the first step that leads 
to control and eventually to improvement. 
If you cant measure something, you cant 
understand it. If you cant understand it, 
you cant control it. If you cant control it, 
you cant improve it. 

H. James Harrington 





ChapTER 1 
WhaT IS pERFORMaNCE MEaSUREMENT 
aND WhY IS IT IMpORTaNT? 




Page 17

Chapter: 1
What Is Performance 
Measurement and Why Is It 
Important?

Serious crime in New York City declined 70.6 percent in the 13-year period from 1993 
to 2006. Murder fell by 69.6 percent, robbery by 72.8 percent, rape by 54.0 percent, and 
felonious assault by 58.9 percent. Crime fell 4.78 percent in 2006 (through December 10), 
when compared to 2005 figures.4 

Violent crime in Los Angeles declined 2 percent through December 16, 2006, when 
compared to the same period in 2005, and 29 percent when compared to the same period in 
2004. Total Part I crime dropped 8 percent and 20 percent, respectively, over the 
same time periods.5 

3-1-1 nonemergency call systems were designed in part to reduce overburdened 9-1-1 
Emergency Call Centers, expedite response to legitimate emergencies, and provide greater 
opportunities for community policing. Research in several jurisdictions has shown mixed 
results and has demonstrated the importance of ongoing performance monitoring and 
assessment to track the impact of the system on law enforcement and to guide changes in 
operations and response.6 

Police chiefs and sheriffs, like chief executives of any organization, are measured on 
results. For law enforcement executives, that means public assessment on a variety of 
factors: 

 
Is crime going up or down? 
 
Do citizens feel safe in their communities? Do they feel safer today than they 
did a year ago or 10 years ago? 
 
Does the agency respond quickly to emergency situations? 
 
Does the agency rank favorably when compared with other jurisdictions in 
the amount of crime reported (both in gross number of crimes and per capita 
crime rates), the proportion of cases solved, and the number of arrests made? 



Page 18 
Part I: Performance Measurement 

 
Does the public respect the agency and the officers on patrol? Do they feel they 
are treated with respect and courtesy? Are they satisfied with the results when 
they call for assistance? 
 
Does the agency demonstrate efficiency of operations and conscientious use of 
public resources? 

The variety of factors that contribute to an overall assessment of the quality of the 
job done by law enforcement demonstrates the extraordinary breadth and depth 
of responsibility and authority we invest in this critical public agency. Certainly 
other factors can also influence the amount of crime in a given jurisdiction (such as 
unemployment, age and social structure of the community, and general economic 
trends and conditions), but law enforcement is generally held to task as the agency 
most responsible and, therefore, most accountable. 

And as noted above, measures of the volume of crime reported in a jurisdiction are 
but a single dimension in the complex array of factors that weigh in the broader 
assessment of the quality of work done by police.7 Law enforcement executives must 
juggle a broad assortment of responsibilities ranging from traffic enforcement to 
border and port security, from school safety programs to major incident response in 
terrorist attacks and natural disasters, from domestic disturbances to serial homicide 
investigations spanning years and multiple jurisdictions. And these responsibilities 
are only likely to expand given contemporary and evolving trends in homeland 
security and intelligence information sharing. 

Web Resource Icon

Why Measure? 

Measuring performance, constantly assessing and monitoring critical performance 
metrics, and tailoring proactive response and follow-up are fundamental components 
of effective management in contemporary law enforcementindeed, in any 
organization, public or private, government or industry, large or small.8 Building 
an effective performance management program within an agency requires a 
comprehensive management paradigm that does the following: 

 
Defines agency objectives in clear and measurable terms 
 
Incorporates routine and unambiguous measures of the processes initiated, the 
resources expended, and the outcome and impact of agency-sponsored projects 
and activities 
 
Empowers managers and staff to develop new and innovative responses 
 
Monitors and evaluates their impact and influence on critical measures of
success. 



Page 19

Chapter 1: What Is Performance Measurement and Why Is It Important? 

CompStat (or 
COMpSTaT), 
shorthand 
for computer 
statistics, connotes 
the computer-
generated statistical 
reports and 
geographic maps 
that were generated 
for weekly crime 
meetings that 
Commissioner 
Bratton and his 
staff convened at 
the New York City 
police Department 
(NYPD) shortly 
after he arrived 
in 1994. The 
program, of course, 
is significantly 
broader than 
simply generating 
statistical 
summaries and 
maps showing the 
location of crime. 

Performance evaluation is more than an academic exercise, a matter of 
methodologies and numbers. How performance is measured affects not 
only what the public knows about the police, but also the character of police 
operations and the management climate. Because performance evaluations 
establish priorities, incentives, and requirements, they are much too 
important to be left to technicians. Performance measurement should be 
viewed as an integral, ongoing part of the management of policing. 

David Bayley.9 

It is only by clearly articulating the objectives of agencies, understanding the current 
environment within which they operate, establishing baseline measures on critical 
factors related to the overall success in meeting agency objectives, and constantly 
measuring the impact of agency actions taken to achieve defined objectives that we 
can be effective. 

CompStat is perhaps the best known and most well-documented contemporary 
example of the power of performance measurement in law enforcement 
management. The CompStat paradigm relies on four key principles: 

1. Timely and accurate intelligence. 
2. Effective tactics. 
3. Rapid deployment of personnel and resources. 
4. Relentless follow-up and assessment to ensure that the problem has been 
solved.10

William Bratton, New York City Police Commissioner at the time the agency 
developed CompStat, described the program in the following way:

In the 6-week Compstat cycle, the effectiveness of every new tactic or program 
is rapidly assessed. Failed tactics dont last long, and successful tactics are quickly 
replicated in other precincts. Gathering field intelligence, adapting tactics to 
changing field conditions, and closely reviewing field results are now continual, 
daily processes. The NYPD can make fundamental changes in its tactical approach 
in a few weeks rather than a few years.11 

the NYPD now has the technological capacity to identify crime patterns 
almost immediately, and our response can be virtually contemporaneous with 
evolving patterns. We also have significantly tightened our management controls 
over police activities, empowering officers and commanders at the local level 
while holding them accountable for their crime-fighting results. Officers and 


Page 20 
Part I: Performance Measurement 

commanders are now guided by comprehensive and coordinated strategies and 
tactical plans that provide enough flexibility to permit the crafting of appropriate 
site-specific responses. We relentlessly follow up on their activities to ensure that 
problems are solved rather than displaced. We have also recognized and embraced 
the wisdom of Wilson and Kellings broken windows theory and its emphasis on 
the criminogenic nature of quality-of-life offenses. We have convinced officers and 
commanders that serious crime as well as public fear of crime can be reduced by 
tending to these minor offenses and annoyances of urban life.12 

The Chicago 
Police Department 
demands more 
than meeting 
performance 
metricswe also 
demand a return on 
investment. 13 

Ron huberman, 
chief of staff for 
Chicago Mayor 
Richard Daley 
(former deputy 
superintendent, 
Chicago police 
Department) 

See page 21 for an 
example of tangible 
return on investment. 

performance 
measurement, in 
simplest terms, is 
the comparison 
of actual levels of 
performance to 
pre-established 
target levels of 
performance. 

Know Your Purpose 

No matter the nature of the program, agency, initiative or project, youre making an 
investment of time, money, resources, etc., for some purpose. Measuring progress in 
achieving the intended objectives is an elementary, if often complex and frequently 
overlooked, step in basic management and administration. 

Measuring progress in meeting agency, department, division, program, and/or 
project objectives is a core step in determining: 

1. 
Whether the programs, projects, or other initiatives being undertaken are 
properly aligned with the mission and goals of the sponsoring organization. 
2. 
Whether they produce tangible improvements in processes and outcomes that 
collectively support agency objectives. 
3. 
What factors are most clearly associated with success and failure. 
4. 
Whether the initiative is repeatable, extendable, or sustainable over time, under 
different circumstances, and in different locations. 
5. 
Whether the initiative represents a fair return on investment (ROI). 

According to The Performance-Based Management Handbook, Volume 1, Performance 
measurement, in simplest terms, is the comparison of actual levels of performance 
to pre-established target levels of performance. To be effective, performance must be 
linked to the organizational strategic plan. Performance-based management essentially 
uses performance measurement information to manage and improve performance 
and to demonstrate what has been accomplished. In other words, performance 
measurement is a critical component of performance-based management.14 

All high-performance organizations whether public or private are, and 
must be, interested in developing and deploying effective performance 
management systems, since it is only through such systems that they can 
remain high-performance organizations. 

From Serving the American Public: Best Practices in Performance Measurement, 
National Performance Review (1997) 


Page 21
Chapter 1: What Is Performance Measurement and Why Is It Important? 2 

Return on Investment 15
(Illinois State Police [ISP]/Chicago Police Department [CPD])

In many public safety initiatives, much of the efficiencies are difficult to quantify. 
Attempting to put a cost savings on lives saved, crimes reduced, victims spared the 
agony of abuse, and communities experiencing a greater feeling of safety are often 
quantified simply as priceless. Although these priceless attributes will most certainly 
be developed with this project, the tangible saving to Illinois taxpayers can also be 
quantified in the tens of millions of dollars! The following categories demonstrate a 
variety of areas where significant tangible ROI is expected.

Direct Savings from the Elimination of Redundant Development 

Direct Development Savings 

Through the review of bids submitted for a statewide RMS, the ISP estimates an 
independent automated records management system with a data warehouse component 
would cost at least $6 million. This project was put on hold because sufficient funds 
were not available to move forward with the development. I-CASE, the records 
management component of I-CLEAR, will cost approximately $2 million to complete. 
Reduction of future expenditures - $4 million 

In 2002 the ISP released a request for proposals (RFP) for the replacement of our 
existing Criminal History Records Information (CHRI) System. The only bidder that met 
the minimum mandatory requirements presented a bid for $10 million. This project 
was not executed because sufficient funds were not available to move forward with the 
development. The multi-year cost to expand CPDs CHRI system and merge the existing 
CPD/ISP CHRI databases is estimated at $4 million. 
Reduction of future expenditures - $6 million 

Direct Labor Savings 

By 2007, 25 positions statewide that are responsible for keying and filing paper-based 
records can be eliminated. The positions are estimated to cost the ISP $50,000 each 
annually. Future annual savings - $1.25 million
Source: Colonel Kenneth Bouche, ISP 

Grant Requirements Icon

You Have To! 

Measuring performance in achieving project objectives is also a key part of federal 
grant-funding programs. The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), 
for example, monitors its federally funded projects to ensure fiscal responsibility and 
achievement of program objectives. As noted in the COPS Offices 2004 document Grant 

Monitoring Standards and Guidelines for Hiring and Redeployment:


22 
Part I: Performance Measurement 

Federal regulations require that the Federal government monitor any financial 
assistance to ensure that funds are spent properly. All COPS grantees are required 
to participate in grant monitoring and auditing activities by the COPS Office, the 
DOJs Office of the Inspector General (OIG), the DOJs Office of Justice Programs 
Office of the Comptroller (OC), the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) [now 
the Government Accountability Office], and other duly authorized representatives 
of the Federal government. 

The purpose of monitoring is to ensure that grantees meet their programmatic 
and financial requirements by properly managing funds and following grant 
program requirements. In general, the COPS Office monitors program activities 
and financial activities. Monitoring activities include on-site program reviews, 
the COPS Count survey, Office-based Grant Reviews, and office-based complaint, 
financial, and legal reviews.16 

Performance management is needed not only to appraise individual project 
effectiveness, demonstrate conformity with funding requirements, and achieve 
broader organizational mission and goalsits also about accountability, i.e., 
demonstrating good stewardship of public resources. Citizens entrust law 
enforcement with significant powers and support the institution with public funds. 
Accordingly, law enforcement has a duty to demonstrate that it exercises these powers 
responsibly and expends funds in a manner that is both efficient and effective. As a 
consequence, effective performance management also requires regular reporting of 
results to funding authorities, the general public, key stakeholders, and internal staff, 
including commanders and supervisors, as well as line and support staff. 

Why Performance Measures Fail 

1. 
Lack of a viable and active strategic planning process within the organization. 
2. 
Failure to change the police culture to embrace performance management and 
in particular, accountability. 
3. 
Lack of sufficient funding and technical competency to support performance 
management, especially data collection and analysis on an ongoing basis. 
4. 
Lack of knowledge, skills, and abilities and the organizational capacity to 
successfully operate effective performance management processes.
5. 
Inability to sustain the performance management process in the face of budget 
cuts and scarce or reduced resources. 
6. 
Lack of user input. 
7. 
Incomplete requirements and specifications. 
8. 
Lack of executive support. 
9. 
Unclear objectives. 


Page 23
Chapter 1: What Is Performance Measurement and Why Is It Important? 23 

10. Unrealistic time frames.17 
11. Initial establishment of too many measures, rather than selecting core 
measures. (*See sidebar to the left for an example of this point.)

*
For example: 
In the shaded 
box on page 29 
regarding trial 
court performance 
standards, the 
original version 
had 68 measures 
under the 5 areas 
cited, of which only 
about 18 could 
be economically 
collected on an 
ongoing basis. 
No court ever 
implemented all 
of them or even 
most of them. After 
almost 15 years of 
failure, the courts 
tried again with 
10 core measures. 
Early evidence 
with pilot courts 
suggests that only 
3 or 4 of those 
will ever be widely 
implemented on a 
routine basis. 
Thomas M. Clarke, 
ph.D., 
National Center for 
State Courts 

Resistance to 
performance 
measurement is 
often based on fear 
of accountability 
and concern about 
recrimination, 
repercussions, or 
reprimands due to 
the outcomes of 
measures. 

Why People Are Afraid of Performance Measurement 

1. 
Fear of measurement and new systems. 
2. 
Lack of common definitions and terms. 
3. 
Inconsistent or weak buy-in, and lack of understanding. 
4. 
Poorly defined and understood decisions and strategies that are not actionable, 
and not linked to individual actions. 
5. 
Treating budget development separately from strategy development. 
6. 
Measures set independently of a performance framework, or measures with no 
ownership. 
7. 
Losing momentum. 
8. 
No performance targets, targets set too high or too low, or lack of relevant data 
to establish targets. 
9. 
Little or no strategic feedback. 
10. Lack of meaningful employee involvement.18 

Connect Your Project to the Broader Mission 

This Guide is primarily about building an Integrated Performance Management 
Framework as an essential component of an enterprisewide management structure 
for law enforcement. Additionally, this Guide addresses specifically how to plan, 
implement, and manage project-targeted performance assessment to meet the 
reporting needs of funding and authorizing agencies, but the broader context of 
performance management in law enforcement is the overriding theme. 

Performance measurement should not be viewed solely as a single project-related 
activity designed simply to evaluate the effectiveness of specific projects, though it 
may well begin that way. Assessing the performance of individual projects and other 
law enforcement initiatives is an important and often a required element of funding 
and management authorities who support new and innovative law enforcement 
programs. Nevertheless, performance management should be a viewed as a critical 
component in an overarching management paradigm that assesses the value of 
individual projects to meet defined, discrete project objectives, and relates the value of 
these individual projects to the broader mission of the agency. 



ChapTER 2 

Establish an Integrated Performance 
Management Framework




Page 27

Chapter 2:
Establish an Integrated 
Performance Management 
Framework

Many manuals and textbooks describe in detail research and evaluation 
methodologies and analysis techniques.19 What is presented here is a comprehensive 
management process that incorporates performance measurement, assessment, and 
monitoring into a broader Integrated Performance Management Framework for law 
enforcement and other justice agencies.20 

To be effective, the Integrated Performance Management Framework suggested in 
this report must be an essential element of broader strategic planning for the law 
enforcement (or any other justice) agency. Notwithstanding this perspective, the 
core principles underlying this framework are equally relevant in measuring the 
performance of individual programs within law enforcement agencies, regardless of 
whether they are new patrol tactics, community outreach initiatives, or technology 
implementation projects. Each of the principles described in the Integrated 
Performance Management Framework can be scaled to address specific programs 
and aligned with the broader mission and objectives of the sponsoring 
law enforcement agency. 

Stop Sign Icon

Its Not Just About Whether Crime Went Up or Down 

As noted above, the job of law enforcement is significantly more complex than 
simply reducing crime and measuring performance on the single (though certainly 
important) dimension of the number of crimes reported in a jurisdiction. Even 
CompStat, which superficially may appear to focus predominantly on the volume of 
crime reported at the precinct level, is in reality also focused on improving the quality 
of life for city residents, efficient use of resources, and effective operations.21 The 
modern police chief and sheriff cannot stand solely on the volume of crime reported 
in their jurisdiction. There needs to be a balance among multiple measures reflecting 
the complex array of responsibilities of law enforcement agenciesin other words, a 
balanced scorecard for law enforcement. 


Page 28 

BALANCED 
SCORECARD: a 
measurement-
based strategic 
management 
system, originated 
by Robert kaplan 
and David Norton, 
which provides a 
method of aligning 
business activities 
to the strategy, 
and monitoring 
performance of 
strategic goals 
over time. For 
more information, 
see http://www. 
balanced 
scorecard.org/. 

Balanced Scorecard Provides Template 

The notion of a balanced scorecard was originally proposed by Kaplan and Norton.22 
Business is not measured solely on the dimension of whether it has made a profit 
within a single quarter or a year, though many corporate executives have been harshly 
criticized in recent years for myopically focusing on short-term financial gains for 
personal benefit. Rather, the performance of a corporation must be measured across 
four interrelated business perspectives: 

1. 
Financial  How do we look to stakeholders? 
2. 
Customer  How well do we satisfy our internal and external customers needs? 
3. 
Internal Business Process  How well do we perform at key internal business 
processes?
4. 
Learning and Growth  Are we able to sustain innovation, change, and 
continuous improvement?

Just as business performance must be measured across multiple dimensions, law 
enforcement performance cannot be measured on the single dimension of the volume 
of crime reporting in a jurisdiction. If it were that simple, the quarterly and annual 
Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) of local, state, and federal agencies would be sufficient 
appraisals of the job done by law enforcement executives. Instead, the performance 
of law enforcement agencies must ultimately be evaluated as a complex of measures 
related to the varying roles and responsibilities associated with this 
very public institution. 

Understanding the complex nature of the job of law enforcement is important, 
as it relates to defining the mission of the agency, and assuring that individual 
projects undertaken are closely aligned with broader agency objectives. It is critical 
to understand the complex nature of responsibilities so that individual projects 
can be properly coordinated and aligned to assist the department in achieving 
the overarching agency responsibilities, and in understanding how performance 
management relates to the broader management paradigm for law enforcement. 

The Seven Dimensions of a Balanced Scorecard 

In Recognizing Value in Policing: The Challenge of Measuring Police Performance 
(2002), Mark H. Moore, et. al., have suggested that the balanced scorecard for law 
enforcement be comprised of seven different dimensions: 

1. 
Reduce criminal victimization. 
2. 
Call offenders to account. 
3. 
Reduce fear and enhance personal security. 


Page 29

Text Box: Trial court performance standards focus on: 

a. access to Justice 
b. Expedition and Timeliness 
c. Equality, Fairness, and Integrity 
d. Independence and accountability 
e. public Trust and Confidence. 

See National Center for State Courts, 
Trial Court performance Standards and Measuring System, at 
http://www.ncsconline.org/D_Research/tcps/index.html (End of Text Box)

4. Guarantee safety in public spaces. 
5. Use financial resources fairly, efficiently, and effectively. 
6. Use force and authority fairly, efficiently, and effectively. 
7. Satisfy customer demands/achieve legitimacy with those policed.23 

Each can be measured individually. Collectively, they represent a broad assessment of 
the overall quality of work by the local law enforcement agency. 

Law enforcement authorities around the world are increasingly aware of the wide-
ranging nature of their responsibilities and are implementing comprehensive 
programs designed to constantly and publicly measure performance across an array 
of activities.24 Developing a comprehensive performance management system is really 
part of effective police management. Its more than simply evaluating the relative 
success of an individual program or project, though that is an important element. 
Clearly we must assess the impact of specific activities, projects, and initiatives and 
we must identify where problems exist, mount initiatives to address the problem 
identified, and evaluate the success of our efforts to determine whether they have 
been successful and a wise expenditure of resources. 

Web Resource Icon

The SARA problem-solving process (short for Scanning, Analysis, Response and 
Assessment) is one example of a tool used by law enforcement agencies to measure 
performance. An integral component of Problem-Oriented Policing (POP), SARA is 
principally focused on evaluating individual projects or initiatives, assessing whether 
the problem identified in fact declined, and, if so, whether the response was the 
proximate cause of the decline or remediation.25 

The model is elegant in its simplicity and is direct, which is not to say that its easy. 
Evaluating the performance of specific programs or projects is a complex process 
requiring careful planning before, during, and after implementation, rigorous 


Page 30 

research design and methodology, the application of appropriate and sometimes 
sophisticated analytic techniques, and knowledgeable analysis and appraisal. SARA 
represents an important tool for police executives in assessing the value and efficacy 
of different responses to crime, and it serves as an effective methodology for project 
evaluation even beyond POP. Readers are encouraged to utilize the SARA process for 
project evaluation and should consider this tool as an effective research methodology 
for incorporation in the Integrated Performance Management Framework 
presented in this Guide. 

SARA takes proper account of both process evaluations and impact evaluations. 

Process evaluations focus on how the initiative was executed; the activities, efforts, 
and workflow associated with the response. As John E. Eck notes in Assessing Responses 
to Problems: An Introductory Guide for Police Problem-Solvers (2001), process evaluations 
ask whether the response occurred as planned, and whether all components worked 
as intended.26 Fundamentally, a process evaluation posits the question, Are we 
doing the thing right? 

Impact evaluations focus on the outcome (the what) of the initiative; the output 
(products and services) and outcome (results, accomplishment, impact).27 Did the 
problem decline or cease? And if so, was the response the proximate cause of the 
decline? Fundamentally, the impact evaluation posits the question, Are we 
doing the right thing(s)? 

Are we doing 

INPUT (resources, including cost and workforce) + PROCESS (activities, effort windows)= Are we
Doing the thing Right? (How?) 

OUTPUT (products and services produced) + OUTCOME (results, accomplishments, impact)= 
Are we doing the RIGHT THINGS? (What?)28 


Page 31

As useful as the SARA process is for individual POP and other project evaluations, 
and it is indeed a very useful and user-friendly project evaluation methodology, it does 
not represent a comprehensive performance management paradigm contemplated 
in this Tech Guide. For that we have borrowed from the six-step performance-based 
management program originally developed for the U.S. Department of Energy.29 

The Six Steps to Establishing a Performance-
Based Management Program 

In the six-step process portrayed in Figure 2.1 the first step is to define the 
organizations mission and to establish its performance objectives. The next step is to 
establish performance measures based on and linked to the outcomes of the strategic 
planning phase. Following that, the next steps are to do the work and then collect 
performance data (measures) and to analyze, review, and report that data. The last 
step is for management to use the reported data to drive performance improvement, 
i.e., make changes and corrections and/or fine tune organizational operations. 
Once the necessary changes, corrections, or fine tuning have been determined, the 
cycle starts over again.30 While establishing accountability for performance appears 
as Step 3 in the figure, in reality it pervades the entire organization and must be a 
fundamental component of the management process guiding the agency. 

Figure 2.1
The Six Steps to Establishing a Performance-Based Management Program

Step 6: Establish a 
process/System 
for Using 
performance 
Information to 
Drive Improvement 

Step 5: Establish a 
process/System 
for analyzing, 
Reviewing, and 
Reporting 
performance Data 

Step 4: Establish a 
process/System 
for Collecting 
Data to assess 
performance 

Step 2: Establish an 
Integrated 
performance 
Measurement 
System 

Step 1: Define 
Organizational 
Mission and 
Strategic 
performance 
Objectives 

Step 3: Establish 
accountability 
for 
performance 


Page 32 

Each step in the performance-based management program will be discussed in more 
detail in Part II and each will be related to common issues and programs addressed in 
local law enforcement agencies, using actual programs and projects as 
illustrations wherever possible. 

Part I Checklist 

1. 
Agency leaders and managers must understand basic concepts associated with 
performance management: 
a. 
Performance measurement 
b. 
Return on investment (ROI) 
c. 
Balanced scorecard 
d. 
SARA (Scanning, Analysis, Response and Assessment) 
e. 
Process evaluations 
f. 
Impact evaluations. 

2. 
Agency leadership should understand the role of performance measurement 
within strategic planning. 
3. 
Agency leadership should understand from a broad perspective the role of
performance management.
4. 
Agency leadership should understand local, state, and federal government 
reporting requirements regarding performance.


Part II:
Performance 
Management

The concept of performance measurement 
is straightforward: You get what you 
measure, and you cant manage a project 
unless you measure it. 

From Performance-based Management, 
General Services Administration 



ChapTER 3 

DEFINE MISSION aND STRaTEGIC 
pERFORMaNCE OBJECTIvES 




Page 37 
Chapter 3:
Define Mission and Strategic 
Performance Objectives

What 
A document that clearly articulates the mission of the agency (or the individual 
project) and defines performance objectives in unambiguous, measurable, actionable 
terms. Performance objectives should be directly linked to organizational goals and 
objectives derived from the broader mission statement, and ideally, these will be 
drawn from the organizations strategic plan. 

Why 
Tying performance objectives of organizational units and individual projects to 
broad agency mission statements ensures coherent and deliberate management 
direction and control, enables both internal and external stakeholders to observe the 
direct contribution of their efforts in achieving agency goals, and provides objective 
measures of progress and success, and facilitates course correction and realignment. 

Who 
Senior departmental leadership, with active input and communication with 
employees, stakeholders, and customers/clients.

When 
Shortly after the decision-making structure is formed and prior to 
initiating major projects. 

