text:
More Topics
Creator's Hub
Collect Leads
Get Started
Tips & Tricks
For Business
Your SlideShare is downloading.
Creating performance measures
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...
Like this document? Why not share!
Complete fy2007 2008adoptedkra_stra...
by zulina43
493 views
Presentation On Hrd
by Pawan Bahuguna
3071 views
PHARMA FIRST-LINE LEADERS - KRAs
by vivekhattangadi
929 views
BCG Expertise Impact Leadership
by Luis Alejandro Mo...
258 views
10 Insights For Sales Pros to Achie...
by 33voices.com
754 views
Effective Goal Setting for Managers
by Paul Newton
620 views
Share SlideShare
Email sent successfully!
Size (px)
Start on
Show related SlideShares at end
WordPress Shortcode
Creating performance measures
Published on
Mar 24, 2014
0 Comments
Full Name
Comment goes here.
12 hours ago
Are you sure you want to
Your message goes here
Be the first to comment
Be the first to like this
No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
No embeds
Report content
Flagged as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate
Copyright Complaint
No notes for slide
Transcript of "Creating performance measures"
1. U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services Creating Performance Measures That Work A Guide for Executives and Managers Law Enforcement TECH GUIDE FOR 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 CRASH Accidents Year to Date 859 Change Year Over Year .90 Fatalities Year to Date 948 Change Year Over Year .113 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 otherwiseuse,andtoauthorizeotherstouse,thisbookforFederalGovernmentpurposes. 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 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 SEARCHGroup,Incorporated,7311GreenhavenDrive,Suite145,Sacramento,CA95831. Theopinionsorrecommendationscontainedhereinarethoseof theauthor(s)anddonot 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. Creating Performance Measures That Work A Guide for Executives and Managers Law Enforcement TECH GUIDE FOR
Office of the Director 1100 Vermont Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20005 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 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 department's 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 email@example.com. 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
vii Acknowledgments..................................................................... x About the Author..................................................................... xi 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 Eight Facts About Performance Measurement of Technology Projects............................................................ 11 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 It's Not Just About Whether Crime Went Up or Down............27 Balanced Scorecard Provides Template...................................28 The Seven Dimensions of a Balanced Scorecard.....................28 Contents About the Guide Eight Facts about Performance Measurement of Technology Projects Part I: Performance Measurement
viii 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 Who's 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 Part II: Performance Management
ix Appendixes 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 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 A. Bibliography......................................................................119 B. Glossary............................................................................125 C. Sample Assessment Measures.......................................... 133 D. Examples of Performance Management in Justice Agencies.................................................................141 E. Endnotes........................................................................... 157 Part III: Performance Management in Everyday Policing
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 organizations—including: 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 services—through 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.
xi 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, Mayor's Office of Homeland Security, Boston Captain Jon Shane Newark City (New Jersey) Police Department
xii We would also like to thank members of the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the U.S. Department of Justice's 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: n Law Enforcement Tech Guide for Small and Rural Police Agencies: A Guide for Executives, Managers, and Technologists n Law Enforcement Tech Guide for Creating Performance Measures That Work: A Guide for Executives and Managers n Law Enforcement Tech Guide for Communications Interoperability: A Guide for Interagency Communications Projects n 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.