Orangizational Chart

Step 1: 
Define Organizational 
Mission and Strategic 
performance 
Objectives 

Step 6: Establish a 
process/System 
for Using 
performance 
Information to 
Drive Improvement 

Step 5: Establish a 
process/System 
for analyzing, 
Reviewing, and 
Reporting 
performance Data 

Step 4: Establish a 
process/System 
for Collecting 
Data to assess 
performance 

Step 2: Establish an 
Integrated 
performance 
Measurement 
System 

Step 3: Establish 
accountability 
for 
performance 

page 38 
Part II: Performance Management 

If you dont know 
where youre going, 
any plan will do. 

peter F. Drucker 
Legendary 
management authority 

Fundamentally, performance assessment and management is about effective strategic 
planning. Strategic planning is a continuous and systematic process where the 
guiding members of an organization make decisions about its future, develop the 
necessary procedures and operations to achieve that future, and determine how 
success is to be measured.31 

As previously noted, the mission of law enforcement is complex, evolving, and 
extraordinarily expansive. Developing a coherent mission statement and defining 
strategic performance objectives is considerably more involved than simply posting 
a slogan To Serve and To Protect on the side of patrol vehicles. While such a brief 
mission statement may be sufficient to encapsulate the departments values and 
reflect public sentiment on the role of law enforcement in contemporary society, it 
provides few clues on how to measure the success of the agency, the performance of 
its employees, or the value of specific operations. For that, significantly more detailed 
planning is required. 

Agencies often define their mission or vision as fundamental elements of their 
strategic planning process, and these are indeed important elements in establishing 
corporate/organizational direction and policies. Mission, vision, values, assumptions, 
and business strategies, however, are rather different elements, all of which are 
important in establishing organizational objectives and tactical plans. 

 
Mission statements identify the overall purpose for which the organization is 
organized. (See the mission statements of five police departments on page 39.) 
 
Vision statements describe the future business environment and the role of the 
organization within it. 
 
Value statements reflect fundamental beliefs and values guiding the agency, the 
nature of its responsibilities, and the philosophy underlying its approach. 
 
Assumptions are also frequently discussed in strategic planning efforts, 
describing business environmental conditions that are expected in the future. 
 
Business strategies identify how objectives are to be accomplished, e.g., 
community-oriented policing.32

Original Tech Guide Reference Icon pages 51-62

Detailed guidance in developing these critical elements of the broader strategic plan 
for law enforcement is provided in the original Law Enforcement Tech Guide. Please 
see Chapter 3 and the 12-Step Program for Developing the Charter for more detail.33 


Page 39
Chapter 3: Define Mission and Strategic Performance Objectives 39 

Police Department Mission Statement Examples 

Philadelphia Police Department 
Mission: The mission of the Philadelphia Police Department is to work in a true partnership 
with our fellow citizens of Philadelphia to enhance the quality of life in our city. And, by raising 
the level of public safety through law enforcement, to reduce the fear and incidence of crime. In 
accomplishing these goals: service will be our commitment, honor and integrity our mandate. 

http://www.ppdonline.org/hq_mission.php 

Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
Mission: The mission of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department is to protect people, 
property and rights in our community. http://www.lvmpd.com/about/index.html

Vancouver Police Department 
Mission: In fulfillment of its public trust, the VPD maintains public order, upholds the rule of law 
and prevents crime. http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/police/ 

Oakland (CA) Police Department 
Mission: The Mission of the Oakland Police Department is to provide competent, effective 
public safety services to all persons with the highest regard for human dignity through efficient, 
professional, and ethical law enforcement and crime prevention practices. http://www. 
oaklandpolice.com/ 

Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police Department 
Mission: The mission of the Metropolitan Police Department is to prevent crime and the fear 
of crime, as we work with others to build safe and healthy communities throughout the District 
of Columbia. http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1230,q,537827,mpdcNav_ 
GID,1529,mpdcNav,|.asp 

The Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police Department (MPDC) defined prevention 
as a key element of its mission. The department took the next step of identifying how 
it was going to address this mission-critical objective in tangible, actionable terms and 
compared and distinguished how the approaches relate to one another. 

MPDC: Three Approaches to Prevention 

MPDC operationalized its mission to prevent crime and the fear of crime by 
developing three key and interrelated approaches to crime and disorder (as shown in 
Figure 3.1). Used together, these approaches address immediate crime problems by 
focusing law enforcement efforts, building partnerships with community stakeholders 
to sustain success, and using the resources of government and other organizations 
to work on the underlying causes of crime in a community. The approaches are: 
1. Focused Law Enforcement; 2. Neighborhood Partnerships; and 3. Systemic 
Prevention.34 


Page 40 
Part II: Performance Management 

Figure 3.1
MPDC: Comparing the Three Approaches 35

Method of 
Prevention:

Focused 
Law 
Enforcement 

Focus: 
Repeat criminal 
offenders and 
regulation violators. 
Repeat criminal 
offenses. 
Communities in 
distress. 

Effects: 
Disruption or 
termination of 
chronic crime activity, 
reduction of fear, and 
building of community 
confidence in the 
police.

Key Police 
Activities:
Crime analysis, 
directed patrol, 
tactical, follow-up 
investigations, 
arrests, and 
partnership with 
other regulatory or 
law enforcement 
agencies. 

Method of 
Prevention: 
Neighborhood 
Partnerships 

Focus:
Physical and social 
conditions that lead 
to chronic crime and 
disorder. 
Community building.  

Effects:
Active involvement of 
community and other 
government services 
leading to neighborhood 
stabilization. 

Key Police 
Activities: 
PSA [Police Service 
Area] integrity, 
PSA meetings, 
problem solving, and 
partnership with other 
agencies and the 
community. 

Method of Prevention:
Systemic 
Prevention 

Focus:
Health, social, 
educational, and 
economic conditions 
of individuals, families, 
and communities. 

Effects: 
Individuals, families, 
and communities build 
a resistance to crime 
and violence. 

Key Police
Activities:
Sharing information 
with, working 
with, and being 
advocates for the 
government and nongovernment 
agencies that effectively 
serve people and 
communities. 

The three approaches, or Methods of Prevention, are focused on different causal, 
contributory, and remediation factors associated with crime and official response 
in their jurisdiction, and each calls for different law enforcement, other government 
agency, and community response. MPDC has described the Effects or outcomes 
expected in general terms and has identified the Key Police Activities that it (the 
Police Department) will undertake to support these initiatives (e.g., crime analysis, 
directed patrol, partnership with other agencies and the community, etc.). 


Page 41

Chapter 3: Define Mission and Strategic Performance Objectives 

 

These are important steps in mapping how an agency is going to operationalize 
broad mission and vision statements by identifying specific programs, projects, and 
initiatives to achieve results. Additionally, linking specific initiatives to agency-defined 
goals helps ensure that operations are tightly aligned with the agencys mission and 
represent logical, practical steps to achieving intended results. It also has the positive 
effect of presenting a road map for employees, stakeholders, and customers (the 
general public, in the case of law enforcement) so that they can clearly observe the 
relationship between individual activities and the broader goals of the sponsoring 
organization. Moreover, MPDC identified intended consequences of the actions and 
squarely accepted responsibility, thereby laying groundwork for accountability, by 
identifying the Key Police Activities it would undertake as part of its strategic plan. 

Further elaboration is needed to: 
a) Define time frames for the activities. 
b) Identify information that is needed for successful planning and implementation, 
and assignment of persons responsible for data collection, analysis, and 
management. 
c) Specify measures that will be incorporated in evaluating expected outcomes and 
results to be achieved, and how success will be defined. 36 
d) Assign responsibility for deployment and performance. 
e) Identify resources (e.g., money, people, equipment) that are needed, both for 
operations and for performance measurement and monitoring. 

MPDC has defined performance targets across the entire agency and has structured 
these targets on two important dimensions: 37 

1. 
Strategic Goals, which are closely aligned with the Value Goals suggested by 
Moore, et. al. That is: a) reduce and prevent crime and criminal victimization; 
b) produce justice by calling offenders to account for their crimes; c) enhance 
the sense of safety and security in public spaces; d) use force and authority 
judiciously and fairly; e) ensure customer satisfaction; and f ) develop an 
organization that is competitive, professional, equitable, and equipped with 
state-of-art tools and systems. 
2. 
Service Areas/Programs across the agency. Regional Field Operations, 
Investigative Field Operations, Special Field Operations, Public Safety 
Communications Center, Corporate Communications, Strategic Planning, 
Organizational Development and Crime Prevention, and Agency Management. 
The performance targets identified in the MPDC plan are precise and specific to the 
Service Area/Program, as the example on page 42 demonstrates: 38 


Page 42 

It is important to 
separate worthy 
goals that cannot 
be tightly controlled 
from ones that 
possibly can be. 
as an example, 
Measure #8 
(average response 
time) is conceivably 
controllable, 
but Measure 
#11 (reduction 
in crashes with 
fatalities) may 
not be. Even if 
measures are 
worthy, they 
may only induce 
frustration if a 
law enforcement 
agency is unable 
to control the 
outcome in real life. 

Regional Field Operations Program 

The purpose of the Field Operations Program is to provide response, patrol, tactical, 
investigative, problem solving, security, and traffic safety services to residents, visitors, 
and commuters in Washington, D.C., so they can be safe and feel safe from 
crime and injury. 

Key Results Measures: 

1. 
In FY 2004, reduce Part 1 violent crime by 2% over previous fiscal year. 
2. 
In FY 2004, reduce Part 1 property crime by 2% over previous fiscal year. 
3. 
Reduce the rate of sustained citizen allegations of police misconduct per 1,000 
sworn officers by 2% in FY 2004. 
4. 
Reduce by 2% from previous fiscal year, the percent of victims surveyed 
reporting they were victimized more than once in the past 3 months. 
5. 
Reduce by 5% the annual average number of city blocks with 15 or more repeat 
calls for service within a month for public disorder in FY 2004. 
6. 
Reduce by 5% the annual average number of city blocks with 12 or more repeat 
calls for service within a month for drug activity in FY 2004. 
7. 
In FY 2004, reduce number of addresses with 3 or more repeat calls for service 
during the year for domestic violence by 2% from the previous fiscal year. 
8. 
In FY 2004, achieve a 2% reduction in the average response time (in minutes) 
from time of dispatch for Priority One crime calls, in progress or that just 
occurred, in which an officer arrived on the scene. 
9. 
In FY 2004, increase by 2% the percentage of victims of crime reporting that 
they were very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the initial police services 
they received when they were victims of crime. 
10. 
In FY 2004, maintain a 62% target for the percentage of lieutenants, sergeants, 
and officers assigned to the PSAs [Police Service Areas]. 
11. 
In FY 2004, reduce by 3% from previous fiscal year the number of vehicle 
crashes with driver and pedestrian fatalities. 
12. 
Reduce by 2% the ratio of Part I arrests of youth offenders to detentions or 
arrests of youth for all crimes in FY 2004. 
Metropolitan Police Department Strategic Business Plan FY 2004-2005 (June 2003) 

Additionally, MPDC has further elaborated performance targets by Service Area/ 
Program, and has included critical elements in its overall performance-based 
management program by identifying the purpose of the activity, the services included, 
the measurement targets, responsible parties (i.e., both program and activity 
managers), and resources available (i.e., both budget and personnel) (Figure 3.2).39 


Page 43

Chapter 3: Define Mission and Strategic Performance Objectives 

Figure 3.2
Metropolitan Police Department Performance Plan

PROGRAM 
Activity:
Activity Purpose Statement 

REGIONAL FIELD OPERATIONS 
(Regional Operations Command - Central) 
The purpose of the ROC Central Activity is to provide focused law 
enforcement, response to calls for service, neighborhood partnerships 
and problem-solving, traffic control, and systemic prevention services to 
the people who live and work in D.C. so that they can feel safe and be safe 
from crime and injury. 

PROGRAM 
Activity:

Services that Comprise the Activity 

REGIONAL FIELD OPERATIONS 
(Regional Operations Command - Central):
Focused Law Enforcement 
Neighborhood Partnerships and Problem Solving 
 Asian Liaison Unit 
Responding to Calls for Service 
Traffic Control 
Systemic Prevention 
 School Resource Officers 
 Metropolitan Police Boys and Girls Clubs Officers 
District Station OperationsOffice of the Assistant Chief for ROC-Central 

PROGRAM 
Activity:
Activity Performance Measures 
(Target and Measure) 

REGIONAL FIELD OPERATIONS 
(Regional Operations Command - Central):
Results (Key Result Measures are italicized) 
Part 1 violent crime 
Part 1 property crime
Ratio of Part 1 arrests of youth offenders to detentions or arrests of youth 
for all crimes 

Rate of sustained citizen allegations of police misconduct per 1,000 sworn officers 

Percent of victims surveyed reporting they were victimized more than once 
in the past 3 months

Annual average number of city blocks with 15 or more repeat calls for 
service within a month for public disorder 

Annual average number of city blocks with 12 or more repeat calls forservice within a month for drug activity 

Number of addresses with 3 or more repeat calls for service during the 
year for domestic violence

Average response time (in minutes) from time of dispatch for Priority One 
crime calls, in progress or that just occurred, in which an officer arrived 
on the scene 

Percentage of victims of crime reporting that they were very satisfied or 
somewhat satisfied with the police services they received when they 
were victims of crime 

Percentage of lieutenants, sergeants, and officers assigned to the PSAs 

Outputs: 
No. of reports taken for Part 1 violent and property crimes 

Demand: 
No. of reported Part 1 violent and property crimes (based on average of 
last 5 years) 

Efficiency: 
Cost per reported Part 1 violent and property crime 

PROGRAM 
Activity:
Responsible Program Manager 

REGIONAL FIELD OPERATIONS 
(Regional Operations Command - Central):
EAC Michael J. Fitzgerald 

PROGRAM 
Activity:
Responsible Activity Manager 

REGIONAL FIELD OPERATIONS 
(Regional Operations Command - Central):
AC Brian Jordan 

PROGRAM 
Activity:
FY 2004 Budget (Gross Funds) 

REGIONAL FIELD OPERATIONS 
(Regional Operations Command - Central):
$68,169,413 

PROGRAM 
Activity:
FTEs 

REGIONAL FIELD OPERATIONS 
(Regional Operations Command - Central):
1,032 


Page 44

PERFORMANCE PLAN TEMPLATE 

Mission / Vision / Values / Assumptions 

Strategic Performance Objective 1......Define 
Operation/Activity.....................Title 
Purpose................................Describe purpose(s) of initiative 
Execution..............................Define how youre going to do it 
Performance Target(s)..................Target(s) (e.g., reduce violent crime by 10%) 
Performance Measures...................How youre going to measure it 
Owner..................................Person responsible/accountable 
Resources..............................Resources needed for this initiative 
Budget.................................Funding dedicated to this initiative 
FTE....................................Staffing dedicated to this initiative 

 
Strategic Performance Objective 2 

 
Operation/Activity 
Purpose 
Execution 

Performance Target(s) 
Performance Measures 
Owner 
Resources 

Budget 
FTE 

The MPDC Strategic Business Plans for 2004-2007 represent a careful elaboration of 
strategic objectives that are effectively tied to the agency mission statement, program 
activities designed to achieve defined objectives, performance measures and targets 
that will be used in assessing progress in meeting the objectives, personnel who are 
responsible (and therefore accountable) for the operations, and resources available 
to support the program. These core elements of an effective performance-based 
management program, as highlighted in the performance plan template above, will be 
explored in more detail in following chapters. 


Page 45

Chapter 3: Define Mission and Strategic Performance Objectives 

While much of the discussion thus far has focused on building performance-based 
management capability at the agency level, the elements are equally relevant at 
the individual project level. If, for example, an agency is pursuing funding for a 
new records management system, the objectives of this automation solution must 
be tied directly back to the overarching mission of the sponsoring organization. 
Law enforcement does not seek new or upgraded automation of their records 
management process simply for the sake of automation, but rather to achieve 
the broader purposes implicit in the agency mission statement, and these links to 
agency mission should be explicitly stated. 

Objectives of this initiative might include improved efficiency (i.e., more rapid entry 
of incident reports, less duplicate data entry, less time required by uniformed 
officers to complete reports and therefore not on the street answering calls or on 
patrol, and less delay in making information available to investigators) and greater 
effectiveness (i.e., officers will be able to provide better service to the public by being 
on patrol, investigators better able to identify and apprehend offenders if they 
have immediate access to accurate and complete information on crime incidents, 
etc.). These objectives, in turn, should be carefully crafted, based on research on 
current operations and measured with precision. 

Step 1: Define 
Organizational 
Mission and 
Strategic 
performance 
Objectives 

Step One Checklist 

1. Define agency: 
a. Vision 
b. Mission 
c. Values 
d. Assumptions 
e. Business strategies. 

2. Understand current performance: 
a. Establish baseline measures of current operations 
b. Identify operational, political, and environmental factors that 
influence performance. 

3. Define performance measures and targets. 

4. Assign ownership for agency operations. 

5. Allocate resources to support agency operations. 



ChapTER 4 

ESTaBLISh a pERFORMaNCE 
MaNaGEMENT FRaMEWORk 




Page 49

Chapter: 4
Establish a Performance 
Management Framework

What 
Create an Integrated Performance Management Framework as part of the strategic 
planning process and the management structure of the organization that clearly 
identifies the ongoing role of performance measurement, assessment, and 
monitoring, establishes responsibility and accountability, provides necessary 
resources and support, and empowers managers, employees, and the
Performance Management Team.

Why 
Performance management is not simply project-specific evaluation, but part of an 
overarching management philosophy and a critical component of organizational 
strategic planning; it must be institutionalized and provide an opportunity to engage 
employees, key stakeholders, and the general public. 

Who 
Senior departmental leadership and the Performance Management Team, with active 
input and communication with employees, stakeholders, and customers and clients 
(the general public). 

When
As part of the strategic planning process for the agency. 

Focus:
Step 2: 
Establish an 
Integrated 
performance 
Measurement System 

Step 6: Establish a 
process/System 
for Using 
performance 
Information to 
Drive Improvement 

Step 5: Establish a 
process/System 
for analyzing, 
Reviewing, and 
Reporting 
performance Data 

Step 4: Establish a 
process/System 
for Collecting 
Data to assess 
performance 

Step 1: Define 
Organizational 
Mission and 
Strategic 
performance 
Objectives 

Step 3: Establish 
accountability 
for 
performance 


Page 50 
Part II: Performance Management 

The urgent need 
today in measuring 
police performance 
is to move away 
from a sterile 
conversation 
about performance 
measurement as an 
abstract technical 
problem and to 
understand it as a 
device that can be 
used managerially 
to shape the future 
of policing. 

Geoffrey p. alpert 
and Mark h. Moore, 
in Performance 
Measures for the 
Criminal Justice 
System (1993)40 

The ABCs of Performance Management 

Creating an Integrated Performance Management Framework within the broader 
management structure of the organization is an essential step in building a robust 
performance-based management system. Senior leadership within the agency must 
believe in the role of performance-based management and must champion the cause 
both within and outside of the agency. 

Measuring, constantly assessing, and continuously monitoring performance, and 
altering operations in response to findings of success and failure, are not separate 
operations independent of the operational management of the organization, but 
rather are part and parcel of the fundamental strategic planning process. As noted in 
The Performance-Based Handbook, Volume 1, performance measures give life to the 
mission, vision, and strategy by providing a focus that lets each employee know how 
they contribute to the success of the [organization] and its stakeholders measurable 
expectations.41 Integration of the performance management framework within 
the organizational management structure of the agency enables the performance 
measures to serve as effective agents for change, a critical element in driving agency 
action based on ongoing performance monitoring. 

Major Elements in Creating a Performance 
Management Framework 

1. 
Define the Relationship of Performance Measurement to 
the Strategic Planning Process 

As noted earlier in this Guide, strategic plans set the foundation for the organization 
by defining the mission, vision, and values that drive organizational operations, 
by establishing priorities and strategies for implementation, and by assigning 
responsibility and allocating resources. Performance measures are the tools that 
provide ongoing assessment of the impact and outcome of operations, as well as an 
appraisal of the efficiency and effectiveness of the processes surrounding the operations. 
Rememberperformance measurement will look both at how we implemented an 
operation, as well as whether the operation produced the intended result. 

International Icon

The Home Office in the United Kingdom, which oversees police services throughout 
England and Wales, has published a National Policing Plan, establishing strategic 
priorities for police services for 20032006.42 As part of the Plan, and the planning 
process, the Home Office developed a Policing Performance Assessment Framework 
(implemented in 20032004 and described in their 20042007 National Policing 
Plan 43) that provides a comprehensive structure and national performance targets for 
forces in assessing their performance relative to priorities established nationally and 
locally, as part of their strategic planning process (Figure 4.1). 


Page 51

Chapter 4: Establish a Performance Management Framework 

The National Policing Plan 20042007, Uk home Office: 

The aim of the Policing Performance Assessment Framework is to  improv[e] and 
build on the current performance framework by: 

 
Balancing comprehensive coverage with simplicity of concept and understanding. 
 
Representing a common view of key stakeholders, being seen as balanced and fair. 
 
Providing the information required to help deliver real improvements in policing. 

Figure 4.1
Performance Management Cycle:
 
Priorities
Objectives 
Performance Indicators
Targets 
Assess Performance

(1) Step 1 is to set priorities. 
National priorities are set out within 
th[e] National Policing Plan. 

(2) Step 2 is to determine 
objectives that will help to achieve 
these priorities. The key national 
objectives required to meet priorities 
are listed in th[e] Plan. 

(3) Step 3 is to establish 
performance indicators that 
will help to monitor performance in 
achieving objectives. 

(4) Step 4 is to set targets for performance improvementwhat level of performance 
do we want to achieve? 

(5) Step 5 is to assess performance against the targets we have set ourselves. How 
well have we done and how can we do better? 

It is through steps 35 that the Policing Performance Assessment Framework is being 
applied. 44 

The UK Police Performance Assessment Framework represents a significant 
achievement in tying performance to strategic planning objectives set nationally and 
locally, to reflect individual community interests and circumstances. Moreover, by 
applying the framework to police services throughout England and Wales, the Home 
Office has effectively created national standards against which individual forces can 
assess their individual performance in a unified approach. 


Page 52 

Similar efforts have not yet been undertaken nationally in the United States, 
though initiatives are presently underway to develop functional standards for key 
law enforcement applications,45 and correctional administrators have developed 
performance measures for correctional institutions, including outcome-based 
performance measures, key indicators, and resource materials to assist correctional 
administrators in implementing this comprehensive program. 46 

For example, the COPS Office is developing a community policing implementation 
assessment tool that would operationalize community policing and allow agencies 
to measure and evaluate their implementation across various community policing 
elements. 47 This self-assessment instrument is being developed using knowledge 
obtained from existing literature, input and guidance from practitioners, experts, 
and other stakeholders, and results from a limited field testing and validation phase. 
This tool is being designed to help agencies gain a more objective and complete 
understanding of their community policing implementation efforts, and to 
support training efforts, strategic planning, performance benchmarking, and other 
management initiatives. 

Local and state law enforcement agencies can nevertheless build a comprehensive 
performance management framework as part of their overall management structure, 
and ensure that performance measurement is a critical component of their strategic 
planning process. Indeed, defining the role of performance measurement in 
providing feedback on the strategic planning process is an essential element in 
all planning models. 

2.Build the Performance Management Team 

A formal Performance Management Team should be appointed to lead, implement, 
and monitor performance measurement. The team should be made up of people who 
actually do the work to be measured and people who are very familiar with the work 
to be measured. It is important that each person understands the task before him or 
her and his or her role in its accomplishment. 

Stop Sign Icon

Remember: 1) Good measurement takes a commitment of staff resources, and 2) 
This assignment must be taken seriously and allowed to continue, especially in times of 
lean personal resources. 

Executive Sponsor Icon

a. Senior management involvement 
Senior management of the organization must play a key role in introducing, 
championing, and promoting the performance management program. Leadership 
commitment to development and use of performance measures must be apparent 
and genuine, as must their commitment to accountability (discussed in more detail in 
Chapter 5, Establish Accountability for Performance). 


Page 53

Chapter 4: Establish a Performance Management Framework 
 

b. Employee involvement 

Employees must also have voice and investment in strategic planning, as well as 
the performance management process. They, after all, will directly contribute 
to the input, output, outcome, performance, process, and every other aspect of 
the organizations operations, and in large measure, it is their behavior (their 
performance, if you will) that will determine the overall success of the agency in 
reaching defined objectives. Depending on their role in the organization, they will 
have direct knowledge of the operations of the agency, the needs and capabilities of 
the organization, the interests and concerns of customers and the general public, 
and insight into operational factors that may significantly contribute to success in 
achieving strategic objectives. Their buy-in is as critical as senior managements and 
will ensure effective implementation. Their involvement should be in understanding 
the operational context of agency initiatives and in crafting effective measures for 
both process and impact evaluations. 

c. Technical support 

The Performance Management Team may well need technical support for research 
methodology, statistical analysis, and information technology. It is crucial that 
representatives of the information technology section of the agency be actively 
engaged as members of the team, to ensure that data needed for effective performance 
measurement, analysis, and management can be provided from current or planned 
information systems in a timely, effective, and efficient manner. Agency resources 
should be brought to the task, though smaller agencies may not have analysis units 
with sufficient internal resources to support the effort. In such cases, it may be 
necessary to contract with specialists in the community to augment internal staff. 
Operational managers and staff who understand the fundamental business processes 
and mission of the organization should lead the team, but technical team members 
have a crucial role to play in implementing the program in a way that will produce 
valid, reliable, and effective performance measurement. 

3. Address Stakeholder/Customer Needs 

Since one of the primary objectives of implementing performance management is 
to satisfactorily address the needs of stakeholders and customers (in the case of law 
enforcement, these customers include the general public), stakeholder and customer 
needs should be properly considered in developing the broader Performance 
Management Framework. The framework should consider not only the nature of the 
information needed to address stakeholder and customer concerns, but also address 
reporting and communication capabilities. How will performance results be shared 
with stakeholders and customers? How will we ensure that the measures evolve over 
time to meet the evolving needs and concerns of stakeholders and customers? What 
feedback mechanisms are in place to ensure that the measures are valid and reliable? 


Part II: Performance Management 

Figure 4.2
UKs Policing Performance Assessment Framework 
Organizational chart

A: Citizen Focus 
This is an area affected by all other aspects of performance and reflects satisfaction with service delivery as
well as overall trust and confidence

Priorities set nationally and locally 

1 
Reducing Crime 
Where police activity 
helps to prevent and 
reduce crime

2 
Investigating Crime 
Where police activity 
solves crime and brings 
offenders to justice

3 
Promoting Public 
Safety 
Where police activity 
promotes public safety 
and reduces anti-social 
behaviour

4 
Providing 
Assistance 
Where police respond 
to general requests for 
assistance and support

B: Organisational Capability 
Outcomes are affected by the level of resources available and how they are deployed

Domain A assesses the overarching Citizen perspective reflecting the commitment 
of the whole policing community to delivering a citizen-focused service to the public. 
From 2004-05, the citizens perspective will be considered in the following three 
areas of the Policing Performance Assessment Framework: User Satisfaction; Public 
Confidence; and Fairness and Equality. 

Domains 1-4 focus on Operational Effectiveness and, taken together, provide a 
comprehensive view of policing activity. Both the crime (Domains 1 and 2) and noncrime (Domains 3 and 4) activities of policing are covered in the Policing performance 
Assessment Framework. 

Domain B is focused on Efficiency and Organisational Capability. Activity 
Based Costing has been introduced in all forces this year (2003-04) to help link 
performance and resources. Measures in this domain will also assess how well an 
organisation is equipped to meet the future demands of policing. 48 

International Icon

The UKs Policing Performance Assessment Framework reflects an overarching focus 
on services to citizens, priorities established nationally and locally, and recognizes the 
impact organizational capabilities and resources have on achieving results (Figure 4.2). 


Page 55

Chapter 4: Establish a Performance Management Framework 

4. Understand Performance Measurement Terminology 

Performance measurement jargon can be confusing, and needs to be understood and 
agreed to by the Performance Management Team. Generally, performance measures 
are divided into five types: 

1. 
Input MeasuresUsed to understand the human and capital resources used 
to produce the outputs and outcomes. These are the raw figures associated 
with the dimensions of performance being measured. For law enforcement 
performance, input measures may include crime incident reports filed by 
reporting area, beat, district, or precinct, calls received by dispatch (i.e., CAD 
records), or surveys of residents capturing their experiences, concerns, and 
perceptions of safety. 
2. 
Process MeasuresUsed to understand the intermediate steps in producing a 
product or service. In law enforcement, for example, a process measure could be 
the number of neighborhood Crime Watch meetings completed as scheduled, 
the number of laptop computers distributed and used by officers, or the 
number of officers assigned to special units to address specific crime problems. 
3. 
Output MeasuresUsed to measure the product or service provided by 
the system or organization and delivered to customers. Examples of output 
measures are typically found in crime analysis reports that contain details 
regarding the nature of crimes reported, geographic distribution (automated 
crime maps), time of occurrence, and the nature of injury and financial loss. 
Other examples are found in reports regarding the characteristics of arrestees 
(extent of prior involvement with the legal system, criminal history records, 
relationship to victim, etc.). 
4. 
Outcome MeasuresThe expected, desired, or actual result(s) to which the 
outputs of the activities of a service or organization have an intended effect. 
The outcome of law enforcement initiatives might be a reduction in the number 
of violent crimes reported in a reporting area, beat, district, or precinct. It 
might be a decrease in the number of 9-1-1 calls received by dispatch and an 
increase in the number of calls received by a 3-1-1 call system. Or it might 
be survey results of a community that show an increase in the perception of 
personal safety. 
5. 
Impact MeasuresThe direct or indirect effects or consequences resulting 
from achieving program goals. An example of an impact is the comparison 
of actual program outcomes with estimates of the outcomes that would have 
occurred in the absence of the program. Impact Measures may in fact be a 
composite of Outcome Measures. That is, the impact of a program to improve 
the safety of a community may well be measured by the following: 
 
The decreasing volume and rate of reported violent and 
property crimes (outcomes) 

Page 56

Part II: Performance Management 

 The increasing number of arrests made by officers (outcome) 
 The enhanced perception of personal safety by community 
residents (outcome) 
 A reduction in the number of emergency (9-1-1) calls received 
by dispatch (outcome). 

How well a commercial business performs is often summarily noted by its bottom line 
performance (i.e., a comparison of revenues generated versus costs in producing those 
revenues). There are, of course, many other measures that also comprise appraisals 
of how successful a business is, but fundamentally people look at the bottom line 
associated with net revenue. 

Performance measurement more generally, however, is often classified along different 
dimensions associated with efficiency, effectiveness, productivity, etc. The University 
of California identifies five classifications of performance measures:49 

1. Efficiency. 
2. Effectiveness. 
3. Quality. 
4. Timeliness. 
5. Productivity. 

A Measure of . . . 
Efficiency

Measures . . . 
The ability of an organization to perform 
a task. 

And is Expressed as a Ratio of . . . 
Actual input/planned input 

A Measure of . . . 
Effectiveness 

Measures . . . 
The ability of an organization to plan for 
output from its processes. 

And is Expressed as a Ratio of . . . 
Actual output/planned output 

A Measure of . . . 
Quality 

Measures . . . 
Whether a unit of work was done 
correctly. Criteria to define correctness 
are established by the customer(s). 

And is Expressed as a Ratio of . . . 
Number of units produced correctly/ 
total number of units produced 

A Measure of . . . 
Timeliness 

Measures . . . 
Whether a unit of work was done on 
time. Criteria to define on time are 
established by the customer(s). 

And is Expressed as a Ratio of . . . 
Number of units produced on time/ 
total number of units produced 

A Measure of . . . 
Productivity 

Measures . . . 
The amount of a resource used to 
produce a unit of work. 

And is Expressed as a Ratio of . . . 
Outputs/inputs 

As noted earlier, the job of law enforcement is considerably more complex than 
simply measured by the volume or rate of crime reported in a jurisdiction, 
and effective performance measures should take into substantial account each 
classification noted above, including an assessment of the costs and resources needed 
to achieve desired impacts.50 


Page 57
 
5. Manage Performance Measurement 

It is important to effectively manage the performance measurement process to 
ensure that measures at each management level are kept to a minimum, that 
objectives are clearly defined and understood, that costs associated with obtaining 
a particular measure are contained and worth the effort, that measures are 
comprehensive and related to the dimension or activity being assessed, and that 
multiple measures do not conflict (e.g., that uniformed officer time savings are not 
being counted in different or conflicting ways). 

6. Accept Accountability for Measures 

Accountability is a fundamental precept in performance management and it 
connotes taking responsibility for actions and accepting consequences, both 
positive and negative. Agency leadership and staff alike must buy in to the 
Performance Management Framework, as well as the individual measures that 
comprise the framework. This means that they must be engaged and invested in 
the program, recognize the validity of the measures and the value derived from 
assessing performance and tailoring actions based on continuous monitoring 
and assessment. 

7. Communicate 

Effective and ongoing communication is crucial in establishing and maintaining 
an effective performance management system. Communication should permeate 
all levels of the organization, and staff and management alike should be actively 
made aware of the results of performance management initiatives. Periodic reports, 
formal briefings, and visual display of performance metrics are tools frequently 
used to inform personnel of the status of the program. Performance dashboards, 
which quickly convey the status of performance appraisals in graphic terms, are 
useful tools in providing needed feedback to users, managers, stakeholders, and 
customers (Figure 4.3). 

Stop Sign Icon

Dashboards are a critical step that often cost more than expected. If not done well, 
the measures are ignored. Its helpful to post two or three critical measures daily 
in the work areas of frontline staff so they can monitor their performance. One 
can easily imagine a comparable dashboard conveying impact measures for a law 
enforcement agency, for example, assessing the volume of crime reported, arrests 
made, survey results of public safety perception, and budget figures. 


Page 58 
Part II: Performance Management 

Figure 4.3
Sample Balanced Scorecard Performance Dashboard

Fuel: 
Financial Customer 

Do we have the financial resources and stability to reach 
our destination? 

Do we have the backing of our stakeholders?

Temp:
Customer

Are we addressing and meeting the needs of our customers?

Are they cold (not participating)? 

Are they hot (complaining)? 

Odometer: 
Maturity 

How long has our organization been
on the road?
How old is our measurement system?
Is it time for a checkup?

RPM:
Internal Business Process Learning and Growth 

Are our internal business processes operating efficiently 
and effectively? 

In what gear are we operating? Too fast? 

Speed:
Learning and Growth

Are we growing and improving at a sustainable peace?

Are we moving too slow? 

Too Fast


Chapter 4: Establish a Performance Management Framework 
9 

Perhaps one of the more familiar examples of performance dashboards in law 
enforcement is the Crime Clock annually published by the FBI in its Crime in the 
United States report (Figure 4.4).51

As with all 
measures used 
in assessing 
performance, it 
is critical that the 
measures used are 
regularly reviewed 
to ensure that they 
are valid, reliable 
and accurate. 
Regular reporting 
of measures in a 
dashboard, or in 
any other medium, 
will have little 
substantive value 
(and in fact may 
do significant 
harm) if they 
are inaccurately 
compiled or 
reported, or fail 
to reliably record 
or measure the 
phenomena or 
activity of study. 

Figure 4.4
Crime Clock

Every 22.8 seconds One Violent Crime 
Every 31.8 minutes One Murder 
Every 5.6 minutes One Forcible Rape 
Every 1.3 minutes One Robbery 

Every 36.8 seconds One aggravated assault 

Every 3.0 seconds One Property Crime 
Every 14.6 seconds One Burglary 
Every 4.5 seconds One Larceny-Theft 
Every 25.0 seconds One Motor vehicle Theft 

More information on the use of performance dashboards and other reporting and 
communication tools will be presented in Step 5 (see Chapter 7, Analyze, Review, 
and Report Performance Data). 

8. 
Know How to Check/Test Your Measures 
After you have developed your performance measures, you will need to check/test 
them for soundness (i.e., completeness, applicability, usefulness, etc.). Knowing how 
to perform these checks/tests and, thus, knowing what to look for in a performance 
measure, will help your team develop sound performance measures from the start. 

9. 
Learn From Others 
Now that your Performance Management Team is organized and ready to develop 
its performance measures, take one last important steplook at what other 
organizations similar to yours have done and are doing with regard to performance 
measurement. The point is to eliminate your teams reinventing the wheel and, thus, 
save valuable time and resources. The odds run high that you will be able to find other 


page 60 

organizations to share useful information that your team can adopt and adapt to its 
particular circumstances. 

10. 
What Do You Measure Yourself Against? 

Performance measurement is all well and good, but what constitutes Excellent, 
Satisfactory, or even Good performance? In other words, how good is Good, and 
how do we even know what constitutes Good performance? 

a. Historical Agency Trends 

Clearly your agency can measure current performance against historical agency 
performancehow well are you doing on any of a variety of measures relative to how 
you performed last week, last month, last year, or an average of the past 2, 3, 5, or 10 
years? This indeed is how the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program measures 
crime throughout the United States.52 The program has been in existence since 1929 
and annually receives crime reports from nearly 17,000 law enforcement agencies 
throughout the nation.53 In addition to reporting on the volume of crime and nature 
of crime reported, the UCR program also captures information on clearances (i.e., 
cases closed by arrest or other means), characteristics of victims and those 
arrested, and figures and circumstances surrounding law enforcement officers 
killed or assaulted. 

b. Pre/Post Program Performance 

Agencies often also evaluate performance based on measures of critical factors prior 
to implementation of a program or project, and then again after the program/project 
has begun. This pre/post design is a fundamental component of classic program 
evaluation methodology.54 An essential element in any performance measurement 
process is in understanding the baseline of current operations. How well is the agency 
(or the program, project, or initiative) currently performing by whatever measures 
are appropriate? What is the current and historical volume or rate of crime reported 
in the jurisdiction? Is it increasing or staying constant? How safe do citizens feel in 
their community? Do citizens have confidence in law enforcement? Baseline measures 
will help the agency in identifying problem areas and will establish the foundation on 
which performance will be measured. More discussion of baseline measures 
follows on page 90. 

c. Government/Industry/Practitioner Standards 

International Icon

Another option is to compare performance of an individual agency or initiative to 
standards that have been developed by government, industry, or practitioner groups. 
As previously noted, the Home Office has created a series of police performance 
standards, and these government standards now serve as a referential baseline for 
police forces throughout England and Wales.55 


Page 61
Chapter 4: Establish a Performance Management Framework 

 
While few such standards presently exist for law enforcement in the United States, 
the need is increasingly recognized in a host of domains. Functional standards 
for law enforcement information systems are being drafted by a consortium of 
law enforcement practitioner organizations,56 and additional standards are in 
development addressing intelligence information sharing, and other critical 
areas of law enforcement.57 

Step 2: Establish an 
Integrated 
performance 
Measurement 
System

Step Two Checklist 

1. Have you defined the relationship of performance management to the strategic 
planning process of the agency? 
2. Have you built a strong Performance Management Team? 
3. Have you determined stakeholder/customer needs? 
4. Do you understand performance measurement terminology? 
5. Do you understand the importance of managing performance measurement? 
6. Have you established accountability for the measures? (See Chapter 5 for more 
information.) 
7. Have you communicated with all levels of your organization? 
8. Do you know how to check/test your measures? 
9. Have you looked at other organizations efforts and learned from them? 
10. Do you know what to measure against? 


Page 65
ChapTER 5 

ESTaBLISh aCCOUNTaBILITY FOR 
pERFORMaNCE 




Chapter:5
Establish Accountability for 
Performance

What 
Effective performance measurement and management requires explicit recognition 
and acceptance of accountability for actions by the agency and by all participants 
throughout the organization.

Why 
Accountability reflects ownership and responsibility for actions and acceptance of 
consequences, and is results-oriented. It demonstrates investment in the process and 
requires reporting to management, other participants, and external stakeholders. 

Who 
Agency leadership, middle managers, line, and support staff. 

When 
Accountability should be addressed in the earliest stages of building the Performance 
Management Framework and in each component. 

Step 3: 
Establish 
accountability for 
performance 

Step 6: Establish a 
process/System 
for Using 
performance 
Information to 
Drive Improvement 

Step 5: Establish a 
process/System 
for analyzing, 
Reviewing, and 
Reporting 
performance Data 

Step 4: Establish a 
process/System 
for Collecting 
Data to assess 
performance 

Step 2: Establish an 
Integrated 
performance 
Measurement 
System 

Step 1: Define 
Organizational 
Mission and 
Strategic 
performance 
Objectives 


Page 66
Part II: Performance Management 

Because the police are fundamental state institutions, because they produce 
much that is publicly valuable, because they use valuable public assets, and 
because they have the capacity to threaten as well as protect social welfare, 
it is natural for citizens and taxpayers to demand accountability from them. 
On one hand, citizens have the right to demand accountability. After all, it 
is their money and liberty that is being used by public police departments 
to make the community safe and just. As a matter of principle, then, police 
departments owe citizens an accounting of the resources they use to operate, 
and the results they produce. 

On the other hand, citizens and their representatives might also think it useful 
to demand accountability from their police departments. The demand for 
accountability becomes an important instrument for creating the pressures 
and incentives that lead to improved overall performance and fewer egregious 
errors in police operations. 58 

Mark h. Moore 

The Bottom Line of Policing: What Citizens Should Value 
(and Measure!) in Police Performance (2003) 

Law enforcement agencies are public institutionsfunded and authorized by the 
community for defined purposes. As a consequence, they have a duty to exercise 
that authority and expend public resources in responsible and appropriate ways 
that demonstrate fairness, a commitment to the rule of law and constitutional 
principles, and a conscientious regard for efficiency and effectiveness. And, as a public 
institution, they have a further duty to regularly report on their performance. 

Virtually every introductory text on management discusses fundamental principles of 
authority, responsibility, and accountability. These are different but related dimensions 
of management. 

 
Authority refers to the power to influence or command thought, opinion, or 
behavior. 
 
Responsibility means that one is liable to be called to account as the primary 
cause, motive, or agent. 
 
Accountability, on the other hand, is an obligation or willingness to accept 
responsibility and to account for ones actions. 59

Responsibility has been described as the obligation to perform, whereas accountability 
is the liability one assumes for ensuring that an obligation to performa 
responsibilityis fulfilled. Put another way, responsibility is the obligation to act in the 
public interest, whereas accountability is the obligation to answer for intended action 


Page 67

and, later on, for the resultsthe obligation to report.60 

Effective performance management, therefore, necessarily includes explicitly building 
accountability into the broad management framework of the organization. Senior 
leadership, organizational managers, and line staff alike must recognize and exert 
their legitimate levels of authority to act, take responsibility for their actions, and 
accept and embrace accountability. 

In The Performance-Based Management Handbook, Volume 3: Establishing 
Accountability for Performance (2001), Will Artley has described accountability as 
having five levels (Figure 5.1).61 

Figure 5.1
The Five Levels of Accountability

1. Stakeholder Accountability 
2. Organizational Accountability
3. Team Accountability
4. Individual Accounability
5. Personal Accountability

Executive Sponsor Icon

Whos Accountable? 

Stakeholders have the highest level of accountability, which is disconnected from 
the pyramid in Figure 5.1 to reflect the fact that stakeholders do not have day-to-day 
responsibility for operational actions within the agency or internal organizational 
accountabilities. They have provided input in defining the mission and goals of the 
agency and desired organizational outcomes, and they leave it to the organization to 
achieve them, and then hold the organization to account for results. 


Page 68 
Part II: Performance Management 

Accountability is 
a multidimensional 
concept and often 
a key enabler of 
success. To truly 
work, accountability 
has to be shared 
by managers and 
employees; further, 
your organization 
as a whole must 
be accountable to 
the customer and 
stakeholder. 

From Balancing 
Measures: Best 
Practices in 
Performance 
Management,
National partnership 
for Reinventing 
Government 

Organizational accountability answers to/reports on what an organization actually 
accomplished in relation to what it planned to accomplish. There are two types of 
organizational accountability: 

1. 
Internal Organizational AccountabilityInternal organizational
accountability refers to the establishment of the upward and downward
flow of accountabilities between management and individuals and teams 
within the organization.
2. 
External Organizational AccountabilityIn external organizational 
accountability, the organization answers to/reports to its stakeholders on both 
its organizational performance and organizational behavior. 

Team accountability recognizes that most performance within an agency is 
accomplished by organizational teams comprising individual members of the agency. 
Individual team members share ownership of the activity and responsibility 
for its achievement. 

Individual accountability refers to an accountability relationship within a work 
setting. It applies to both parties in the relationshipan authority (management) 
and a delegatee (the worker). The authority is responsible for providing adequate 
direction, guidance, and resources as well as removing barriers to performance. The 
delegatee is responsible for fulfilling its responsibilities. In this relationship, both are 
accountable to each other, and the focus is on the individual answering and reporting 
about his or her accomplishments (or lack of accomplishment). 

Personal accountability is an accountability relationship with oneself. In this 
relationship, the person looks to himself or herself for personal results and asks, 
What can I do to improve the situation and make a difference? In personal 
accountability, the individual looks within for answers instead of pointing fingers and 
placing blame on external factors. Some of the key aspects of personal accountability 
are honesty, integrity, ethicalness, morality, and reliability. 

In law enforcement, accountability has been extensively discussed as it relates to 
CompStat. William Bratton, in his new assignment as chief of the Los Angeles Police 
Department, again implemented a CompStat process, in which accountability 
figures prominently: 

Simply put, L.A. Compstat uses computer crime-mapping and intensive anti-
crime strategy meetings for developing and implementing new tactics, for 
coordinating patrol, detective, narcotics enforcement, and other specialized unit 
operations, and for exacting command accountability in addressing crime and 
disorder problems throughout the City. L.A. Compstat goes beyond simple 
measures of police activity. Although statistics, maps, and strategy sessions are 


Page 69 

more visible aspects of L.A. Compstat, performance accountability is the driving 
force of this crime reduction process. 62 

As Will Artley noted in The Performance-Based Management Handbook, accountability 
is results-oriented. It focuses not on raw measures of inputs and outputs, but on 
outcomesthe results of actions. It requires measurement, monitoring, and regular 
reporting. Moreover, accountability is meaningless without consequences. If chiefs 
and sheriffs, and indeed their subordinates throughout the agency, do not see 
consequences for their actionsboth positive reward for superior performance and 
negative consequences for substandard performancelittle change can be expected 
or progress achieved.63 

Accountability can be established at the organizational level by creating effective, 
departmentwide strategic plans, which include careful articulation of agency 
objectives, strategies for meeting these objectives, and mechanisms and procedures 
that will be used to measure performance. Section or organizational units in turn 
create specific performance plans, which refine and further elaborate agency 
objectives and articulate specific tactical plans to achieve objectives. Building 
performance agreements into annual or semiannual personnel performance 
evaluation plans, designed in partnership with management and the staff responsible 
for carrying out program activities, will help drive accountability down to line staff, 
and should include specific designation of both rewards for achieving objectives and 
penalties for failure to do so. 

Building an Integrated Performance Management Framework requires law 
enforcement to build accountability into the management and strategic planning 
process. The agency itself must explicitly recognize its accountability to the 
community and to external stakeholders; agency leadership, middle managers, line, 
and support staff must also recognize and accept accountability for their actions. 


Page 70 
Part II: Performance Management 

Step 3: Establish 
accountability 
for 
performance 

Step Three Checklist 

1. 
Has agency leadership clearly articulated accountability as a fundamental 
principle governing management and operations throughout the organization? 
2. 
Is the agency sufficiently results-oriented, i.e., has the agency mission been 
defined in articulate, actionable, measurable objectives? 
3. 
Have staff and organizational units been given both authority and responsibility 
to plan, develop, implement, and manage operations? 
4. 
Have sufficient resources been made available to enable successful execution of 
agency plans? 
5. 
Have agency management and staff reached consensus on strategic 
performance objectives, performance targets and measures, reporting methods, 
and consequences for actions? 
6. 
Has the agency developed and articulated practices and mechanisms to 
demonstrate and enforce accountability, i.e., how specifically will the agency 
implement and enforce accountability? 


ChapTER 6 
DEvELOp a DaTa COLLECTION pLaN 




Page 73
Chapter:6
Develop a Data Collection Plan

What 
A comprehensive Data Collection Plan that identifies the information
requirements to support performance management, the sources of relevant 
information, data collection processes, collection and reporting frequencies 
and costs, and responsibilities.

Why 
Performance assessment requires careful data collection planning to ensure that the 
specific performance metrics that have been defined are a) based on information 
and data sources that are relevant to the program, project, or initiative, b) valid and 
reliable indicators of the dimension being measured, c) subject to quantification, d) 
reasonably available from an access and cost standpoint, and e) of sufficient quality to 
support the measurement process. 

Who 
Performance Management Team. 

When 
Coincident with, and immediately following, development of the Integrated 
Performance Management Framework; before any data collection takes place. 

Step 4: 
Establish a process/ 
System for Collecting 
Data to assess 
performance 

Step 6: Establish a 
process/System 
for Using 
performance 
Information to 
Drive Improvement 

Step 5: Establish a 
process/System 
for analyzing, 
Reviewing, and 
Reporting 
performance Data 

Step 2: Establish an 
Integrated 
performance 
Measurement 
System 

Step 1: Define 
Organizational 
Mission and 
Strategic 
performance 
Objectives 

Step 3: Establish 
accountability 
for 
performance 


Page 74
Part II: Performance Management 

Establishing a comprehensive plan for data collection is the logical progression from 
past activities of setting the agency mission, operationalizing that mission statement 
into strategic performance objectives, developing and implementing a performance 
management process, defining specific performance metrics and targets, and 
establishing responsibility and accountability for performance measurement. We 
must now take the next step and determine what specific data and information were 
going to collect to give life to these performance metrics. And that means developing a 
comprehensive plan that addresses these eight factors: 

1. Information Requirements. 
2. Information Sources. 
3. Data Collection Processes. 
4. Data Collection and Reporting Frequencies. 
5. Data Collection Costs. 
6. Data Protection. 
7. Data Quality. 
8. Trial Run. 

Although we often use the terms data and information interchangeably, they in fact 
mean rather different things. 

 
Data generally refers to factual information organized for analysis or to make 
decisions; numerical information represented in a form suitable for analysis 
and processing; and values derived from scientific experiments. 
 
Information, in contrast, refers to knowledge derived from study, experience or 
instruction, or a collection of facts or data.64 

Performance management requires that we gather information about the operations 
of the law enforcement agency; the processes surrounding programs, projects, 
and initiatives undertaken in order to judge their effective implementation; the 
impact of these operations on key dimensions related to performance; and changing 
environmental factors that may influence our evaluation.65 To gain this information, 
we must first determine what information best reflects the performance objectives, 
metrics, and targets we are interested in and the best sources of this information. 
From there we can determine what specific data elements must be captured and a 
procedure and methodology for collection, reporting, and subsequent analysis. 

It is important to recognize that data collection, like performance management itself, 
is not a single, discrete or one-time function. Instead, it is part of an ongoing process 
that management (and staff alike) must embrace to continually examine, evaluate, 
monitor, change, and drive performance within an organization. 


Page 75
Chapter 6: Develop a Data Collection Plan 

Identify Information Requirements 

Begin by looking at the information that is required for the performance metrics 
or targets that have been identified. We dont begin by looking at information 
that is available, but rather that which is needed in order to effectively measure the 
performance dimensions were addressing. We dont want to be constrained by 
existing sourceswe want to think outside the box and create measures that most 
accurately reflect the dimension contemplated by the specific performance metric, 
and this may require additional data collection (such as public opinion surveys) or 
access to other data sources. 

Mark Moore, in Recognizing Value in Policing, for example, identifies a broad range of 
statistical indicators associated with each of the seven performance dimensions he 
has proposed, and many come from different data sources (e.g., crime and clearance 
statistics captured by the law enforcement agency, assessments of community 
perceptions of fear, budgetary information, citizen complaints, settlements in liability 
suits, etc.).66 These are shown in Figure 6.1. 

Figure 6.1 (Chart)
Performance Dimensions and Statistical Indicators

PERFORMANCE DIMENSION: 
Reduce criminal victimization

STATISTICAL INDICATOR: 
Report crime rates 
victimization rates 

PERFORMANCE DIMENSION: 
Call offender to account 

STATISTICAL INDICATOR: 
Clearance rates 
Conviction rates 

PERFORMANCE DIMENSION: 
Reduce fear and enhance personal security 

STATISTICAL INDICATOR: 
Reported change in levels of fear 
Reported changes in self-defense measures 
(levels and types) 

PERFORMANCE DIMENSION 
Guarantee safety in public spaces 

STATISTICAL INDICATOR: 
Traffic fatalities, injuries, and damage 
Increased utilization of parks and public spaces 
Increased property values 

PERFORMANCE DIMENSION 
Use financial resources fairly, efficiently, 
and effectively 

STATISTICAL INDICATOR: 
Cost per citizen 
Deployment efficiency/fairness 
Scheduling efficiency 
Budget compliance 
Overtime expenditures 
Civilianization 

PERFORMANCE DIMENSION 
Use force and authority fairly, efficiently, 
and effectively 

STATISTICAL INDICATOR: 
Citizen complaints 
Settlements in liability suits 
police shootings 

PERFORMANCE DIMENSION 
Satisfy customer demands/achieve 
legitimacy with those policed 

STATISTICAL INDICATOR: 
Satisfaction with police services 
Response times 
Citizen perceptions of fairness 


Page 76
Part II: Performance Management 

In addition, we may find that we will need to create composite measures for specific 
performance metrics that combine data from different sources (e.g., a measure of 
the relative safety of a community may best be expressed as an amalgamation of 
measures related to the violent crime rate in the community, the nature and rate 
of quality-of-life crimes, the number of vacant and deteriorating homes in the 
neighborhood, SES (socio-economic status) indicators, and the results of surveys of 
members of the community assessing their perception of personal safety). 

Performance Management Team Icon

The Performance Management Team should identify specific information 
requirements for each of the strategic performance objectives defined in the 
Performance Management Plan and ensure that representatives of the information 
technology (IT) section of the agency are actively consulted and engaged in the 
process (if they are not already members of the team) to ensure that information 
systems will support the Plan. The template in Figure 6.2 presents a format that the 
Performance Management Team may use in identifying information requirements for 
each performance target and measure, including reference not only to the source, but 
also the intended analysis strategy. 

Identify Information Sources 

Information can be captured from a variety of sources to reflect on strategic 
performance objectives and to build out the specific performance measures identified. 
Best practice suggests gathering information from multiple sources for each 
performance objective. Internal agency information sources are perhaps the first place 
to look, and they may well include incident reports, arrest reports, records from the 
agencys automated Records Management System (RMS), Computer-Aided Dispatch 
(CAD) records (both calls for service and detailed dispatch records showing the time 
the call was received, the unit assigned and the time of assignment, the time the unit 
arrived, and the location, nature and disposition of the call), crime analysis reports 
and maps (which are often derived from incident reports, but may be augmented 
with additional data, such as the mapping coordinates), or supplementary 
investigative reports. 

Stop Sign Icon

Pitfalls to Avoid 

Although these internal sources should make access to the information easier 
(as it is all within the originating agency), there nevertheless may be turf issues 
between sections of the department that could potentially hinder immediate access. 
These issues should be properly addressed through the strategic planning and 
communication process. Moreover, the quality, timeliness, and/or accessibility of 
the data may pose yet another challenge to the Performance Management Team (e.g., 
some agencies may have substantial data-entry backlogs or inadequate data-editing 
programs, which delay access to current information or compromise the quality of 
data). The team will need to work closely with agency administrators in addressing 


Page 77
Chapter 6: Develop a Data Collection Plan 

 
Figure 6.2
Information Requirements Template

Performance 
Target:
Reduce violent 
Crime 10%  

Performance 
Measure:   
Number of violent 
crimes reported 
and rate per 
1,000 population 

Data Source(s):
Incident reports 
entered into RMS; 
census data 

Analysis:
Raw number of 
offenses and rate 
per/1,000 


Page 78 

these challenges in order to capture the necessary information in a timely, efficient, 
and cost-effective manner. 

Performance Management Team Icon

The Performance Management Team, however, should not limit itself to information 
sources resident within the law enforcement agency. Additional data sources may 
provide important information in constructing performance measures, including 
official city records (e.g., land use records, fire and emergency service dispatch 
records, official economic indicators for the jurisdiction and for individual 
neighborhoods and communities, motor vehicle records), surveys of the general 
public, victimization studies, to name a few. 

As noted above, developing effective performance measures may well require the 
amalgamation of multiple individual measures into composite metrics assessing law 
enforcement performance. Development of composite measures is a very complicated 
task, however, and not something that can be quickly or easily accomplished. 
Given the inherent complexity of police work, and the multifaceted nature of law 
enforcement responsibilities, it is unlikely that a single composite measure could 
validly reflect the broad range of law enforcement performance. More likely, agencies 
might develop a series of composite measures specifically targeting discrete areas 
of responsibility. For example, local law enforcement might develop a composite 
measure to assess the relative safety of a community, building on several independent 
metrics associated with the volume and nature of crime reported in the community, 
citizen surveys assessing their perception of personal safety, victimization statistics, 
and other relevant measures.67 Such composite measures could more accurately reflect 
the broad dimension of interest, the variety of programs and activities initiated, and 
the overarching goals and objectives of the agency. 

Define Data Collection Process 

Once data sources have been identified, the Performance Management Team should 
carefully craft the data collection process as part of the Data Collection Plan. The 
process will define what data will be collected, the source of the data, procedures 
that must be followed in gaining access and capturing the data, any cleaning or 
conversion required of the data, and data capture procedures and methodologies. If 
neighborhood surveys will be required, for example, the plan should provide detailed 
information regarding the construction, testing, administration, coding, and entry of 
the survey responses, as well as some discussion of the analyses planned. 

The plan must also provide a candid assessment of challenges the agency is likely to 
face in collecting the necessary information and include practical remedies to ensure 
timely access to the data. Challenges may be related to the nature and/or structure 
of the data and information systems on which the agency will rely (incident-level 
data may be available, for example, but it may contain insufficient detail regarding 

The Federal 
Government 
regularly 
computes a series 
of economic 
measures, known 
collectively as the 
Leading Economic 
Indicators, as a 
composite index 
of the economic 
status of the nation. 
Such measures 
include the 
Gross Domestic 
product (GDp), 
which includes, 
among other 
things, measures 
of consumer 
spending on goods, 
shipments of 
capital equipment 
other than aircraft, 
motor vehicle sales 
and inventories, 
manufacturing 
durables 
inventories, Federal 
Government 
outlays, and 
consumer, 
producer, and 
international prices. 
For more, see 
http://www.bea. 
gov/. 


Page 79

the nature of the offense or how officers responded or its disposition); officer or 
citizen attitudes regarding the department or the data collection process; and other 
factors that will make timely data collection difficult or compromise the integrity of 
information. 

In Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement, author Timothy 
Bynum referenced work completed by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) 
for the COPS Office. By administering a survey to 447 recipients of COPS Problem-
Solving Partnership grants, PERF was able to identify the chief obstacles to police 
agencies in obtaining and analyzing information needed to solve crime and disorder 
problems, as shown in Figure 6.3. 

Figure 6.3 
(Chart)
Obstacles to Obtaining and Analyzing Data by 447 COPS Grantees68 

TYPE OF OBSTACLE / NUMBER OF AGENCIES REPORTING OBSTACLE / (%) 

Difficulty obtaining data / 126 / (28.2) 
Difficulty organizing existing data / 108 / (24.2) 
public apathy / 80 / (17.9) 
Bureaucratic/funding/technological delays / 57 / (12.8) 
Other obstacles / 46 / (10.3) 
public resistance / 39 / (8.7) 
Officer resistance to problem-solving tactics / 26 / (5.8) 
Lack of support from mid- and upper-level management / 15 / (3.4) 
political pressure or interference / 12 / (2.7) 
Inaccurate, unreliable, or inconsistent data / 12 / (2.7) 
Conflict with partner / 9 / (2.0) 
Lack of available information / 9 / (2.0) 
Need to manually code or recode data / 3 / (0.7) 


Page 80 
Part II: Performance Management 

Stop Sign Icon

You may want to 
consider doing 
the cost/benefit 
review earlier 
in the process. 
Statistics show 
that a critical part 
of specifying the 
measures up front 
is assessing the 
cost of collecting 
the measures and 
doing a cost/benefit 
review. Since 
the difficulties 
of collecting the 
data are typically 
underestimated, 
pilots or 
prototypes are not 
inappropriate to 
estimate the costs 
and difficulties. 

Define Data Collection and Reporting Frequency 

How frequently data are collected will depend on a variety of factors, including 
availability (e.g., daily reports of crime incidents captured by law enforcement officers 
and civilian report-takers versus periodic administration of public opinion surveys, 
which must be carefully planned and administered), costs, processing requirements 
(e.g., some data may need additional review, coding, or manipulation), reporting 
requirements established by the agency or external mandates, and the needs of 
decision makers. CompStat meetings, for example, began as weekly meetings but 
evolved into two meetings each week and commanders returned every 6 weeks.69 As a 
consequence, agency staff had to ensure that data was captured, processed, analyzed, 
and reported according to very strict time constraints. 

Reporting frequency must also be addressed in completing the Data Collection 
Plan. Internal reporting schedules and management needs must be addressed (as 
in the CompStat example above), but external reporting requirements are also 
important considerations. State and federal funding agencies, for example, require 
periodic financial and program reports, and these administrative mandates must be 
incorporated in planning schedules.70 Periodic and regularly scheduled reports on the 
status of the program and performance findings to employees, management, other 
stakeholders, and the general public are also important to ensure continuing support, 
investment and buy-in to the process. 

Identify Data Collection Costs 

Costs associated with accessing, collecting, processing, and analyzing data must also 
be considered and rigorously monitored. As a general rule, the more comprehensive, 
complex, and detailed the data, the greater the potential costs associated with its 
collection, processing, and analysis. Capturing data already automated as part of the 
agencys routine business practices (e.g., incident data collected and entered daily into 
the RMS) may not represent significant costs, but delays in entry of the data, or failure 
to capture all of the information necessary for the analyses contemplated may require 
alterations in the computer systems, secondary entry of the needed information, or 
perhaps even parallel processing on a more timely basis. Again, close coordination 
and collaboration with members of the agencys IT staff will greatly assist the process 
of identifying data collection procedures and costs. 

CompStat, for example, used much of the information already captured by the New 
York City Police Department in crime incident reports. Because of delays in entry of 
the information into the agencys RMS and limitations in the nature, content, and 
structure of the data automated, however, incident data was independently entered 
into other CompStat systems constructed for immediate analysis and reporting.71 


Page 81
Chapter 6: Develop a Data Collection Plan 8 

An important point is access to data. We assume that the analysts get 
data, but it is not true in all organizations. Three of the agencies around my 
jurisdiction refused to participate with us when we sat down with them. The 
reason they refused is their people didnt have the data. We assumed that 
a lot of these agencies are computerized or that data is already compiled. 
It is simply not. It is on 3-x-5 cards stored somewhere in shoe boxes that 
somebody is going to have to go through and pull out what they want. 
Bob heimberger73 

Additionally, Commissioner Bratton had noted that even mapping crime data in the 
city represented a financial challenge in the early days of CompStat: 

The first maps were handheld, with acetate overlays for each type of crime. As 
a reflection of how tight our budget actually was, we could not afford to buy the 
acetate these maps were printed on. We had to get a grant of $10,000 from the 
Police Foundation.72 

Surveys of the general public take time and effort in design, development, planning, 
testing, administering, automation, and analysis, and these costs must be factored 
into the budget of the Data Collection Plan. In addition, some other sources of 
data may require expenditure of funds, which must similarly be weighed, as must 
the costs of data collection, mapping, analysis, and reporting tools. Increasingly, 
agencies are posting information on their web sites for broad distribution. This is an 
effective strategy for broad dissemination of information. This strategy, however, also 
requires technical expertise and support, and should be weighed in developing the 
Performance Management Plan. 

Agencies must carefully consider the costs of collecting information and ensure 
that only that information necessary to address the performance measures defined is 
collected. 


Page 82 
Part II: Performance Management 

Protecting critical 
law enforcement 
systems and data 
is addressed in 
Law Enforcement 
Tech Guide for 
Information 
Technology 
Security: How to 
Assess Risk and 
Establish Effective 
Policies, published 
by the COpS Office. 

Address Data Protection 

Law enforcement agencies routinely capture a significant amount of very personal 
data in incident reportsinformation regarding the identity and address of victims, 
suspects, complainants, and witnesses; circumstances surrounding an incident; 
relationships between parties; statements made to officers, and so on. Recognizing the 
sensitive nature of information to which they have access, and developing rigorous 
procedures to protect this sensitive data must be of paramount importance to the 
agency and the Performance Management Team. 

Privacy and confidentiality of justice information has been the topic of considerable 
research and policy development in the past 20 years, and agency administrators and 
the Performance Management Team should be well aware of these developments and 
tailor their Data Collection Plan accordingly.74 

Ensure Data Quality 

The quality of data collected is an obvious and not entirely incidental factor in 
developing a robust data collection strategy. Data quality is usually referred to in 
terms of accuracy, completeness, timeliness, and consistency. Accuracy typically refers 
to the extent to which data are free from mistake or error, the data conform to reality, 
and the degree to which the data conform to a standard or true value of the thing 
being measured. Completeness refers to the extent to which the data (or the record) 
contain all of the necessary parts or elements. Timeliness refers to the temporal nature 
of information and its immediate accessibility. Consistency reflects continuity of the 
measure insofar as it is measured in the same way over time and 
by different parties.75 

The Performance Management Team will want to assess the quality of data as part 
of its development of the Data Collection Plan to ensure that the information will 
properly reflect the performance measures created. The team will need to ensure 
consistent definitions and formats, define proper uses of data, resolve any conflicting 
information, and develop and enforce appropriate data edit criteria. 

Complete a Trial Run 

Once the Data Collection Plan is fully elaborated, it should be tested. Piloting the 
data collection process will identify problem areas and enable the team to refine 
procedures to ensure smooth and effective operations. Moreover, the trial run will 
provide an opportunity to test analysis of the data to ensure that the measures can be 
collected and analyzed, and that they are appropriate candidates for use in addressing 
the performance objectives established. 


Page 83
Chapter 6: Develop a Data Collection Plan

Step 4: Establish a 
process/System
for Collecting
Data to assess
Performance 

Step Four Checklist 

1. 
Has the agency drafted and tested a comprehensive Data Collection Plan to 
support performance management? 

2. 
Have information requirements been identified for each strategic performance 
objective and key performance measure? 
3. 
Have information sources been identified, tested, and agreements (where 
needed) developed and executed, to ensure that data needed to support 
performance management are available and accessible? 
4. 
Has the agency clearly described the data collection processes that will be used 
in gathering, automating, and analyzing data for performance management? 
5. 
Has the agency specified and tested data collection and reporting frequencies to 
ensure that the correct information can and will be collected in the time frames 
required to meet performance management requirements? 
6. 
Have costs for data collection and analysis been accurately estimated and does 
the agency have the funding necessary to implement the plan? 
7. 
How will privacy, security, and data integrity issues be addressed throughout 
the data collection, analysis, and reporting processes? Have these 
methodologies been tested to ensure their adequacy? 
8. 
Has data quality been tested to ensure that all necessary sources will enable 
collection of timely, accurate, and complete information? Where data quality 
issues emerge, what processes are in place to improve data quality and ensure 
continuity? 
9. 
Has the Performance Team completed a test run of the full Data Collection Plan, 
to ensure that all elements will work and the analyses will produce performance 
measures that meet the requirements of the Integrated Performance 
Management Framework? 


Page 87

ChapTER 7 

Analyze, Review, and Report
Performance Data




Chapter:7
Analyze, Review, and Report 
Performance Data

What 
A rational and thorough process that delineates steps and techniques for objectively 
calculating, analyzing, reviewing, and reporting measures assessing performance and 
the impact of programs, projects, and initiatives. 

Why 
A structured methodology for analysis and reporting is a necessary step to ensure 
objective and comprehensive assessment, to provide sufficient and accurate 
information for effective leadership and decision making, and to foster full 
transparency and accountability. 

Who 
Performance Management Team. 

When 
Following development of the Performance Management Framework, Data Collection 
Plan, and the collection of data. 

Step 5: 
Establish a 
process/System for 
analyzing, Reviewing, 
and Reporting 
performance Data 

Step 6: Establish a 
process/System 
for Using 
performance 
Information to 
Drive Improvement 

Step 4: Establish a 
process/System 
for Collecting 
Data to assess 
performance 

Step 2: Establish an 
Integrated 
performance 
Measurement 
System 

Step 1: Define 
Organizational 
Mission and 
Strategic 
performance 
Objectives 

Step 3: Establish 
accountability 
for 
performance 


Page 88 
Part II: Performance Management 

Use the numbers 
to help people 
to improve, not 
to judge people. 
Variation is a fact 
of life. What we 
want to do with 
performance 
measures is to 
understand the 
variation. We 
want to learn 
how to influence 
performance with 
elements of the 
process that we can 
control. To interpret 
what we see, we 
need to know about 
variation and how 
observations vary. 
Will artley, et. al., 
The Performance-
Based Management 
Handbook, Volume 1 (2001) 

Weve defined our performance objectives and measures in line with the 
organizations mission, created an overarching Performance Management Framework 
and empowered people to move forward, initiated activities to implement programs 
and bring about change, and defined what information were going to collect, how 
were going to collect it, and how frequently. Our next step is to implement the Data 
Collection Plan, analyze the information weve collected, and report results. 

Our objective is to answer a series of questions: 

1. 
How does actual performance compare to the goal or target established? 
2. 
If there is a significant difference, why and what corrective action is necessary? 
3. 
Did our programs, initiatives, and activities operate properly and achieve the 
result intended? 
4. 
Are new goals or measures needed? 
5. 
How have existing conditions changed? 

Even before we get to these questions, however, were going to need a plan to tell 
us how to analyze the results. How do we aggregate information and score our 
performance measures? And how do we determine whether our initiatives met the 
performance targets established? 

Data Analysis Strategies 

Analyzing the data gathered in the preceding Data Collection stage is one of the 
most important steps in Performance Management. Analysis should be part of the 
ongoing and integrated process of measuring and monitoring performance, not an 
activity simply undertaken at the conclusion of a project. In addition, it should be as 
simple and direct as possible (though some analytic techniques are, by nature, 
rather complex). 

Assess the Quality of Data 

A useful first step in the analysis of data captured for performance measurement is 
a quick review of the quality of the data and the collection processes. Calculation of 
broad measures of data that will be used to evaluate performance should chart the 
general landscape of the information gathered to globally assess data accuracy, logical 
inconsistencies, or bias in the collection process; to ensure data comparability; and to 
validate the relevance of the information for the analyses planned. Initial review of 
the data will greatly assist the Performance Management Team in assessing the overall 
quality of the data and the collection processes. This initial review includes: 

 
Computation of descriptive statistics (e.g., measures of central tendency, such 
as the mean, median, mode, minimum, maximum, and sum) on single data 
elements or performance measures. 


Page 89

 
Simple cross-tabulations (e.g., showing the number of crimes reported by 
crime type, by month [or other unit of time] and/or by district, precinct, or 
other jurisdictional category). 

From these preliminary analyses, the team should evaluate whether the general 
measures make sense, i.e., are they generally consistent with historical trends, 
though, one hopes that they will show improvement or change in the intended 
direction. Even if no improvement in the performance attribute measured is 
noted, are the changes recorded logical and conceivable? Extraordinary changes or 
inconceivably large shifts in performance metrics, either positive or negative, may 
be artifacts of reporting or data collection errors, bias, or inconsistencies. If one of 
the performance targets for a project is to reduce quality of life crimes reported in 
a jurisdiction by 10 percent, for example, and the data show a shift of 95 percent 
(either more or less), the Performance Management Team should investigate 
to ensure that the data are indeed accurate and reflect reality. The team should 
thoroughly investigate any substantive anomalies observed to ensure accuracy 
in measuring, collecting, automating, and compiling the data, and to assess the 
operational and community context of the measurement. 

Stop Sign Icon

The range of statistical techniques listed below might be daunting to the 
average practitioner. Moreover, the complexity of some techniques can become 
a real impediment to understanding and support by practitioners, even if they 
are technically appropriate. The key point to remember is that rigorous and 
professional analysis is needed. 

Use Analytic Methods 

Beyond general assessment of the performance measures established, the 
Performance Management Team will, in all likelihood, use a range of analytic tools 
in completing its analysis of data. Descriptive statistics measuring attributes of 
individual performance variables, comparison of statistics pre- and post-program 
implementation, more formal time-series and interrupted time-series analyses, and 
complex multivariate statistical tests, correlation coefficients, regression equations, 
and factor and cluster analysis may be appropriate techniques, depending on the 
nature of the issues involved and the complexity of the performance measures used. 
Detailed discussion of these techniques is well beyond the scope of this report, and 
readers are encouraged to consult authoritative references in determining which 
specific analytic methods to use. 76 Suffice it to say that the measures used should 
be appropriate for the phenomena being measured, take into consideration the 
limitations of the data and the requirements of the statistical tests used, and should 
also take into consideration the audience for whom reports are being prepared. 


Page 90 

These COpS 
Office publications 
provide examples 
of performance 
measures: 

311 for Non-
Emergencies 
http://www. 
cops.usdoj. 
gov/mime/open. 
pdf?Item=314 

Call Management 
and Community 
Policing: A 
Guidebook for Law 
Enforcement 
http://www. 
cops.usdoj. 
gov/mime/open. 
pdf?Item=913 

Misuse and Abuse 
of 911 
http://www. 
cops.usdoj. 
gov/mime/open. 
pdf?Item=470 

Calibrate Baseline Measures 

A key element in performance assessment is understanding the current status of 
the agency, the community, or the problem were seeking to address and calibrating 
a baseline of current or past performance. Baseline measures on key performance 
dimensions identify past performance, the status quo, the current situation, and/or 
projections for the immediate future, given existing and anticipated circumstances. 
Crime rates, arrest figures, measures of officer attitude and behavior, surveys of 
community perception of personal safety, and any number of other issues can serve 
as effective baseline measures indicative of agency, program, and/or officer performance. 

Baseline measures, of course, will have already been created in Step 1 of this process 
(see page 37), where the Performance Management Team and agency leadership 
have defined performance targets for the agency, program, or initiative. Before we 
can define performance targets, of course, we must know where we presently stand 
on identified dimensions and have well-crafted metrics to establish these as current 
benchmarks. From there, we can identify what and how much we want to improve 
performance on these key dimensions (our performance targets), and how we intend 
to achieve these performance targets. 

Test Hypotheses 

Analyzing the data and answering the questions posed above is the effective 
equivalent of hypothesis testing, a fundamental component of rigorous scientific 
methodology.77 As Valerie J. Easton and John H. McColl note in Statistics Glossary 
(version 1.1): Setting up and testing hypotheses is an essential part of statistical 
inference. In order to formulate such a test, usually some theory has been put 
forward, either because it is believed to be true or because it is to be used as a basis for 
argument, but has not been proved, for example, claiming that a new drug is better 
than the current drug for treatment of the same symptoms. 78 

In law enforcement, our hypotheses may relate to the impact of certain crime 
reduction strategies on actually reducing the occurrence or seriousness of crimes, 
the likelihood or prevalence of victimization, or the efficiency of operations. Many 
jurisdictions around the nation, for example, have implemented 3-1-1 nonemergency 
call systems to divert nonemergency calls from overloaded 9-1-1 Emergency Call 
Centers and improve response time for legitimate emergency calls for service, 
by decreasing the amount of time uniformed officers spend responding to those 
nonemergency 9-1-1 calls. 


Page 91

In this 3-1-1 example, the hypotheses that we have constructed are that establishing a 
3-1-1 call system will: 

 
Divert calls from overloaded 9-1-1 Emergency Call Centers 
 
Improve response time for legitimate emergency calls for service 
 
Enable other, nonsworn officers or even other local agencies to respond to 
incidents not requiring police presence per se, and thereby to increase the 
amount of time uniformed officers spend on police activities 
 
Provide better public service, particularly in emergency incidents.79 

The question then becomes, did it work? This, in turn, must be tested by several 
different measures: 

 
Did the 3-1-1 call system divert calls that otherwise would have been directed to 
the 9-1-1 Emergency Call Center? 
 
Did response time for legitimate emergency calls for service improve as a result? 
 
Did the 3-1-1 call system function to reduce the number of incidents requiring 
dispatch of a uniformed officer? 
 
Did the officers perceive value in the 3-1-1 call system (i.e., more time available 
for patrol and other police activities)? 
 
Did the public perceive value in the 3-1-1 call system (i.e., were they satisfied 
with the response)? 

These outcomes can be measured in any number of ways. 

 
Analysis of call volumes (both the number of calls and the type or nature of 
calls) received by both the 9-1-1 and 3-1-1 call systems 
 
Analysis of dispatch records to determine response time, i.e., a measure of 
the length of time from when the call was received to when an officer was 
dispatched, the length of time from when the call was dispatched to when the 
officer arrived on scene, and the length of time from when the officer arrived on 
scene to when they cleared the scene and returned to active service. 
 
Analysis of dispatch records to assess how many incidents required dispatching 
of officers, how many of the dispatches were generated out of 9-1-1 and how 
many out of 3-1-1 call systems, comparison of the types of calls to which 
officers were dispatched, and comparison of the outcome of dispatch incidents. 
 
Analysis of the amount of free time and patrol and other police activity time 
officers had both before and after implementation of the 3-1-1 call system 
 
Analysis of surveys of officer perceptions of the value and operations of the 
3-1-1 call system 


Page 92 

 
Analysis of surveys of citizens regarding the value of the 3-1-1 call system and 
satisfaction with the level and quality of service, preferably both pre- and 
post-3-1-1 call system. 

Performance Management Team Icon

Know What to Measure 

With baseline performance metrics established, the role of the Performance 
Management Team is to execute the Data Collection Plan and begin analysis of the 
data. Analysis, however, is no simple matter. It will, in all likelihood, range from 
general descriptive statistics (e.g., simple counts and charts displaying the number of 
crimes reported by crime type and location) to more elaborate pre- and post-program 
comparisons, time-series, and multivariate statistical analyses.80 Moreover, given the 
complexity of the issues necessarily involved in performance management and the 
variety of factors influencing actions and response, jurisdictions will need to measure 
performance on multiple dimensions. 

Given the broad range of objectives of the 3-1-1 call systems, to continue our example, 
we cannot measure performance simply by comparing the number of calls they 
receive with the number of calls received by 9-1-1 Emergency Call Centers and expect 
significant diversion. In addition, simply counting the number of calls received 
by each Call Center will probably not provide sufficient information to accurately 
assess the achievement of even the first objective, since a number of factors may 
significantly influence these raw numbers. 

Public education programs designed to inform citizens about newly established 3-1-1 
call systems and describing differences between emergency incidents (which are 
legitimate candidates for 9-1-1 Call Centers) and nonemergency situations (which the 
3-1-1 call systems are designed to address), for example, may nevertheless trigger an 
increase in calls to both 3-1-1 and 9-1-1 call systems simply as a result of increasing 
public attention and community outreach.81 Without sufficient understanding 
of these operational circumstances, the Performance Management Team may 
be confounded by results and misinterpret findings. Additionally, the nature of 
the calls to each Call Center may show differences over time, with the 9-1-1 Call 
Center receiving a larger proportion of their calls as Priority One (high priority) 
emergencies, underscoring again the importance of having detailed baseline statistics. 

Agencies also will need to measure details of calls received in each of the Call Centers 
in more detail to assess changes in the nature of requests for service, and must 
certainly understand the operational and community context surrounding program 
implementation. How the agency addresses calls for service in each Call Center may 
also have a significant impact on results achieved (e.g., if the jurisdiction continues 
to dispatch uniformed officers to both 3-1-1 and 9-1-1 calls, little time savings may 
actually be realized). 


Page 93
Chapter 7: Analyze, Review, and Report Performance Data 93 

Pre-Intervention Post-Intervention 

Image of 3-1-1 call system analysis in Baltimore, Maryland, in Managing Citizen Calls
to the Police: An Assessment of Non-Emergency Call systems, Lorraine Mazerolle, et. al., 2001) 

As the analyses of 3-1-1 call systems demonstrate, analysis must take into 
consideration the operational context of the initiatives. The findings have important 
tactical and policy implications that must be addressed if success is to be achieved. 
These are important considerations, as they will greatly assist agency leadership and 
operational managers in identifying lessons learned and in modifying programs and 
initiatives to achieve intended results. Moreover, it demonstrates the dynamic nature 
of performance management, i.e., it is not an abstract research endeavor, but rather a 
coordinated program to assess and monitor performance to determine what works 
and what doesnt work and why, and to effectively craft operations to achieve the best 
results that are empirically and objectively measured. 

These examples from a single initiative demonstrate the complicated nature 
of performance measurement and the importance of developing a clear and 
coherent strategy for the analysis of data. Understanding the complex nature of 
the phenomena under study, whether it be crime, officer performance, public 
opinion, or technology implementation, and developing accurate measures, effective 
analytic methods, and the ability to enlighten the analysis with a keen awareness of 
operational context is essential to the performance management process. 


Page 94 
Part II: Performance Management 

Original Tech Guide Icon Page 159

Data PresentationHow Will the Data Be Used and Reported? 

The Performance Management Team will want to give careful consideration to how 
data that is being analyzed will be used and reportedeven before it completes its 
analyses. As Bob Roper and Teri B. Sullivan note in Measuring the Success of Integrated 
Justice: A Practical Approach (2004), The key to displaying the results is to convert 
raw data into useable information. Delivering truckloads of output that is never read 
accomplishes very little. 83 

Understanding the primary audience(s) for reports, the intended use of the data, and 
the basic message to be communicated will greatly affect the presentation format 
(published report, brochure, web site posting, oral presentation, etc.) and 
distribution channels used. 

Tips Icon

Chart Design: A Few Hints and Tips 84 

 Less is more 
 Group bars to show relationships 
 Avoid three-dimensional graphics 
 Use grids in moderation 
 Choose colors carefully or avoid them altogether 
 Limit use of typefaces 
 Choose legible typefaces 
 Set type against an appropriate background 
 Use pattern fills with moderation
Source: The Performance-Based Management Handbook, Volume 5

Roper and Sullivan suggest four key principles in converting raw data into useable 
information: 

 
Convert data from words to pictures and graphs when possible. People 
respond to visual imagesas long as they are simple and intuitive. One state 
routinely illustrates the progress of a project by using a map, where green 
counties indicate jurisdictions that have implemented electronic warrants, and 
yellow counties indicate those where implementation is still in progress. 
 
Use color to highlight the most important points. One state distributes 
a monthly progress report that lists each county and the percentage of 
felony court dispositions that are matched to arrests in the criminal history 
repository. Counties that meet the state standard are coded green; those that 
are significantly exceeding the current standard are coded blue; those that are 
making significant progress toward satisfying the state standard are coded 


Page 95

yellow; and those that need significant help in attaining the goals are coded 
red. No one wants to be coded red because of the associated public 
safety implications. 

 
Publish the output regularly. Users become dependent on feedback in 
order to improve. Information that is out of sight is also out of mind.
 
Do not overwhelm the audience with too much informationkeep 
results short and simple. A line graph can present a lot of information in a 
simple format. On a graph that superimposes a trend line and standards on 
the actual monthly disposition-matching rate, the user can see how the actual 
disposition rates are changing over time, where those rates are likely to be in 6 
months, and how the actual rate compares to the standard. 85 

Web Resource Icon

In addition to printed reports and brochures (which can be mailed, distributed 
at agency offices, and made available in community libraries and other city, 
county, and state offices), information also can be presented on agency web sites. 
Increasingly, law enforcement agencies are posting a broad range of information 
on their web sites, including general crime statistics, sex offender registries, 
neighborhood watch organizations and tips, and crime maps showing the 
geographic distribution of crime by crime type.86 Indeed, both the New York City 
Police Department and Los Angeles Police Department post CompStat reports 
and information on their web sites for public review and consumption.87 In an age 
of increasingly sophisticated online users, and with public expectations driven 
by the ever-expanding array of services provided by commercial providers and 
government organizations, law enforcement and justice agencies would do well to 
post performance measures on agency web sites for broad dissemination. 

Create an Executive Dashboard 

In addition to posting full reports and summary statistics and graphics related to 
performance measurement on agency web sites, technology also enables the creation 
of executive dashboards, which typically integrate multiple measures across a 
variety of dimensions and incorporate graphic displays and use color and images to 
effectively portray performance in a comprehensive way. The Illinois State Police, 
for example, are testing development of an executive dashboard that incorporates 
key performance indicators (KPIs), crime and arrest statistics, automobile accidents, 
and homeland security alerts. See Figure 7.2. 

It is instructive to note that this dashboard presents a comprehensive array of 
information that assesses performance across multiple dimensions and effectively 
organizes the measures into specific domains. Additionally, the use of color is 
strategic, designed to draw the readers immediate attention to areas of concern 
and to instantly identify critical trends (red signifying problem areas and green 
representing positive change or results). 

The executive 
dashboard is 
directed toward 
the highest level of 
leadership for the 
overall organization 
as a quick look 
at ongoing 
performance 
measurement 
status. 


Page 96 
Part II: Performance Management 

Web Resource Icon

On-Line analytical 
processing (OLap) 
is a category 
of software 
technology that 
enables analysts, 
managers, and 
executives to 
gain insight into 
data through 
fast, consistent, 
interactive access 
to a wide variety 
of possible views 
of information 
that has been 
transformed 
from raw data to 
reflect the real 
dimensionality of 
the enterprise as 
understood by the 
user. OLap helps 
the user synthesize 
enterprise 
information through 
comparative, 
personalized 
viewing, as well as 
through analysis 
of historical and 
projected data in 
various whatif 
data model 
scenarios.89 

Image of an Sample of a Executive Dashboard chart 90 

Building effective business intelligence tools, which are designed to constantly 
assess performance on multiple dimensions across the breadth of the enterprise, 
requires integration of critical agency information systems and implementation of 
online analytical processing (OLAP) technologies that provide real-time analysis 
and results.88 Ongoing performance monitoring and assessment should not require 
the agency to mount independent research initiatives in order to constantly address 
core agency mission and objectives, but rather should be part and parcel of the 
information technology planning and implementation process that is tightly aligned 
with the agencys overarching strategic planning process. In this way, the Performance 
Management Framework becomes ingrained in the management culture of the 
organization, which in turn ensures that it will be effectively institutionalized. 
Moreover, by building business intelligence and performance measurement as 
embedded elements of the agencys broader management and IT planning process, 
the quality and timeliness of information is likely to improve, given the operational 
investment in core agency information systems. 


Page 97
Chapter 7: Analyze, Review, and Report Performance Data 9 

Step 5: Establish a 
process/System
for analyzing,
Reviewing, and
Reporting 
performance Data 

Step Five Checklist

1. Has the agency developed a comprehensive data analysis and reporting 
strategy? 

2. 
Have analytic techniques been identified and tested to ensure the adequacy 
of the data, the technical sufficiency of the measures, and the relevance of 
techniques to the performance measures used? 

3. 
Have agency/jurisdiction baseline measures been established and validated in 
each key performance domain? 

4. 
Are agency actions sufficiently related to strategic objectives and performance 
targets to enable development of hypotheses that can be tested and validated? 

5. 
Are performance measures well defined, articulate, and subject to objective 
calculation? 

6. 
Are analysis and reporting techniques and methodologies well understood, 
clearly defined, and appropriate? Has the agency stratified analysis techniques 
and reporting methodologies to address the variety of audiences to whom 
they must report, and to ensure that the needs of each audience are uniquely 
addressed? 

7. 
Has the agency developed and tested a plan that will ensure ongoing reporting 
of performance measures? 


ChapTER 8 

USE pERFORMaNCE INFORMaTION TO 
DRIvE IMpROvEMENT 




Page 101

Chapter 8:
Use Performance Information to 
Drive Improvement

What 
Establish a formal process to institutionalize performance management, to ingrain it 
in agency culture, and to drive improvement. 

Why 
Performance management is not a one-time, project-driven assessment of success, 
but rather is part of an integrated management paradigm to relentlessly pursue 
excellence, aggressively adopt best practices, and constantly measure and achieve 
efficiency and effectiveness. 

Who 
Agency leadership, with the investment and support of mid-level managers, line staff, 
external stakeholders, and consumers/customers. 

When 
Planning should occur throughout Steps 1 through 5 and implementation should 
coincide with completion and publication of initial performance measurement 
reports, continuing and evolving as the agency and the Performance Management 
Framework matures. 

Step 6: 
Establish a 
process/System to 
Use performance 
Information to Drive 
Improvement 

Step 5: Establish a 
process/System 
for analyzing, 
Reviewing, and 
Reporting 
performance Data 

Step 4: Establish a 
process/System 
for Collecting 
Data to assess 
performance 

Step 2: Establish an 
Integrated 
performance 
Measurement 
System 

Step 1: Define 
Organizational 
Mission and 
Strategic 
performance 
Objectives 

Step 3: Establish 
accountability 
for 
performance 


Page 102 
Part II: Performance Management 

As noted earlier in this Guide, performance management is about more than 
simply evaluating the effectiveness of individual projects or initiatives within 
law enforcement agencies. It is fundamentally about changing the culture of the 
organization, and continuously driving performance improvement. To effectively 
do so, the performance management process must become institutionalized; it must 
be ingrained within the culture of the organization, and mechanisms must be put in 
place to ensure continuous operation and evolution to meet the evolving needs of the 
agency and the community within which it operates. 

Shape Organizational Culture 

Institutionalizing performance management requires agencies to create an 
organizational culture that values performance measurement and management, 
and provides ways for everyonefrom the chief to the officer on the street, from 
the commander to the records clerk and the dispatcherto participate. Aligning 
operations to meet broad agency vision and mission statements, and defining 
performance measures and targets requires the operational input of practitioners at 
every level of the organization. 

When William Bratton assumed his role as police commissioner of New York City 
in 1994, he found an agency culture that was concerned more with keeping out of 
trouble than focusing on reducing crime. A survey of nearly 8,000 police officers and 
commanders found the following: 

 
At the highest levels of the organization, the basic aim of the NYPD was not 
to bring down crime but to avoid criticism from the media, politicians, and the 
public. 
 
The greater the distance from headquarters, the lesser the trust from one rank 
to the next. 
 
Police officers believed the department had not backed them up, even when 
their actions were warranted. 
 
The department was structured to protect its good name (and the careers of its 
senior executives) rather than to achieve crime-fighting goals. 
 
The Internal Affairs Bureau was seen as intent on tripping up officers for minor 
infractions rather than rooting out real corruption. 
 
The mayor and [Brattons] strongly voiced support for the department had 
encouraged people throughout the organization, but they were waiting to see 
what we should do. 91 

Stop Sign Icon

Broad investment, support, and involvement by staff throughout the organization, 
together with key stakeholders and customers (in the case of law enforcement, the 
general public) is essential to establish and maintain credibility, and also ensures that 
the performance management framework is solidly grounded in reality and meets the 


Page 103

primary needs of the users. The chief or sheriff, command staff, and middle managers 
must recognize the value of performance management and accept accountability, 
as must line and support staff. Everyone in the agency must recognize value in the 
program and see change and legitimate response as a result, though this may be 
difficult during initiation. The program is bound for failure, however, if agency 
administrators institute performance management, collect and analyze data, and 
either fail to heed or fudge the results, refuse to hold persons or units accountable, 
or simply lose momentum and do not follow up. Moreover, building performance 
measurement into annual or semiannual personnel performance appraisals will 
underscore the importance and legitimacy of the overall effort, further embed the 
notion of individual accountability, demonstrate management commitment, and 
establish a foundation for the Performance Management Framework. 

Make Information Broadly Available 

The results of performance measurement should be broadly disseminated throughout 
the agency and beyond. Commanders, middle management, and line and support 
staff should be actively engaged in the performance management process, from 
planning and development through analysis and reporting. Results should be shared, 
as appropriate, to ensure continuous investment and validation of the program. 
Additionally, broad dissemination of findings will reinforce the agencys relentless 
pursuit of performance improvement and help underscore the focus on agency, 
unit, and program objectives, and reinforce tight alignment with the organizational 
mission. Transparency is a critical factor in performance management, and the agency 
must legitimately be seen as open, honest, aboveboard, and accountable. 

Managements response to performance measurement findings will be closely 
watched. Does management actively review and participate in the performance 
measurement process? Does management respond to findings of the research 
and make changes in operations and/or processes? If performance results do not 
drive action, little value will be realized in the broad performance management 
program. Additionally, routinely sharing information with external stakeholders and 
customers is an important step in building trust and demonstrating transparency. 
Demonstrating quick wins early in the process and throughout can indicate 
immediate application of performance measurement results. 

Tips Icon

Reengineer Business Processes 

Performance measurement affords the agency an opportunity to closely examine 
business processes and identify duplication in data entry, redundant processing, 
and circuitous business processes that are evidence of the piecemeal automation 
practices endemic in many jurisdictions. Careful planning and attention to detail in 
research can reveal fundamental flaws in agency practices that can be corrected with 


Page 104 

appropriate action and reengineering. Too often, agencies have simply 
automated a traditional process, rather than critically examining the dynamics 
of agency operations and adopting solutions that incorporate reengineering of 
business processes. 

Performance management is effective only if it leads to real, tangible, and quantifiable 
change. Measuring how an agency, a division, department or team, specific projects, 
or individual personnel perform is an important element in managing for success, but 
measurement alone is insufficient to achieve change or lasting results. The results of 
performance measurement must not only be accurately and properly tabulated and 
broadly shared, but they must also translate into action, and this is often the most 
difficult part of the equation. 

Change is often difficult for people, and organizational change is even more 
challenging in government agencies and particularly in paramilitary units like law 
enforcement with long established and well-structured chains of command. In 
addition, the organizational culture plays a significant role in shaping how the agency 
responds to change. Breaking down those cultural barriers can be one of the greatest 
challenges agency administrators face in implementing lasting, consequential change. 

The commitment to change must come from the top of the organization, and that 
commitment must be based on the results of performance measurement that clearly 
articulate the business impact of historical and current operations, and remedial 
actions or other recommendations that are guided by the results of the research. 
But to be effective, change must inevitably involve all levels of the organization, 
i.e., command staff, mid-level managers, and line staff throughout the agency must 
be actively involved and invested in the performance measurement process and in 
proposing and implementing new business practices. 

In William Brattons earliest days at the New York City Police Department, 
for example, he involved more than 300 people from all ranks throughout the 
Department, organized into 12 reengineering teams addressing productivity, 
discipline, in-service training, supervisory training, precinct organization, building 
community partnerships, geographical and functional organizational structure, 
paperwork, rewards and career paths, equipment and uniforms, technology and 
integrity. 92 He indicates that the teams made more than 600 recommendations, 80 
percent of which were accepted. In a very real way he reengineered the entire agency 
using internal staff that had intimate knowledge of the operations, an investment in 
the success of the agency, and commitment to execute the changes proposed, which 
they themselves were instrumental in formulating. 


Page 105

Chapter 8: Use Performance Information to Drive Improvement 0 

Brattons success in New York is due in no small measure to the management model 
he implemented there. This model included strong commitment from the top levels 
of the department; clear vision and a well-articulated mission for the agency; strategic 
alignment of departmental operations with the mission defined; detailed and 
continuous measurement; accountability; and reengineering of critical operations 
throughout the entire enterprise. 

The broad goal of the Performance Management Framework described here is to 
build a comprehensive management paradigm that will support objective appraisal 
and monitoring of performance and appropriate action to drive improvement based 
on results. Just as change for the sake of change, without accurate performance 
measurement, is inefficient and generally ineffective, performance measurement 
without substantive action is little more than research without business consequence. 

Step 6: Establish a 
process/System 
for Using 
performance 
Information to 
Drive Improvement

Step Six Checklist 

1. 
Has agency leadership created a culture within the organization that supports 
performance measurement, accountability, and action-orientation? 
2. 
Is information regarding performance broadly available to users, managers, 
stakeholders, and other interested parties? 
3. 
Do managers and staff buy in to the performance management framework? 
Do they support the overall effort and recognize the value and validity of the 
approach and its implementation? 
4. 
Does the performance management framework provide opportunity and 
encourage reengineering of operations to achieve performance targets, and 
greater efficiency and effectiveness? 



Part III:
Performance 
Management in 
Everyday Policing

What gets measured, gets done. 
Peter Drucker 



ChapTER 9 

BUILD pERFORMaNCE MaNaGEMENT INTO 
EvERYDaY pOLICING 


 

Page 111

Chapter 9:
Build Performance Management 
into Everyday Policing

Police chiefs and sheriffs, indeed officials in every form of government organization 
directly or indirectly part of the justice enterprise, are public servants. As such, they 
have an affirmative duty to manage effectively, demonstrate efficient and responsible 
use of public resources, exercise the powers the public has vested in their agencies 
in fair and transparent ways, and regularly report to the public on the quality of 
performance of their agencies and staff. 

The Integrated Performance Management Framework outlined in this Guide provides 
a comprehensive and structured methodology for incorporating performance 
measurement into the broader management paradigm for law enforcement and 
justice organizations. Individual program evaluation is a necessary component of 
performance management, but discrete efforts to evaluate the relative effectiveness 
of individual programs, projects, or initiatives, while valuable, do not provide the 
required organizational foundation contemplated in performance management. 

Executive Sponsor Icon

Executive Support and Organizational 
Commitment Required 

Effective performance management requires vision, investment, insight, and 
commitment from the highest levels of the organization. The chief or sheriff (or other 
justice agency executive officer) must be able to clearly articulate the vision and goals 
of the agency, and together with his or her management team, be able to translate 
those goals into tangible, measurable, actionable objectives that can drive the 
performance of everyone within the agency, and other external affiliated participants 
(e.g., other government agencies, stakeholders, and justice partners). 

Agency executives must also be willing to make the necessary investment in staff 
and technology to effectively implement the performance management framework. 
Too often management agrees to make fundamental change or initiate a major new 
program, only to undercut its efforts by failing to properly fund the initiative or to 
recognize the staff and/or technology commitment required to ensure success. It is 
better to hold off on implementation until management has made a commitment for 
adequate funding, staff, and technology resources than to implement performance 


Page 112 

management in half measures. That doesnt mean that performance management 
must languish unless and until the agency secures a financial windfall of either 
local or federal funding, but simply that the program will not likely succeed unless 
adequate resources are firmly committed, either through new funding opportunities 
or internal reinvestment or reallocation. It may also mean augmenting existing staff 
with external competencies in research methodology, statistical analysis, geographic 
mapping, and technological expertise. Sworn law enforcement officers may lack 
specific skills in conducting statistical analyses, administering community surveys, or 
building information technology solutions necessary for sophisticated performance 
measurement. The agency, therefore, should be willing to reach out to other 
government, university, or community resources to acquire needed skills. 

Comprehensive System of Accountability and 
Responsibility Required 

Performance management also requires a significant cultural investment by the 
agency. Measuring, monitoring, and managing performance should become deeply 
embedded within the culture of the organization. Establishing a foundation of 
accountability at all levels of the organization and committing to transparency in 
process and operations are necessary elements in building that culture. Making 
an agency results-oriented can be accomplished only by defining objectives in 
measurable terms, empowering those charged with achieving results with the 
necessary responsibility and resources to do so, measuring and monitoring the 
outcome and impact of activities, and holding responsible persons accountable for 
achieving desired results. This doesnt mean that failure to achieve positive results will 
inevitably result in punitive action. Rather, a system of accountability will provide 
evidence that activities initiated were guided by knowledge, insight, research, best 
practice, and conscientious action. Additionally, the entire performance management 
process must be transparentobvious, aboveboard, devoid of hidden agendas, 
clearly defined, and objectively applied. 

Flatten the Organization 

Performance management flattens the law enforcement organization in important 
respects. To be effective, performance measures should be calculated on current 
operations as a baseline and to identify trouble spots, and this information should 
be broadly communicated to all interested and involved parties. Understanding 
and communicating current performance metrics is essential in motivating 
participants to action, identifying problems in objective and measurable terms, 
and assisting in the development of appropriate responses. In addition to broadly 
sharing this information, management and staff should be empowered to assist in 
the formulation and implementation of effective and innovative solutions and in 
monitoring their performance. This is particularly important, given their individual 


Page 113

and collective accountability. Moreover, routine communication of performance and 
direct involvement in the performance management process furthers investment by all 
participants in the Performance Management Framework. 

Beyond these structural components regarding organizational alignment, performance 
management is also a critical element in effectively managing operations. 

Identify Problems Early 

Building an effective performance measurement system, which constantly monitors 
performance on a variety of factors, is an extraordinarily useful tool in identifying 
problems that emerge in very early stages of development. Rather than being reactive 
and responding to catastrophic events and implementing major course corrections, 
a proactive, results-oriented agency can effectively identify problems in the early 
stages of emergence by monitoring performance continuously. Identifying critical 
performance measures and tightly aligning performance monitoring solutions with 
agency information systems provides agencies with the opportunity to identify emerging 
problems before they fully manifest themselves. In addition to identifying the critical 
performance measures, agencies should implement performance dashboards that 
tightly integrate with operational information systems, and embed management 
mechanisms with the ability to trigger alerts when performance metrics exceed narrow 
performance parameters. Spikes in the amount of reported crime, significant shifts in 
key dimensions (e.g., locations, times of day, victim characteristics, and arrest figures), 
and other attributes might well be incorporated into these online solutions similar to 
supply chain management systems in the private sector, which can identify deviations 
in predicted commercial activity and respond immediately, adjusting inventory to 
better meet the needs of consumers. Performance management is about more than 
effectively responding to problems as they arise; its also about anticipating problems 
and effectively responding early. 

Ensure Progress and Keep Projects on Target 

Performance management can also be an effective tool in ensuring progress and keeping 
projects and activities on track. The FBI, for example, recently adopted a Life Cycle 
Management Directive governing information technology (IT) projects. As noted in 
a June 2005 Information Week article, The goal is to centralize IT assessment, using 
seven gates, or review points that serve as the mechanism for management control and 
direction, decisionmaking, coordination, and confirmation of successful performance. 
Do the money and the time match? Are we at our performance goals? You have a 
measuring tool now, [FBI Chief Information Officer Zalmai] Asmi says. Anytime it 
deviates 10 percent or more, thats when we bring in project management. The bureau 
is evaluating the health of all 479 of its IT projects in order to provide data that will help 
FBI managers understand the costs, schedules, and risks associated with each project.93 


Page 114
Part III: Performance Management in Everyday Policing 

The concept 
of performance 
measurement is 
straightforward: 
You get what you 
measure, and you 
cant manage a 
project unless you 
measure it. 
From Performance-
Based Management, 
General Services 
administration. 

The law enforcement profession should recognize the need for better analytic 
capabilities in the policing profession. To help guide the movement toward 
intelligence-led policing, leaders of state and local agencies in the United States 
should examine models from other countries as well as identify best practices 
nationwide

Issues related to standardizing data systems, documenting criteria, and 
implementing and evaluating the standards must be resolved. There are more than 
18,000 state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies in the United States, and 
in order to guarantee the success of intelligence-led policing initiatives, greater 
agreement on these issues must be reached.94

Stephan a. Loyka, et. al., 
Protecting Your Community from Terrorism, Volume 4 (2005) 

Implementation of the Life Cycle Management program at the FBI required more 
than building performance measurement into the agencyit also required significant 
cultural changes within the institution, structural changes to empower the CIO 
with significantly broader control over IT decisionmaking throughout the agency, 
and development of performance benchmarks for each of its 479 IT projects.95 
Monitoring program and agency performance in real-time provides an opportunity 
to implement minor course corrections as problems emerge, rather than waiting 
for catastrophic failure and systemic incidents that could be predicted by paying 
adequate attention to early warning indicators. It means, of course, insightful analysis 
of factors related to success as well as failure, and tightly aligning performance 
measurement and monitoring capabilities with operational systems. 

Demonstrate Value 

Effective performance management is also a crucial element in measuring and 
monitoring the value of law enforcement and justice operations, and in supporting 
community policing, problem-oriented policing, and intelligence-led policing 
endeavors. By measuring the effectiveness of specific initiatives, and monitoring the 
pulse of the community and crime problems, performance measurement facilitates 
the development of best practices throughout the law enforcement domain. 

But even beyond law enforcement, performance management is crucial for 
information sharing and integration projects.96 Performance management helps to 
build an enterprisewide ability to demonstrate the tangible business value of sharing 
information, not only in meeting individual agency goals, but also in meeting justice 
enterprise goals: 

 Reduce crime, and prevent and respond to national security threats, natural 
disasters, and large-scale criminal incidents 


Page 115

 Improve the quality and equality of justice
 Improve efficiency, effectiveness, and return on investment.

Part III Checklist 

1. 
Do agency leaders buy in to the Performance Management Framework? Are 
they committed and invested in planning and implementation, and do they 
accept accountability, performance measurement, and open reporting? 
2. 
Has agency leadership provided the necessary staff, funding, and technology 
support to ensure successful implementation? 
3. 
Are management and staff throughout the organization empowered to act and 
to innovate? 
4. 
Do managers and staff have broad access to information to assess current levels 
of performance and to evaluate the impact of programs and initiatives on 
achieving objectives? 
5. 
Does the performance management framework enable early identification 
of problems and ongoing assessment as part of a continuous business 
improvement strategy? 
6. 
Are mechanisms in place to enable course correction when it is determined that 
projects are off target and/or failing to meet interim milestones? 
7. 
Does the performance management framework demonstrate value of 
operations within the agency, and in broader terms across the justice 
enterprise? 


Page 116

Conclusion

This Tech Guide has focused on performance measurement, particularly as it 
relates to law enforcement operations and information technology planning and 
implementation. Rather than proposing a narrowly constrained program evaluation 
methodology that agencies might use in assessing the achievement of objectives for 
a single project or initiative, we have instead elaborated an integrated performance 
management framework that can be incorporated within the organizational and 
management structure of law enforcement organizations. The principles and 
methodologies described in this Tech Guide have direct application in evaluating 
the success and the performance of individual projects, but the performance 
management framework suggested provides an operational and strategic foundation 
for effective planning, management, and operations throughout the entire agency. 

Performance management, as this Tech Guide has discussed, operates at many 
levels throughout the organization. Defining strategic objectives of the agency, and 
building operational and tactical plans for implementation requires a comprehensive 
understanding of current operations, and accurate and precise measures of key 
performance indicators. Planning and implementing projects that are tightly aligned 
to the strategic objectives of the agency require careful and continuous monitoring 
and measurement to ensure efficient operations, effective implementation, and 
adequate return on the investment of time and resources needed. 

The performance management planning that you have completed in working 
through the steps outlined in this Tech Guide will ensure that your agency is able to 
develop valid and reliable performance measures and incorporate these into 
your everyday operations. 


Appendix A:
Bibliography


Page 119

Appendix A:
Bibliography

Alpert, Geoffrey P., and Mark H. Moore, Measuring Police Performance in the New Paradigm of 
Policing, in Performance Measures for the Criminal Justice System, NCJ 143505 (Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1993). 
Artley, Will, D.J. Ellison, and Bill Kennedy, The Performance-Based Management Handbook, Volume 

1: Establishing and Maintaining a Performance-Based Management Program (Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Department of Energy, 2001). 
Artley, Will, The Performance-Based Management Handbook, Volume 3: Establishing Accountability for 
Performance (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, 2001). 

Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA), Key Indicators of ASCA Performance 
Standards (with Counting Rules) (Middletown, CT: ASCA, 2005). 

ASCA, Performance-Based Measures Resource Manual (Middletown, CT: ASCA, 2005). 

Bayley, David H., Measuring Overall Effectiveness, in Lawrence T. Hoover (ed.), Quantifying 
Quality in Policing (Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum, 1996). 

Beschen, Darrell, Richard Day, Gretchen Jordan, and Howard Rohm, The Performance-Based 
Management Handbook, Volume 4: Collecting Data to Assess Performance (Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Department of Energy, 2001). 

Blalock, Jr., Hubert M., Social Statistics (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2nd Edition, 1979). 

Boba, Rachel, Guidelines to Implement and Evaluate Crime Analysis and Mapping in Law Enforcement 
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 
(COPS), 2000), at http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/mime/open.pdf?item=614. 

Boba, Rachel, Problem Analysis in Policing (Washington, D.C.: Police Foundation, 2003), at 
http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/mime/open.pdf?Item=847. 

Bratton, William J., Great Expectations: How Higher Expectations for Police Departments Can 
Lead to a Decrease in Crime, in Robert H. Langworthy (ed.), Measuring What Matters: Proceedings 
from the Policing Research Institute Meetings, NCJ 170610 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 
Justice, National Institute of Justice and Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, July 1999). 


Page 120 
Appendix A 

Bratton, William, with Peter Knobler, Turnaround: How Americas Top Cop Reversed the Crime 
Epidemic (New York: Random House, 1998). 

Bureau of Justice Statistics, Performance Measures for the Criminal Justice System, NCJ-143505 
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1993). 

Bynum, Timothy S., Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement 
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 
2001), at http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/mime/open.pdf?Item=342. 

Center for Society, Law and Justice, A Catalog of Performance Measures for Justice IT Projects: An 
Accountability Model (Metairie, LA: University of New Orleans, no date), at 
http://www.cslj.net/PerformanceMeasure/files/accountabilityinventory.pdf. 

Center for Society, Law and Justice, The Logic Model Approach to Developing Performance 
Measures for Justice Integration and Information Sharing Projects (Metairie, LA: University 
of New Orleans, no date), at http://www.cslj.net/PerformanceMeasure/files/ 
userguidetologicmodelapporach.pdf. 

Clarke, Ronald V., and Herman Goldstein, Reducing Theft at Construction Sites: Lessons From a 
Problem-Oriented Project (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community 
Oriented Policing Services, 2003), at http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/mime/open.pdf?Item=804. 

Dadds, Vikki, and Tammy Scheide, Police Performance and Activity Measurement, Trends 
and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, No. 180 (Cauberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 
November 2000), at http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi180.html. 

Eck, John E., Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide for Police Problem-Solvers 
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 
2001), at http://www.popcenter.org/Tools/tool-assessing.htm. 

Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States 2003 (Washington, D.C.: FBI, 2004). 

Fridell, Lorie, By the Numbers: A Guide for Analyzing Race Data from Vehicle Stops (Washington, D.C.: 
Police Executive Research Forum, 2004), at 

http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/default.asp?Item=1476. 

Gee, Diana, Kirkland Jones, Doug Kreitz, Sergio Nevell, Bill OConnor, and Bob Van Ness, The 
Performance-Based Management Handbook, Volume 6: Using Performance Information to Drive 
Improvement (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, 2001). 

Geerken, Michael, Center for Society, Law and Justice, Performance Measurement Tools for Justice 
Information Technology Projects: Key Issues in Developing Performance Measurement Systems for Justice 


Page 121
Bibliography  

Integration (New Orleans, LA: University of New Orleans, draft, no date), at http://www.cslj. 
net/PerformanceMeasure/files/performancemeasurementmonograph.pdf. 

General Accounting Office, Homeland Security: Challenges in Achieving Interoperable Communications 
for First Responders, GAO-04-231T (Washington, D.C.: GAO, 2003). 

Glass, Gene V., and Julian C. Stanley, Statistical Methods in Education and Psychology (New Jersey: 
Prentice Hall, 2nd Edition, 1970). 

Greenemeir, Larry, Tech vs. Terrorism, in Information Week, June 6, 2005. 

Harris, Kelly J., and William H. Romesburg, Law Enforcement Tech Guide: How to plan, purchase and 
manage technology (successfully!), A Guide for Executives, Managers and Technologists (Washington, 
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2002). 

Henry, Vincent E., The COMPSTAT Paradigm: Management Accountability in Policing, Business and 
the Public Sector (Flushing, NY: Looseleaf Law Publications, Inc., 2002). 

Jordan, Gretchen, Steven Prevette, and Steve Woodward, The Performance-Based Management 
Handbook, Volume 5: Analyzing, Reviewing, and Reporting Performance Data (Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Department of Energy, 2001).

Loyka, Stephan A., Donald A. Faggiani, and Clifford Karchmer, Protecting Your Community from 
Terrorism, Volume 4: The Production and Sharing of Intelligence (Washington, D.C.: Police Executive 
Research Forum, February 2005), at
http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/mime/open.pdf?Item=1438.

Mazerolle, Lorraine, Dennis Rogan, James Frank, Christine Famega, and John E. Eck, 
Managing Citizen Calls to the Police: An Assessment of Non-Emergency Call Systems, NCJ 199060, 
revised final report to the U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, October 2001, 
at http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/grants/199060.pdf.

Mazerolle, Lorraine, Dennis Rogan, James Frank, Christine Famega, and John E. Eck, 
Managing Citizen Calls to the Police With 911/311 Systems, NIJ Research for Practice, NCJ 206256 
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, February 2005), at 
http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/206256.pdf.

Mazerolle, Lorraine, Dennis Rogan, James Frank, Christine Famega, and John E. Eck, 
Calling 311: Guidelines for Policy-makers, NIJ Research for Policy, NCJ 206257 (Washington, D.C.: 
U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, February 2005), at 
http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/206257.pdf. 

Moore, Mark H., and Anthony A. Braga, Measuring and Improving Police Performance: The 


Page 122 
Appendix A 

Lessons of CompStat and its Progeny, in Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & 
Management, Volume 26, No. 3, 2003. 

Moore, Mark H., (with Anthony Braga), The Bottom Line of Policing: What Citizens Should Value 
(and Measure!) in Police Performance (Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum, 2003). 

Moore, Mark H., David Thacher, Andrea Dodge and Tobias Moore, Recognizing Value in Policing: 
The Challenge of Measuring Police Performance (Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum, 
2002). 

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, Grant Monitoring and Standards Guidelines for 
Hiring and Redeployment (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community 
Oriented Policing Services, 2004), at http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/default.asp?Item=299. 

Roberts, David J., Concept for Operations for Integrated Justice Information Sharing (Lexington, KY: 
NASCIO, 2003). 

Roper, Bob, and Teri B. Sullivan, Measuring the Success of Integrated Justice: A Practical 
Approach in Information Systems Integration: A Library of SEARCH Resources for Justice and Public 
Safety Practitioners (Sacramento, CA: SEARCH Group, Inc., 2004). 

Shewhart, Walter A., Statistical Method from the Viewpoint of Quality Control (Washington, D.C.: 
Department of Agriculture, 1939 (reprinted by Dover Publications, 1986)). 

Skogan, Wesley G., Measuring What Matters: Crime, Disorder, and Fear in Measuring What 
Matters: Proceedings from the Policing Research Institute Meetings, Robert H. Langworthy (ed.), NCJ 
170610 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice and the Office 
of Community Oriented Policing Services, July 1999). 

Solomon, Shellie E., and Craig D. Uchida, Building A 3-1-1 System For Police Non-Emergency Calls: A 
Process and Impact Evaluation (Washington, D.C.: 21st Century Solutions, Inc., 2003). 

Tufte, Edward R., The Visual Display of Quantitative Information (New York: Graphics Press, 2001). 

Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police Department, Metropolitan Police Department Strategic 
Business Plan FY 2004-2005 (Washington, D.C., August 2004), and Metropolitan Police Department 
Strategic Business Plan FY 20062007 (Washington, D.C., October 2005), available at 
http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1246,q,558981.asp. 

World Bank, Measuring the Performance of a Legal System, (no date), available at 
http://www.worldbank.org/publicsector/legal/performancebrief.htm. 

Wright, Kevin, with Judy Bisbee and Patricia L. Hardyman, Defining and Measuring Corrections 
Performance, Final Report (Middletown, CT: ASCA, 2003). 


Appendix B:
Glossary


Page 125

Appendix B:
Glossary

Source: Beschen, Darrell, Richard Day, Gretchen Jordan and Howard Rohm, The Performance-
Based Management Handbook, Volume 4: Collecting Data to Assess Performance (Washington, 
D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, 2001) at Appendix A. 

Accountability 
The obligation a person, group, or organization assumes for the execution of assigned 
authority and/or the fulfillment of delegated responsibility. This obligation includes: 
answeringproviding an explanation or justificationfor the execution of that authority 
and/or fulfillment of that responsibility; reporting on the results of that execution and/or 
fulfillment; and assuming liability for those results. 

Activity 
Actions taken by a program or an organization to achieve its objectives. 

Assessment 
An all-inclusive term used to denote the act of determining, through a review of objective 
evidence and witnessing the performance of activities, whether items, processes, or services 
meet specified requirements. Assessments are conducted through implementation of activities 
such as audits, performance evaluations, management system reviews, peer reviews, or 
surveillances, which are planned and documented by trained and qualified personnel. 

Baseline 
The initial level of performance at which an organization, process, or function is operating 
upon which future performance will be measured. 

Benchmarking 
1) To measure an organizations products or services against the best existing products or 
services of the same type. The benchmark defines the 100 percent mark on the measurement 
scale. 2) The process of comparing and measuring an organizations own performance on 
a particular process against the performance of organizations judged to be the best of a 
comparable industry. 


Page 126 
Appendix B 

Characteristics 
Any property or attribute of an item, process, or service that is distinct, describable, 
and measurable. 

Continuous Improvement 
1) The undying betterment of a process based on constant measurement and analysis of 
results produced by the process and use of that analysis to modify the process. 2) Where 
performance gains achieved are maintained and early identification of deteriorating 
environmental, safety, and health conditions is accomplished. 

Corrective Action 
Actions taken to rectify conditions adverse to quality and, where necessary, 
to preclude repetition. 

Criteria 
The rules or tests against which the quality of performance can be measured. 

Goal 
1) The result that a program or organization aims to accomplish. 2) A statement of 
attainment/achievement, which is proposed to be accomplished or attained with an 
implication of sustained effort and energy. 

Guideline 
A suggested practice that is not mandatory in programs intended to comply with a standard. 
The word should or may denotes a guideline; the word shall or must
denotes a requirement.

Impact 
Characterization of the outcome of a program as it relates to specific objectives. 

Item 
An all-inclusive term used in place of the following: appurtenance, sample, assembly, 
component, equipment, material, module, part, structure, subassembly, subsystem, unit, 
documented concepts, or data. 

Lessons Learned 
A good work practice or innovative approach that is captured and shared to promote 
repeat application. A lesson learned may also be an adverse work practice or experience that 
is captured and shared to avoid recurrence. 

Management 
All individuals directly responsible and accountable for planning, implementing, and 
assessing work activities. 


Page 127
Glossary 2 

Measurement 
The quantitative parameter used to ascertain the degree of performance. 

Metric 
A standard or unit of measure. 

Objective 
A statement of the desired result to be achieved within a specified time. 

Occurrence 
An unusual or unplanned event having programmatic significance such that it adversely 
affects or potentially affects the performance, reliability, or safety of a facility. 

Outcome 
The expected, desired, or actual result to which outputs of activities of an agency have an 
intended effect. 

Outcome Measure 
An assessment of the results of a program activity or effort compared to
its intended purpose.

Output 
A product or service produced by a program or process and delivered to customers (whether 
internal or external). 

Output Measure 
The tabulation, calculation, or recording of activity or effort and can be expressed in a 
quantitative or qualitative manner. 

Performance-Based Management 
A systematic approach to performance improvement through an ongoing process of 
establishing strategic performance objectives; measuring performance; collecting, 
analyzing, reviewing, and reporting performance data; and using that data to 
drive performance improvement. 

Performance Indicator(s) 
1) A particular value or characteristic used to measure output or outcome. 2) A parameter 
useful for determining the degree to which an organization has achieved its goals. 3) A 
quantifiable expression used to observe and track the status of a process. 4) The operational 
information that is indicative of the performance or condition of a facility, 
group of facilities, or site. 


Page 128 
Appendix B 

Performance Measure 
A quantitative or qualitative characterization of performance. 

Performance Measurement 
The process of measuring the performance of an organization, a program, a function, or a 
process. 

Performance Objective 
1) A statement of desired outcome(s) for an organization or activity. 2) A target level 
of performance expressed as a tangible, measurable objective, against which actual 
achievement shall be compared, including a goal expressed as a quantitative 
standard, value, or rate. 

Performance Result 
The actual condition of performance level for each measure. 

Process 
An ongoing, recurring, and systematic series of actions or operations whereby an input is 
transformed into a desired product (or output). 

Program Evaluation 
An assessment, through objective measurement and systematic analysis, of the manner and 
extent to which federal programs achieve intended objectives. 

Quality 
A degree to which a product or service meets customer requirements and expectations. 

Reengineering 
The radical redesign of current business processes with the intent of reducing cost and cycle 
time, resulting in increased customer satisfaction. 

Senior Management 
The manager(s) responsible for mission accomplishment and overall operations. 

Stakeholder 
Any group or individual who is affected by or who can affect the future of an organization, 
e.g., customers, employees, suppliers, owners, other agencies, Congress, and critics. 

Strategic Planning 
A process for helping an organization envision what it hopes to accomplish in the future; 
identify and understand obstacles and opportunities that affect the organizations ability to 
achieve that vision; and set forth the plan of activities and resource use that will best enable 
the achievement of the goals and objectives. 


Page 129
Glossary  

Task 
A well-defined unit of work having an identifiable beginning and end that is a measurable 
component of the duties and responsibilities of a specific job. 

Total Quality Management 
1) A management philosophy that involves everyone in an organization in controlling 
and continuously improving how work is done in order to meet customer expectations of 
quality. 2) The management practice of continuous improvement in quality that relies on 
active participation of both management and employees using analytical 
tools and teamwork. 

Validation 
An evaluation performed to determine whether planned actions, if implemented, will 
address specific issue(s) or objective(s). 

Verification 
1) A determination that an improvement action has been implemented as designed. 
2) The act of reviewing, inspecting, testing, checking, auditing, or otherwise 
determining and documenting whether items, processes, services, or documents 
conform to specified requirements. 


Appendix C:
Sample
Assessment
Measures


Page 133

Appendix C:
Sample Assessment Measures

These assessment measures were the product of COPS-funded workshops and discussions 
on problem-solving held in 1998 and 1999. The workshops were attended by 16 police 
agencies, all of which were recipients of the 1997 COPS Problem-Solving Partnership 
grant program. Subject matter experts were selected to facilitate the workshops, working 
with these agencies to generate a list of common outcome measures for specific crime and 
disorder problems. These lists represent the outcome measures agreed on by the police 
agencies attending these meetings. 

Additional measures for assessing the effectiveness of police response to crimes and 
disorder can be found in the COPS Office Problem-Oriented Policing Guides (POP Guide) 
series. The POP Guides provide law enforcement with problem-specific questions to help 
identify potential factors and underlying causes of specific problems, identify known 
responses to each problem, and provide potential measures to assess the effectiveness of 
problem-solving efforts.98 

General Assessment Measures 

Traditional Assessment Measures 

 Fewer incidents of targeted crime 
 Fewer citizen complaints about targeted crime 
 Fewer calls for service about targeted crime 

Nontraditional Assessment Measures 

Community Impact 

 Reduced fear/concern about problem 
 Increased citizen satisfaction with the way the police are handling the problem 
 Increased legitimate usage of target problem area 

Financial Impact 

 Lower levels of financial loss related to problem/increased business profits in target area 
 Decreased insurance payouts related to problem 
 Less property damage associated with problem 


Page 134 
Appendix C 

Displacement-Related 

 
Positive displacement of problem (displaced to another location, but at a lower level, or a 
less harmful type of crime, etc.) 
 
Diffusion of benefits (target problem was reduced, and related problems were reduced as 
well; for example, efforts focused on reducing public drinking problem also happened to 
reduce vandalism problem) 

Other Measures 

 
Fewer repeat calls for service about specific problem locations; fewer calls for service about 
related problem locations 
 
Fewer repeat victims 
 
Fewer/less serious injuries related to problem 
 
Increased usage of a particular service/product that would reduce the problem (e.g., use of 
public transportation by repeat DWI offenders) 
 
Increased witness cooperation (particularly for intimidation problems) 

Assault (Nondomestic) 

Traditional Assessment Measures 

 Change in the number of reported attacks 
 Change in the number of arrests for assault 
 Change in the number of cases prosecuted for assault 
 Change in the number of clearances for assault 
 Change in the number of assault convictions 
 Change in calls for service for assault in target area/jurisdictionwide 

Nontraditional Assessment Measures 

Community Impact 

 Change in fear of attack among victims and nonvictims 
 Changes in citizen satisfaction with handling of assault problem 
 Changes in citizen perception of prevalence and seriousness of the assault problem 
 Increased patronage/use of the problem location (bar, park, alley, shopping center, etc.) 

Financial Impact 

 
Decline/increase in the cost of victim medical bills directly associated with targeted 
assaults 
 
Decline/increase in cost to local hospitals for treatment of uninsured assault victims 
 
Decline/increase in the number and amount of insurance claims of victims 
 
Decline/increase in the average number of days lost at work/school by victims 



Page 135

 
Increased/decreased profits of businesses in the location of the assault problem 

Displacement-Related 

 Decrease in reported assaults in target area while increase in another neighborhood/area 
 Change in type of weapon used 
 Changes in victim/offender characteristics 
 Changes in relationship between victim and offender 
 Change in the peak times that nondomestic assaults are occurring 
 Change in number of homicides 
 Decline/increase in the number of related misdemeanor offenses reported 
 Changes in the dynamics of the assault (one-on-one, gang-fights, surprise attacks, etc.) 

Other Measures 

 Change in the number of admissions to the hospital for nondomestic assault injuries 
 Decline/increase in repeat victimizations 
 Decline/increase in repeat offending 
 Decline/increase in the number of assaults that result in severe injury or death 
 Changes in the number of primary offenses with assault as a secondary offense 
 Changes in the number of assaults that result in a sexual assault or homicide 
 Changes in the reaction of the victim to the offender (fight back/not, etc.) 
 Decline/increase in the repeat calls for service at a problem location 

Commercial Burglary 

Traditional Assessment Measures 

 Change in the number of incidents/calls for service for commercial burglary in target area 
 Change in the number of arrests for commercial burglary 
 Change in the clearance rate for commercial burglary cases 
 Change in the number of commercial burglary cases prosecuted 
 Change in the number of convictions for commercial burglary 

Nontraditional Assessment Measures 

Community Impact 

 
Increased/decreased usage of effective and tailored burglary prevention techniques by 
businesses/building owners (e.g., target hardening, cash/merchandise lockups, increased 
visibility of entry and exit points, security guards, video surveillance, lighting) 
 
Changes in business owners satisfaction with police handling of commercial burglaries 
 
Changes in perception of prevalence of commercial burglaries 



Page 136 
Appendix C 

 
Changes in the reporting of commercial burglaries (first time and repeat burglaries) 

Financial Impact 
 
Changes in the amount of insurance claims/payout for items stolen in commercial 
burglaries 
 
Changes in the average loss to the business per burglary or total annual business losses 
 
Changes in the cost of damage to burgled businesses (lost revenue) 

Displacement-Related 
 
Changes in offender characteristics (e.g., age, gender, race, location of residence, 
economic status) 
 
Changes in the time of day of break-ins 
 
Changes in the type of businesses victimized (e.g., corporations, convenience stores, 
restaurants, bars, factories, retail) 
 
Changes in the method of breaking/entering or transporting the stolen items 
 
Changes in the type of property taken 
 
Changes in the location of the burglary (one commercial area to another/one city to 
another) 
 
Changes in the mechanisms of liquidating the stolen items 
 
Change in the number of reported related crimes (e.g., vandalism, robbery, larceny, 
residential burglary) 

Other Measures 
 
Change in the number of repeat burglary calls for service at the same business 
 
Change in the level of retail tenant turnover due to burglary losses/number of vacant 
businesses in the target area 
 
Change in repeat offending/arrests 
 
Change in the recovery rate of property stolen in commercial burglaries 
 
Change in the number of businesses in target area at high risk of burglary/exhibiting high-
risk factors 

Underage Drinking 
Traditional Assessment Measures 
 
Change in the number of calls for service for underage drinking/possession of alcohol 
 
Change in the number of arrests for underage drinking/possession of alcohol 
 
Change in the number of citizen complaints about underage drinking 
 
Change in the number of underage drinking/possession of alcohol cases prosecuted 
 
Change in the number of convictions for underage drinking/possession of alcohol 


Page 137
Sample Assessment Measures 

Nontraditional Assessment Measures 

Community Impact 

 
Change in the number of complaints to policing agency/letters to editor regarding 
underage drinking and associated problems (disorderly conduct, vandalism)
 
Decline/increase in citizens fear of underage drinking and related problems (disorderly 
conduct, vandalism, loitering, DWI/DUI) 
 
Increased legitimate use by community members of public areas where underage drinking 
occurs 
 
Changes in citizen satisfaction with police handling of underage drinking and related 
problems 
 
Changes in perception of prevalence of underage drinking/possession of alcohol and 
related problems 

Financial Impact 
 
Changes in the costs of medical bills directly associated with injuries resulting from 
drinking (DWI/DUI, accidents, sexual assaults)
 
Changes in the costs associated with vandalism/property destruction perpetrated by 
underage drinkers 
 
Changes in cost of medical bills associated with being a victim of an accident caused by an 
underage drinker 
 
Changes in profits and patronage of businesses selling to underage consumers 

Displacement-Related 
 
Changes in the number of reported related problems/crimes (DWI, disorderly conduct, 
vandalism, loitering, public urination, theft, sexual assaults) 
 
Changes in the location of alcohol consumption 
 
Changes in the time of day of underage drinking 
 
Changes in characteristics of underage drinkers (age, gender, race, location of residence, 
economic status) 
 
Changes in the method of purchasing alcohol by underage drinkers (falsified identification 
misrepresenting age, use of legal-aged adult to purchase alcohol) 
 
Changes in the type of establishments selling alcohol to underage consumers (bar/ 
restaurant, grocery store, convenience store, state alcohol control board sales outlet/store) 
 
Change in the location of the establishments underage consumers patronize to obtain 
alcohol (adjoining municipality, certain parts of town) 

Page 138 
Appendix C 

Other Measures 

 
Changes in the number of emergency calls/hospital admissions for accidents resulting 
from underage drinking (including alcohol poisoning, accidents related to location of 
drinking (swimming/boating, etc.), DWI, sexual assaults, injuries to persons victimized by 
underage drinkers) 
 
Change in the number of repeat calls for service at specific locations related to underage 
drinking and associated problems 
 
Changes in self-reports of levels of underage drinking 
 
Decline/increase in repeat offending/arrests of underage drinkers 
 
Changes in rates of school attendance/tardiness among target age group 


Appendix D:
Examples of 
Performance 
Management in 
Justice Agencies


Page 141
Appendix D:
Examples of Performance 
Management in Justice Agencies

Many jurisdictions throughout the nation and around the world are actively engaged in 
sophisticated and effective performance measurement and management programs. In an effort to 
demonstrate the principles and best practices of performance management in operational settings 
of justice agencies, brief case studies and examples are provided in this appendix. Beyond these 
brief summaries, the reader is encouraged to review additional detail regarding these programs in 
the references cited. 

COMPSTAT: New York City and 
Los Angeles 

COMPSTAT (computerized statistics) continues to operate in the police departments of New 
York City and Los Angeles, and in many other law enforcement agencies throughout the United 
States.98 It serves as one of the best examples of a comprehensive performance management 
program within law enforcement agencies by linking strategic planning directly to operations, 
by establishing and enforcing accountability, and by implementing innovative technologies to 
support extensive data collection, analysis, mapping, and reporting. 

By itself, COMPSTAT does not address all performance measurement requirements facing 
contemporary law enforcement agencies. Agencies still need to monitor and manage specific 
projects, for example, including internal administrative operations and information technology 
applications, which may only indirectly contribute to substantive changes in the nature or 
volume of crime within a jurisdiction and/or the agencys response. It does, however, provide 
an important organizational and management structure that clearly values planning, research, 
ongoing performance measurement and program evaluation, and proactive response 
based on empirical research. 

COMPSTAT, New York City Police Department 

As previously discussed in this Guide, the New York City Police Department (NYPD) created the 
COMPSTAT process in 1994. COMPSTAT does not operate in a vacuum, nor does it function 


Page 142 
Appendix D 

effectively solely within the department. To be sure, COMPSTAT drives police operations in 
very real and tangible ways, but it also relies on collaboration with other agencies and with the 
community as a whole. That process continues to operate within NYPD and detailed crime 
information is posted on the Departments web site for the city, by borough, and by precinct.99 

LA COMPSTAT and COMPSTAT Plus, Los Angeles 
Police Department 

In 2002 William Bratton became chief of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). Not 
surprisingly, LAPD has implemented COMPSTAT (known there as LA COMPSTAT)100 and has 
augmented the program by including the use of more in-depth auditing methods, mentorship, and 
close collaboration in an expanded version known as COMPSTAT Plus.101 

Neighborhood-specific crime maps and citywide statistics, which facilitate transparency 
of operations, are readily available on the LAPD web site and empower the community in 
fundamental respects.102 

In addition, effective planning and implementation are made manifest in the publication of the 
LAPD Plan of Action, which demonstrates the intrinsic link among performance measurement and 
agency culture, management, and strategic planning.103 

Police Performance Assessment 
Framework: Home Office, United Kingdom

The United Kingdom has implemented a comprehensive performance management framework 
across the 43 police forces of England and Walesknown as the Policing Performance Assessment 
Framework (PPAF). Technology is an important factor in effectively collecting, analyzing, and 
reporting performance information. As noted by the Home Office: 

During the past three years, a performance framework has been developed by the Home 
Office and Her Majestys Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC), with support from the 
Association of Police Authorities (APA) and the Association of Chief Police Officers 
(ACPO). The aim is to drive up performance in policing. This framework is called the 
Policing Performance Assessment Framework (PPAF). 

In order to present a picture about how a force is performing, two assessments 
have been made in seven key performance areas [or domains: 1) Reducing Crime, 2) 
Investigating Crime, 3) Promoting Safety, 4) Providing Assistance, 5) Citizen Focus, 6) 


Page 143
Examples of Performance Management in Justice Agencies 
 
Resource Use, and 7) Local Policing]. These assessments are based on a combination 
of performance data and professional judgement. Assessments are awarded for the 
performance delivered by a police force in 2004/05 (by comparing a force to its peers), 
and also for direction (by comparing the performance achieved by a force in one year to 
that achieved by the same force in the previous year). 

Assessments are made covering the full range of policing activity, with a focus on 
local policing issues, apart from counter-terrorism (the latter being excluded given the 
difficulty and sensitivity of assessments in this critical area of policing).104 

The seven key performance domains identified above are clearly defined and carefully measured 
using a detailed methodology that is universally applied in measuring performance of each of 
the 43 police forces in England and Wales.105 The Home Office, for example, provides detailed 
guidance in defining statutory performance indicators that comprise each of the seven key 
performance domains. For example, the performance domain Citizen Focus is a function of how 
well forces address user (citizen) satisfaction with the service of police as measured by a variety of 
metrics: 

Statutory Performance Indicators (SPI) Long Title and Short Title 
SPI 1a. Satisfaction of victims of domestic burglary, violent crime, vehicle crime and 
road traffic collisions with respect to making initial contact with the police. 

Satisfaction with making contact 

SPI 1b. Satisfaction of victims of domestic burglary, violent crime, vehicle crime and 
road traffic collisions with respect to action taken by the police. 

Satisfaction with action taken 

SPI 1c. Satisfaction of victims of domestic burglary, violent crime, vehicle crime and 
road traffic collisions with respect to being kept informed of progress. 

Satisfaction with being kept informed 

SPI 1d. Satisfaction of victims of domestic burglary, violent crime, vehicle crime and 
road traffic collisions with respect to their treatment by staff. 

Satisfaction with treatment by staff 

SPI 1e. Satisfaction of victims of domestic burglary, violent crime, vehicle crime and 
road traffic collisions with respect to the overall service provided. 

Satisfaction with overall service 106 

The police forces are provided detailed instruction on how each SPI is measured, including 
reporting frequency, data source(s), definitions, and standardized computational formulas (see 
example in Figure D.1).107 The performance measures are defined each year by statute.108 


Page 144
Appendix D 

Figure D.1:
User Satisfaction Measures for Citizen Focus Domain

USER SATISFACTION MEASURES 

SPI 1a Satisfaction with making contact 
SPI 1b Satisfaction with action taken 
SPI 1c Satisfaction with being kept informed 
SPI 1d Satisfaction with treatment by staff 
Domain.............Type of Measure 
Citizen Focus......User Satisfaction Measure 
Priority Component.Comparator Type 
Not proposed.......MSF average 
Existing/Revised/New...Level of Data 
Existing SpI.......Force 
Reporting Frequency..Data Periods 
Reported through aDR: quarterly, discrete 
analysis & use: rolling years: 
1 apr to 30 Jun 06 
1 Jul to 30 Sep 06 
1 Oct to 31 Dec 06 
1 Jan to 31 Mar 07 

Proportionality.........Data Source / ADR Form 
Forces to collect at 16+1 ethnicity 
Forces to report to hO at 5+1 ethnicity 
Measure to be published for 1 category of 
ethnicity
 
-Force survey following hO/aCpO/apa guidance 
Submit raw data using aDR 443 

Measure to be reported 
For each SpI (1a to 1d), two figures: 
 of victims surveyed, the percentage satisfied (y); and 
 of victims surveyed, the percentage very/completely satisfied (z). 

Formulae 
These percentages will be calculated automatically on the aDR spreadsheet. The description below is provided for 
information. 
For each SpI calculate y and z using the appropriate survey question. 

y equals (a+b+c) divided (a + b + c + d + e + f + g) times 100
z equals (a+b) divided (a + b + c + d + e + f + g) times 100
where: 
a is total number of respondents who answered completely satisfied for domestic burglary, violent crime, vehicle crime and 
road traffic collisions; 
b is total number of respondents who answered very satisfied for domestic burglary, violent crime, vehicle crime and road 
traffic collisions; 
c is total number of respondents who answered fairly satisfied for domestic burglary, violent crime, vehicle crime and road 
traffic collisions; 
d is total number of respondents who answered neither satisfied nor dissatisfied for domestic burglary, violent crime, 
vehicle crime and road traffic collisions; 


Page 145
Examples of Performance Management in Justice Agencies 

Figure D.1:
User Satisfaction Measures for Citizen Focus Domain, continued 

e is total number of respondents who answered fairly dissatisfied for domestic burglary, violent crime, vehicle crime and 
road traffic collisions; 
f is total number of respondents who answered very dissatisfied for domestic burglary, violent crime, vehicle crime and 
road traffic collisions; and 
g is total number of respondents who answered completely dissatisfied for domestic burglary, violent crime, vehicle crime 
and road traffic collisions. 

Definitions: 
 Domestic burglary is defined as any burglary of a dwelling, including aggravated and attempted burglary, (i.e. hO offence 
codes 28 and 29). 
 The violent crime survey sample will be drawn from victims of wounding, assault and personal robbery, (i.e. hO offence 
codes 8a, 105a, and 34B). 
 vehicle crime is defined as any theft of motor vehicle, including aggravated and attempted vehicle taking, and any theft 
from a vehicle (i.e. hO offence codes 37.2, 45 and 48). 
 Road traffic collisions are those attended by the police (regardless of whether injury was sustained). 

Notes: 
1. Dont know and blank responses should be excluded from the calculation. 
2. The data submitted should be for the surveys carried out within each data period (rather than for crimes and incidents 
reported during the period). 
3. The measures should have a confidence interval of no more than 4.0% at the 95% confidence level. 
4. The measure will be reported as a whole number. 
5. Sample sizes (as per the ppaF user satisfaction survey guidance) are designed to meet the required confidence limits 
using a full years data. 
6. The above guidance should be read in conjunction with Definitions and Survey Guidance for PPAF Measures of User 
Satisfaction 2006/07, which will be available on the assessment Methods website: http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/ 
performance-and-measurement/assessment-methods/ 
7. These indicators relate to aggregate results for the 4 victim groups to avoid the potential distorting effect of over- or 
under-sampling particular groups. For the purposes of the aDR and the SpIs 1a-d, the aggregation of results from the 
four user groups to produce overall force results is carried out by giving the results from each group equal weight (i.e. a 
contribution of 25% to the total). 
8. a kDI has been added from april 2006 which requires forces to provide data on the results for all five measures (ie 1a 
- 1e) for those who report anti-Social Behaviour. Survey guidance on the new aSB requirement can also be found on the 
assessment Methods website. 
9. See also SpI 1e. 

The resulting figures are reported by force throughout England and Wales, and comparisons 
are made between comparable forces, as well as for the reporting force over time (looking at 
changes in current performance year to year) (see Figure D.2). Performance measures are also 
aggregated for all forces to generate national metrics.109 


Page 146
Appendix D 

Figure D.2:
Crime Reduction / Promoting Safety National Comparisons (UK)

(Chart 1) 

REDUCING CRIME.........National average (2003/04) (2004/05)..........National average (2003/04 to 2004/05) 
1. 4a Comparative risk of personal crime...........(7%) (6%).........Statistically significant reduction 
2. 4b Comparative risk of household crime..........(20%) (18%).......Statistically significant reduction 
3. 5a Domestic burglary rate1......................(18.0) (14.4).....20.1% reduction
4. 5b violent crime rate2..........................(21.0) (22.4).....6.9% increase 
5. 5c Robbery rate2................................(1.9) (1.7).......12.3% reduction 
6. 5d vehicle crime rate2..........................(16.8) (14.0).....16.9% reduction 
7. 5e Life threatening and gun crime rate2.........(0.62) (0.63).....2.0% increase 

1 Rate per 1,000 households. 
2 Rate per 1,000 population. 

(Chart 2) 

PROMOTING SAFETY........National average (2003/04) (2004/05)..........National average (2003/04 to 2004/05) 
1. 9a Road traffic safety (casualty rate)4.....(7.6) (6.9)............9% reduction 
2. 10ai Residents fear of crime  burglary....(13%) (12%)............Change not statistically significant 
3. 10aii Residents fear of crime  car........(15%) (13%)............Statistically significant reduction 
4. 10aiii Residents fear of crime  violent...(16%) (16%)............Change not statistically significant 
5. 10b perceptions of anti-social behaviour....(16%) (17%)............Change not statistically significant 

4 Data available only for calendar years. Number of people killed or seriously injured in road traffic collisions per 100 million 
vehicle km travelled. 


Page 147
Examples of Performance Management in Justice Agencies 

Justice Network, Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania 

The Pennsylvania Justice Network (JNET) is a secure virtual system for the sharing of justice 
information by authorized users.110 JNET is a collaborative effort of municipal, county, state, 
bordering states, and federal justice agencies to build a secure integrated justice system. Prior 
to JNET, each state agency had its own computer systems and databases. This resulted in a 
fragmented justice environment in which information sometimes took days or weeks to get to 
the appropriate agencies. JNET helps solve this problem and represents an unprecedented leap 
forward in information sharing and cooperation among local, county, state, and federal agencies. 
JNET provides a common online environment whereby authorized users can access offender 
records and other justice information from participating agencies. 

Based on open Internet/World Wide Web technologies and standards, JNET links information 
from diverse hardware and software platforms under a common, web-browser interface. Firewalls 
protect agency networks and systems from unauthorized intrusion. JNET has avoided turf 
issues, which have traditionally plagued other integration efforts, by leveraging existing agency 
systems, recognizing and ensuring agency independence, and allowing agencies to maintain 
control of their information. 

Additionally, JNET provides a forum for each participating agency to collaborate and share 
ideas. A Steering Committee is composed of members from 17 Commonwealth agencies who 
are appointed by each respective agency head. (See Executive Order, which defines the JNET 
governance structure.)111 Each Steering Committee member has an opportunity to vote on how 
the JNET budget is allocated, how and what data are shared, and how policy and technical issues 
affecting their organization and integrated justice as a whole are handled. Steering Committee 
members chair and staff each of the various JNET subcommittees and are advocates for JNET in 
their respective agencies. It is through their collaboration, commitment, cooperation, and hard 
work that JNET is the most successful integrated justice system in the nation. 

JNET began in May 1997 with the founding vision to enhance public safety through the 
integration of justice information throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. JNET has 
adopted business practices that promote cost effectiveness, information sharing, and timely and 
appropriate access to information while recognizing the independence of each agency. 


Page 148 
Appendix D 

Objectives 

One of the major benefits of JNET is safer communities.112 Community safety is enhanced 
because JNET provides law enforcement officers with immediate access to critical criminal 
justice information that helps them to perform their jobs more effectively. The availability of this 
information has enabled officers in the field to identify and apprehend suspected individuals, 
solve cases faster, and keep criminals off the street. JNET has also minimized the risk of releasing 
offenders who could pose a public threat. 

Benefits also include reduced costs associated with defendant and offender processing, reduced 
delays in processing criminal cases, and a lower risk of releasing offenders who could pose a public 
threat. JNET has improved prosecution efforts and reduced delays through timely access to case 
information. The availability of photos through JNET has also been used to prevent innocent 
people from being arrested due to misidentification. 

A mobile version of JNET has been initiated to enable state and local officers access to JNET 
through laptops in their vehicles. Mobile access to Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 
photos, vehicle registration information, and criminal history records information and photos 
will be a major benefit to law enforcement and will enhance public safety. Using photos and other 
information available through JNET, officers will be able to identify suspected individuals much 
more quickly. Mobile access to data also will help prevent the arrest of innocent individuals. 

JNET already has been used extensively in the field by criminal justice agencies to identify and 
apprehend suspected criminals. The system has improved prosecution efforts and has reduced 
delays through timely access to case information. For example: 

 
The Pennsylvania State Police use JNET to access criminal history records information and 
to assist in investigations. 
 
The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections uses JNET to keep inmate records current. 
 
The Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole uses JNET to access criminal history 
records information, to assist in finding people fleeing the law (absconders), and to access 
Department of Corrections misconduct information. 
 
The FBI uses JNET to access criminal history records information and to assist in 
investigations. 
 
District justices use JNET to access statewide Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts 
information. 
 
Counties use JNET to determine inmate location, to find address information when serving 
warrants, and to assist in finding absconders. 


Page 149
Examples of Performance Management in Justice Agencies 

Performance Management 

JNET takes a systematic approach to service delivery, building on effective governance, 
effective strategic planning, an annual business plan that is tightly aligned with the strategic 
plan, and a Project Management Office (PMO), which carefully monitors and measures 
projects and programs to ensure an effective project life cycle (Figure D.3).113 

Figure D.3:
Pyramid Chart
JNETs Systematic Approach to Service Delivery

1.Project 
Life Cycle:
Delivery of projects in a systematic, structured method.
Project assessment, planning,and execution. 

2.Project 
Management Office: 
PMO serves as central point for tracking,
reporting, and management on all formal projects

3.Critical Path Matrix: 
Lists current projects with description,
sponsor, status, milestone, and delivery dates

4.Annual Business Plan:
Out lines the projects for entire fiscal year 
and ensures alignment with Strategic Plan 

5.Strategic Plan: 
Outlines Vision, Mission, and Strategic Goals

6.Governance: 
Provides Strategic Vision, Policy,
and Budget Oversight


Page 150 
Appendix D 

The approach to addressing performance measurement relates vision to strategy and performance 
in the following ways (Figure D.4): 

Figure D.4:
Performance Measure: Vision and Strategy (Org chart)

Customer: 
How should we appear to our 
customers? How do we better 
meet our constituents needs and 
improve customer service? 

Internal Business Process: 
What new processes can we 
establish for a efficient, effective 
integrated justice organization? 

Costs Savings 
How can we explore cost effective 
solutions for JNET, our business 
partners and the Commonwealth? 

Vision & 
Strategy 

Infrastructure & Organizational Growth: 
How will we improve and meet 
changing requirements imposed 
on or requested of JNET? 

Performance management puts strong focus on ensuring all parts of the organization are aligned 
with the overall preferred results of the organization. JNET addresses the following questions in 
assessing the results expected from projects: 

 
Do the preferred results contribute to achieving the organizations preferred results? How? 
 
Is there anything else the organization could be doing to contribute more directly to the 
identified goals? 
In addition, results are weighted to reflect prioritization of the organizations strategic objectives, 
addressing the following questions: 

 
How many strategic objectives does this measurement address? 
 
How many agencies are involved or affected? 
 
How great of an impact will this measure have? 
An example of the weighting and scoring of a project appears in Figure D.5. 


Page 151
Examples of Performance Management in Justice Agencies 

 
Figure D.5:
Example Spreadsheet Project Weighing and Scoring

Performance measures are closely monitored to assess the projects progress to achieve 
preferred results. Progress is continually measured to identify problems as they emerge and 
remedial actions are planned in advance, should performance vary from what is projected. In 
addition, ongoing feedback to project managers and participants provides useful and timely 
information to improve performance. 


Page 152 
Appendix D 

Criminal Justice Information 
Technology Office, United Kingdom 

The Criminal Justice Information Technology office (CJIT) in the United Kingdom has initiated 
a nationwide information sharing program for Joining-Up Justice. CJITs vision is to increase 
public trust in the effectiveness of the criminal justice system by bringing more criminals to justice 
and putting the interests of law-abiding citizens first. CJIT will achieve this by delivering a 
modern and joined-up criminal justice system that will harness the latest information technology 
to reduce unnecessary paperwork, speed up processes, and improve the criminal justice 
experience for all.114 

Like justice information sharing initiatives throughout the United States, the Joined-Up Justice 
program administered by CJIT is designed to provide immediate and enterprise-wide information 
accessibility and information exchange. The UK government has invested 2.2 billion in 
improving the information systems of participating justice agencies (police, prosecution, courts, 
and corrections) and is building the ability to link these systems together (i.e., joining them up) 
for more effective information sharing and accessibility (see Figure D.6). 

The objectives of this large-scale program are to: 

 
Help build a fairer and more just society through the delivery of swifter justice 
 
Ensure the public is served in a way that meets their expectationsthat information 
supports people within the criminal justice system rather than acting as a barrier 
 
Deliver technology solutions that will benefit the whole criminal justice system by helping 
to improve performance across every criminal justice organisation 
 
Step up the fight against crime.115 

Page 153 
Examples of Performance Management in Justice Agencies 

Figure D.6:
Criminal Justice Information Sharing in the UK
(Image of Organizational Web)

The objectives of the benefits realization and performance management program are to apply 
consistent measures to all projects and programs funded from the criminal justice system (CJS) IT 
budget; robust measurement, to minimize double counting; comprehensive measures, to capture 
all forms of value that are added by the projects and programs, and applied, to ensure that 
performance is measured from business case to benefit realization. 

The investment of government funds to support the CJIT Joined-Up Justice program is structured 
according to well-established investment principles: 

 
Funding is dependent upon adherence to the CJS IT governance arrangements. 
 
Projects funded must deliver benefits to more than one agency. 
 
Complete what is started subject to performance. 
 
Projects must provide positive rates of return agreed with the recipients. 
 
Options selected should provide value for money and be quickly achievable. 
 
Consume your own smoke (i.e., departments are expected to fund overspends). 
 
Continued funding depends on performance, including benefits realisation. 
 
Critical issues need to be addressed before funding is confirmed. 
 
Projects must meet industry best practice criteria for Attractiveness and Achievability, which 
are independently measured. 
Examples of the Attractiveness and Achievability analyses are shown in Figures D.7 and D.8. 


Page 154
Appendix D 

ATTRACTIVENESS ANALYSIS 

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS* 

Figure D.7: 
Attractiveness Analysis 
Image of Attractiveness Analysis Chart

Figure D.8: 
Achievability Analysis 
Image of Achievability Analysis Chart

Examples of other CJIT project measurement and accountability reports are available in a 
PowerPoint presentation, Realising the Benefits of e-Governmentthe CJS IT Programme 
experience, by Stephen Jenner, Portfolio Director, Criminal Justice IT, available at http://
www.search.org/events/past/2006symposium/presentations.asp. 


Appendix E:
Endnotes


Page 157
Appendix E:
Endnotes

1 Other Guides in this series include the Law Enforcement Tech Guide: How to plan, purchase and 
manage technology (successfully!), A Guide for Executives, Managers and Technologists, as well as 
those addressing small and rural agencies, IT security, and communications interoperability. 
See http://www.search.org/programs/safety/tech-guide.asp for details on and links to 
these guides. Also see http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/ for more information about the Office of 
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office) and links to the guides, as well. 

2 In addition to the Tech Guides, SEARCH has also hosted a series of conferences and workshops 
addressing many of the issues associated with the Tech Guides. See http://www.search.org for 
more information about SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics. 

3 Harris, Kelly J., and William H. Romesburg, Law Enforcement Tech Guide: How to plan, 
purchase and manage technology (successfully!), A Guide for Executives, Managers and Technologists 

(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice COPS Office, 2002). 

4 For detailed information regarding historical (i.e., 1993, 1997, and 2003 comparisons) and 
current crime reported throughout New York City in weekly, monthly, year to date, and 2-, 4-, and 
12-year increments, see http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/pdf/chfdept/cscity.pdf. Similarly 
detailed information by precinct is available at http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/pct/ 
cspdf.html. Serious crime for reporting purposes includes murder, rape, robbery, felonious 
assault, burglary, grand larceny, and auto theft. While other factors, such as shifting population 
demographics, certainly play a role in explaining these unprecedented declines in reported crime, 
a fundamental shift in management philosophy and operations focusing on proactive policing and 
performance measurement is largely credited for this dramatic fall in crime. 

5 For detailed information regarding departmentwide reported crime in Los Angeles, 
see http:// www.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf/cityprof.pdf. Part 1 Crimes include those typically reported 
in the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 
including homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, auto theft, burglary/theft from 
vehicle, and personal theft/other theft (larceny). 

6 Mazerolle, Lorraine, Dennis Rogan, James Frank, Christine Famega, and John E. Eck, Managing 
Citizen Calls to the Police With 911/311 Systems, NIJ Research for Practice, NCJ 206256 (Washington, 
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice (NIJ), February 2005), at 
http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/206256.pdf; and Solomon, Shellie E., and Craig D. 
Uchida, Building A 3-1-1 System For Police Non-Emergency Calls: A Process and Impact Evaluation 


Page 158 
Appendix E 

(Washington, D.C.: 21st Century Solutions, Inc., 2003), at http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Default.asp?1275. 

7 For purposes of our discussion, the generic reference to police is meant to incorporate police, 
sheriffs and their deputies, and other duly authorized law enforcement agencies and officers. 

8 Alpert, Geoffrey P., and Mark H. Moore, Measuring Police Performance in the New Paradigm 
of Policing, in Performance Measures for the Criminal Justice System, NCJ 143505 (Washington, 
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, October 1993), pp. 119124. Also 
see Roper, Bob, and Teri B. Sullivan, Measuring the Success of Integrated Justice: A Practical 
Approach, in Information Systems Integration: A Library of SEARCH Resources for Justice and Public 
Safety Practitioners (Sacramento, CA: SEARCH Group, Inc., 2004), at http://www.search.org/files/pdf/IntegrationLibrary.pdf. 

9 Bayley, David H., Measuring Overall Effectiveness, in Quantifying Quality in Policing, Lawrence 
T. Hoover (ed.) (Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), 1996), pp. 3754. 
10 Henry, Vincent E., The COMPSTAT Paradigm: Management Accountability in Policing, Business 
and the Public Sector (Flushing, NY: Looseleaf Law Publications, Inc., 2002), p. 318; and Bratton, 
William, with Peter Knobler, Turnaround: How Americas Top Cop Reversed the Crime Epidemic (New 
York: Random House, 1998), p. 224. Also see Moore, Mark H., and Anthony A. Braga, Measuring 
and Improving Police Performance: The Lessons of CompStat and its Progeny, in Policing: An 
International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Volume 26, No. 3, 2003, pp. 439453. 

11 Bratton, William J., Great Expectations: How Higher Expectations for Police Departments Can 
Lead to a Decrease in Crime, in Measuring What Matters: Proceedings from the Policing Research 
Institute Meetings, Robert H. Langworthy (ed.), NCJ 170610 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department 
of Justice, NIJ and COPS Office, July 1999), p. 15. 

12 Ibid., at p. 20. Wilson, James Q., and George L. Kelling, Broken Windows: The Police and 
Neighborhood Safety, Atlantic Monthly, Volume 249, No. 3, March 1982. For an overview of 
the CompStat process, also see Kelling, George, How to Run a Police Department, City Journal, 
Volume 5, No. 4, Autumn 1995. For a review and critique of the CompStat process, also see Moore, 
Mark H., David Thacher, Andrea Dodge, and Tobias Moore, Recognizing Value in Policing: The 
Challenge of Measuring Police Performance (Washington, D.C.: PERF, 2002). 

13 For additional discussion of ROI associated with Chicagos CLEAR system, see McKay, Jim, 
Clearly a Hit, in Government Technology, May 2004, at 
http://www.govtech.net/magazine/story.php?id=90188&issue=5:2004&vw=hl. 

14 Artley, Will, D.J. Ellison, and Bill Kennedy, The Performance-Based Management Handbook, Volume 

1: Establishing and Maintaining a Performance-Based Management Program (Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Department of Energy, 2001), p. 4. 



Page 159
Endnotes 

15 Colonel Kenneth Bouche, Illinois State Police, provided the direct savings examples in this 
section from examples used in the I-CLEAR Project to describe Return on Investment. For 
examples of indirect savings, visit the SEARCH Tech Guide Resources web site at http://www. 
search.org/programs/safety/tech-guide.asp. I-CLEAR is a law enforcement data warehouse 
accessible by all Illinois law enforcement. The project is a partnership between the Chicago Police 
Department and the Illinois State Police. See http://www.icjia.state.il.us/IIJIS/public/PDF/ 
ICLEARinterfaceSlides_IMB_02112004.pdf. 

16 COPS Office, Grant Monitoring Standards and Guidelines for Hiring and Redeployment 
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice COPS Office, September 2004), p. 13, at 
http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/mime/open.pdf?Item=299. 

17 Some of these reasons have been adapted from The CHAOS Report (West Yarmouth, MA: The 
Standish Group, 1994), at http://www.standishgroup.com/sample_research/chaos_1994_ 
1.php, while others (notably 15) were suggested by Major Piper Charles, Charlotte-Mecklenburg 
(North Carolina) Police Department, who kindly served as one of the reviewers of this report. 

18 Items 110 are taken from a PowerPoint presentations by Rohm, Howard, Improve Public 
Sector Results With A Balanced Scorecard: Nine Steps To Success (The Balanced Scorecard 
Institute, 2003) slide 34, at http://www.balancedscorecard.org/files/Improve_Public_ 
Sector_Perf_w_BSC_0203.swf. 

19 Blalock, Jr., Hubert M., Social Statistics (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2nd Edition, 1979); Eck, John 
E., Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide for Police Problem-Solvers (Washington, 
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2001), at 
http://www.popcenter.org/Tools/tool-assessing.htm; and Glass, Gene V. ,and Julian C. 
Stanley, Statistical Methods in Education and Psychology (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2nd Edition, 
1970). 

20 In addition to this Tech Guide, the U.S. Department of Justice has also funded a project 
to address Performance Measurement Tools for Information Technology Projects. For more 
information, see http://www.cslj.net/PerformanceMeasure/index.htm. 

21 For more detailed discussion of the CompStat process and its implementation in New York, see 
Bratton with Knobler, supra, note 10, and Henry, supra, note 10. 

22 Kaplan, Robert S., and David P. Norton, The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action 
(Boston: Harvard University School Press, 1996), and The Balanced Scorecard Institute, What is 
the Balanced Scorecard? at http://www.balancedscorecard.org/basics/bsc1.html. 

23 Moore and Thacher, et. al., supra, note 12 at pp. 7579. 


Page 160 
Appendix E 

24 See the Royal Canadian Mounted Polices use of the balanced scorecard approach to strategic 
planning at http://www.rcmp.ca/dpr/rpp2002_a_e.htm. Also see how police agencies in 
the United Kingdom have taken a balanced scorecard approach from a national perspective: The 
National Policing Plan 20032006 (London: Home Office, November 2002) at http://police. 
homeoffice.gov.uk/news-and-publications/publication/national-policing-plan/nat_ 
police_plan02.pdf. Also see performance plans, strategic objectives, and targets for local 
forces in the United Kingdom: Cambridgeshire Constabulary, Cambridgeshire Policing Plan 
20042005, at http://www.cambs.police.uk/caminfo/plansandreports/cpp0405/; Greater 
Manchester Police, Performance Statistics, at http://www.gmp.police.uk/mainsite/pages/ 
performancestats.htm; and Metropolitan Police Authority, Policing and Performance Plan 
2005/06, at http://www.met.police.uk/about/plans.htm. 

25 For general discussion of the SARA process, see http://www.popcenter.org/about-
SARA.htm. For a more detailed discussion of program evaluation and POP using the SARA 
process, see Eck, supra note 19. For other program evaluation methodologies, see the Bureau 
of Justice Assistance (BJA) Center for Program Evaluation, at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ 
BJA/evaluation/index.html, and KRA Corporation, A Guide to Evaluating Crime Control 
of Programs in Public Housing (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, April 1997), at http://www.ojp. 
usdoj.gov/BJA/evaluation/guide/documents/documentz.html. See also Goldstein, 
Herman, Problem-Oriented Policing (McGraw-Hill, 1990, and Temple University Press, 1990). 

26 Eck, supra note 19 at page 3. 

27 See Rohm, supra note 18 at slide 18. 

28 Ibid. 

29 Artley, et. al., supra note 14 at p. 5. Artley, et. al., acknowledge that this performance-based 
management paradigm largely follows the Plan-Do-Check-Act Cycle originally developed by 
Walter Shewhart in the 1930s at Bell Laboratories. See Shewhart, Walter A., Statistical Method from 
the Viewpoint of Quality Control (Washington, D.C.: Department of Agriculture, 1939; reprinted by 
Dover Publications, 1986). Also see http://www.hci.com.au/hcisite2/toolkit/pdcacycl.htm. 

30 Artley, et. al., supra note 14 at p.4. 

31 Ibid., at p. 7. 

32 Ibid., at p. 10. 

33 Harris and Romesburg, supra note 3 at pp. 5162. 

34 See MPDCs Three Approaches to Prevention page at
http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,3,q,548390,mpdcNav_GID,1530.asp.



Page 161
Endnotes 

35 See MPDCs Comparing the Three Approaches page at http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/ 
view,a,3,q,548341,mpdcNav_GID,1530.asp. The MPDC describes the Police Service Area as 
follows: 

The PSA Team. Your Police Service Area (PSA) team, made up of the PSA lieutenant, and his 
or her sergeants and officers, carries out the most direct role in preventing crime and disorder 
in your community. The PSA lieutenant is the PSA manager. He or she is accountable for the 
quality of policing in the PSA 24-hours-a-day. The PSA lieutenant relies on the PSA sergeants 
to supervise the officers they are working with during their tours of duty. One of the most 
important goals of the PSA team is maintaining PSA integrity. This means responding to calls 
for service and getting to know the people, the resources and the problems in their PSA. The 
PSA team must be visible and accessible to the people who live and work in their PSA. The 
PSA team is supported by the Focused Mission Teams, the detectives, the Mobile Crime Unit, 
Major Narcotics Branch, the Office of Youth Violence, the Special Investigations Division, 
and other critical Department resources. How to Work with Your PSA Team. Community 
participation in each PSA is vital. Residents, business people, and other community groups 
must get to know their PSA lieutenant and sergeants. Community members must know 
their officers who are out in the neighborhoods day-to-day. Community members also must 
get involved by attending their PSAs monthly community meetings. Your PSA lieutenant is 
responsible for scheduling monthly community meetings, which are open to all members of 
the community, and held in a place thats accessible for everyone. Meeting agendas are planned 
by your PSA lieutenant and community leaders and deal with issues identified by both police 
and community. See MPDCs PSA Teams page at 
http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,3,Q,548439,mpdcNav_GID,1530,.asp. 

36 For further discussion of converting business goals to measurable performance objectives 
for integrated justice information sharing initiatives, see Roper and Sullivan, supra note 8 at 
pp. 1215, and Roberts, David J., Concept for Operations for Integrated Justice Information Sharing 
(Lexington, KY: NASCIO, 2003), pp. 4749. 

37 Metropolitan Police Department Strategic Business Plan FY 20062007 (October 2005) and 
Metropolitan Police Department Strategic Business Plan FY 20042005 (June 2003), at pp. 67 and 
1315. The latest revisions of these reports are available at http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/ 
view,A,1246,Q,555621.asp under MPDC Strategic Business Plans link. 

38 Ibid., at p. 13. 

39 Ibid., at p. 16. 

40 Alpert and Moore, supra note 8 at p. 125. 

41 Artley, et. al., supra note 14 at p. 13. 

42 UK Home Office, The National Policing Plan 20032006, supra note 24. 


Page 162 
Appendix E 

43 The National Policing Plan 20042007 (London: Home Office, November 2003), at http:// 
police.homeoffice.gov.uk/news-and-publications/publication/national-policing-plan/natpolplan2004_7.pdf. 

44 Ibid., p. 30. 

45 See Law Enforcement Information Technology Standards Council (LEITSC) work being done by 
the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), et. al. 

46 The Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA) has published three volumes 
associated with outcome-based performance measurement for correctional institutions. Wright, 
Kevin, with Judy Bisbee and Patricia L. Hardyman, Defining and Measuring Corrections Performance, 
Final Report (Middletown, CT: ASCA, 2003); Key Indicators of ASCA Performance Standards (with 
Counting Rules), (Middletown, CT: ASCA, 2005); and Performance-Based Measures Resource Manual, 
(Middletown, CT: ASCA, 2005). All three reports are available at 
http://www.asca.net/publications.html. 

47 The COPS Office is working with Caliber Associates and PERF to develop the Community 
Policing Implementation Assessment tool, which should be ready for use by the field in 2006. See 
the COPS web site www.cops.usdoj.gov for periodic updates. 

48 This material has been slightly edited and taken from UK Home Office, The National Policing 
Plan 20042007, supra note 43. 

49 Artley, et. al., supra note 14. 

50 For a discussion of performance measures associated with justice integration and information 
sharing projects, see Center for Society, Law and Justice, Performance Measurement Tools for 
Justice Information Technology Projects: The Logic Model Approach to Developing Performance 
Measures for Justice Integration and Information Sharing Projects (Metairie, LA: University 
of New Orleans, no date), at http://www.cslj.net/PerformanceMeasure/files/ 
userguidetologicmodelapporach.pdf; and Center for Society, Law and Justice, A Catalog of 
Performance Measures for Justice IT Projects: An Accountability Model (Metairie, LA: University of 
New Orleans, no date), at http://www.cslj.net/PerformanceMeasure/files/accountabilityinventory.pdf. 

51 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States 2003, Section I, Summary of the Uniform 
Crime Reporting Program (Washington, D.C.: FBI, 2004), p. 7, at 
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_03/pdf/03sec1.pdf. 

52 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports, at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm.



Page 163
Endnotes 
 

53 The UCR program has undergone significant change over the past 76 years, including 
transferring the program from the IACP, where it originated, to the FBI, as well as a move to 
incident-based reporting (the National Incident-Based Reporting ProgramNIBRS), from 
monthly aggregate reporting. For more information, see 
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#nibrs. 

54 Eck, supra note 19. For other program evaluation methodologies, see BJA Center for Program 
Evaluation, supra note 25, and KRA Corporation, supra note 25. 

55 UK Home Office, The National Policing Plan 20032006, supra note 24. 

56 Functional standards for law enforcement were developed by LEITSC, a project funded by 
the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice: Standard Functional Specifications 
for Law Enforcement Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) Systems (Washington, D.C.: LEITSC, 2006), 
and Standard Functional Specifications for Law Enforcement Records Management Systems (RMS) 
(Washington, D.C.: LEITSC, 2006). They are available at http://www.leitsc.org. 

57 For more information on the National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan, see 
http://it.ojp.gov/topic.jsp?topic_id=93. 

58 Moore, Mark H., (with Anthony Braga), The Bottom Line of Policing: What Citizens Should Value 
(and Measure!) in Police Performance (Washington, D.C.: PERF, 2003), p. 7. 

59 Definitions derived from Merriam-Webster Online, at http://www.m-w.com/. 

60 Artley, et. al., supra note 14 at pp. 56 [citations omitted]. 

61 This chart and much of the discussion of accountability levels that follows is taken from Artley, 
et. al., supra note 14 at pp. 910. 

62 Los Angeles Police Department, LAPD State of the Department: Plan of Action for the Los Angeles 
that Is and the Los Angeles that Could Be (Los Angeles: LAPD, 2004), pp. 2021, emphasis added. 

63 Artley, et. al., supra note 14 at pp. 78. 

64 For more definitions of data and information, see Merriam-Webster OnLine, at 
http://www.m-w.com/. 

65 Also see Abt Associates, Inc., Evaluating Drug Control and System Improvement Projects, Guidelines 
for Projects Supported by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 
Justice, NIJ, 1989 (Reprint 1992)), pp. 57, at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/evaluation/ 
guide/documents/chapter_2_nij_guide.htm. For a discussion of police activity measurement, 
see Dadds, Vikki, and Tammy Scheide, Police Performance and Activity Measurement, Trends 



Page 164
Appendix E 

and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, No. 180 (Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 
November 2000), at http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi180.html, and Marx, 
Gary T., Alternative Measures of Police Performance in E. Viano (ed.), Criminal Justice Research 
(New York: Lexington Books, 1976), at http://web.mit.edu/gtmarx/www/alt.html. 

66 Moore and Thacher, et. al., supra note 12 at p. 132. 

67 See, e.g., Skogan, Wesley G., Measuring What Matters: Crime, Disorder, and Fear in 
Measuring What Matters: Proceedings from the Policing Research Institute Meetings, Robert H. 
Langworthy (ed.), NCJ 170610 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, NIJ and COPS 
Office, July 1999), pp. 3753. 

68 Prepared by PERF through Cooperative Agreement #98-CK-WX-K001, awarded by the U.S. 
Department of Justice COPS Office. Cited in: Bynum, Timothy S., Using Analysis for Problem-
Solving: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice COPS 
Office, 2001), p. 18, at http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/mime/open.pdf?Item=342. Based on 447 
COPS Problem-Solving Partnerships (PSP) project grantees, as reported by author 
Ann C. Grant of PERF. 

69 Bratton with Knobler, supra note 10 at p. 233. 

70 See COPS monitoring and auditing requirements at
http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/mime/open.pdf?Item=299.

71 For discussion of the technology requirements for CompStat and the operating environment 
initially present in NYPD, see Henry, supra note 10 at pp. 248250. 

72 Bratton with Knobler, supra note 10 at p. 234. 

73 Boba, Rachel, Problem Analysis in Policing (Washington, D.C.: Police Foundation, 2003), p. 32, at 
http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/mime/open.pdf?Item=847. 

74 See, e.g., the extensive array of publications by SEARCH on privacy policy and justice 
information and criminal history systems at http://www.search.org/services/publications/ 
default.asp?category=4 and http://www.search.org/services/publications/default. 
asp?category=9. 

75 For more complete definitions, see Merriam-Webster OnLine, at http://www.m-w.com/. 

76 Blalock, supra note 19; Glass and Stanley, supra note 19; and Jordan, Gretchen, Steven Prevette, 
and Steve Woodward, The Performance-Based Management Handbook, Volume 5: Analyzing, 
Reviewing, and Reporting Performance Data (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, 2001). 
Also see Eck, supra note 19. 



Page 165

Endnotes 

 
77 Glass and Stanley, supra note 19 at pp. 271291. 

78 Easton,Valerie J., and John H. McColl, Statistics Glossary, version 1.1, Centre for Applied 
Statistics, Lancaster University, at http://www.cas.lancs.ac.uk/glossary_v1.1/hyptest. 
html#hypothtest. 

79 Solomon and Uchida, supra note 6 at p. 29. Also see, Mazerolle, Lorraine, Dennis Rogan, James 
Frank, Christine Famega, and John E. Eck, Managing Citizen Calls to the Police: An Assessment of 
Non-Emergency Call Systems, NCJ 199060 (revised final report submitted to the U.S. Department of 
Justice, NIJ, October 2001), at http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/grants/199060.pdf; and 
Mazerolle, et. al., Managing Citizen Calls to the Police With 911/311 Systems, supra note 6. 

80 For detailed discussion of sophisticated statistical analyses and computations, which exceed the 
general scope of this Tech Guide, see Blalock, supra note 19, and Glass and Stanley, supra note 19. 

81 This, in fact, was one of the findings observed by Mazerolle, et. al., in their analysis of the 
3-1-1 Call Center in Baltimore, MD. See Mazerolle, et. al., Managing Citizen Calls to the Police: An 
Assessment of Non-Emergency Call Systems, supra note 79 at p. 47. 

82 Ibid., at p. 46. 

83 Roper and Sullivan, supra note 8 at p. 17. 

84 Jordan, et. al., supra note 76 at pp. 4143. For a particularly insightful discussion of effective and 
innovative techniques of displaying quantitative information, see Tufte, Edward R., The Visual 
Display of Quantitative Information (Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press, 2001). 

85 Roper and Sullivan, supra note 8 at p. 17. 

86 See, e.g., San Diego (CA) Police Department, Police Department Crime Statistics and Maps, 
at http://www.sandiego.gov/police/stats/index.shtml, and Baltimore (MD) Police 
Department, Fighting Crime Online, at http://141.157.54.34/bpdmaps/police.htm. 

87 For NYPD CompStat reports, see http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/pct/cspdf.html, 
and for current crime statistics from the LAPD, see 
http://www.lapdonline.org/crime_maps_and_compstat. 

88 For more detailed discussion of OLAP technologies, see http://www.olapreport.com/. 

89 See OLAP and OLAP Server Definitions at 
http://www.moulton.com/olap/olap.glossary.html. 



Page 166
Appendix E 

90 This draft sample executive dashboard was provided by Colonel Kenneth Bouche, Illinois State 
Police, June 2005. 

91 Bratton with Knobler, supra note 10 at pp. 215216. Further discussion of the culture of NYPD 
before and after CompStat, see Henry, supra note 10 at pp. 6068. 

92 Bratton with Knobler, supra note 10 at p. 215. 

93 Larry Greenemeir, Tech vs. Terrorism, in Information Week, June 6, 2005, at p. 46. See 
http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=164300083. 

94 Loyka, Stephan A., Donald A. Faggiani, and Clifford Karchmer, Protecting Your Community from 
Terrorism, Volume 4: The Production and Sharing of Intelligence (Washington, D.C.: PERF, February 
2005), p. 44, at http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/mime/open.pdf?Item=1438. 

95 Ibid., and Holmes, Allan, Why the g-men arent IT men, in CIO-Asia Magazine, June 15, 2005, 
at http://www.cio-asia.com/showpage.aspx?pagetype=2&articleid=1612&issueid=52. 

96 For more detail regarding performance measurement and integrated justice information sharing 
initiatives, see Geerken, Michael, Center for Society, Law and Justice, Performance Measurement 
Tools for Justice Information Technology Projects: Key Issues in Developing Performance Measurement 
Systems for Justice Integration (Metairie, LA: University of New Orleans, draft, no date) at http:// 
www.cslj.net/PerformanceMeasure/files/performancemeasurementmonograph.pdf. 

97 For more information about the Problem-Oriented Guides for Police series and other COPS Office 
publications, please call the COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770 or visit 
www.cops.usdoj.gov. 

98 See Weisburd, David, Stephen D. Mastrofski, Rosann Greenspan, and James J. Willis, The Growth 
of Compstat in American Policing (Washington, D.C.: The Police Foundation, 2001); Willis, James J., 
Stephen D. Mastrofski, David Weisburd, and Rosann Greenspan, Compstat and Organizational Change 
in the Lowell Police Department: Challenges and Opportunities (Washington, D.C.: The Police Foundation, 
2003). 

99 For a general discussion of the COMPSTAT process within NYPD, see http://www.nyc. 
gov/html/nypd/html/chfdept/compstat-process.html. Weekly crime statistics at the city, 
borough, and precinct levels are posted at http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/pct/cspdf. 
html. 

100 For general discussion of COMPSTAT within LAPD, see http://www.lapdonline.org/crime_ 
maps_and_compstat/content_basic_view/6363. 



Page 167
Endnotes 

 
101 For a fairly detailed account of the COMPSTAT Plus process, see http://www.lapdonline. 
org/inside_the_lapd/content_basic_view/6364. 

102 See http://www.lapdonline.org/crime_maps_and_compstat.

103 The LAPD Plan of Action is available for download at http://www.lapdonline.org/inside_
the_lapd/content_basic_view/6561.

104 http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/performance-and-measurement/performanceassessment/?version=2. 

105 http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/performance-and-measurement/assessmentmethods/. 

106 http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/news-and-publications/publication/performance-andmeasurement/SPI_Technical_Guidelines_204.pdf?view=Binary, at p. 8. 

107 Ibid., at pp. 1012.

108 See, e.g., Statutory Indicators for 2004, 2005, and 2006 at http://police.homeoffice.gov.
uk/performance-and-measurement/assessment-methods.

109 http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/248458/master_table.pdf. 

110 http://www.pajnet.state.pa.us/pajnet/cwp/view.asp?a=213&q=75743. 

111 The executive order is available at http://www.oa.state.pa.us/oac/lib/oac/exec_ 
orders/1999-4.pdf. 

112 http://www.pajnet.state.pa.us/pajnet/cwp/view.asp?a=213&q=159659. 

113 This information and graphics was taken from Firestone, Chad, Performance Management, 
PowerPoint presentation at the 2006 Symposium on Justice and Public Safety Information Sharing: 
Effective Decisionmaking for a Safer America, Washington, D.C., March 14, 2006. Available at 
http://www.search.org/events/past/2006symposium/presentations.asp. 

114 http://www.cjit.gov.uk. 

115 From Jenner, Stephen, Realising the Benefits of e-GovernmentThe CJS IT Programme 
Experience, PowerPoint presentation at the 2006 Symposium on Justice and Public Safety 
Information Sharing: Effective Decisionmaking for a Safer America, Washington, D.C., March 14, 
2006. Available at http://www.search.org/events/past/2006symposium/presentations.asp. 


For More InForMatIon: 

U.S. Department of Justice 
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 
1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W. 
Washington, DC 20530 

To obtain details on COPS programs, call the 
COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770 

Visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov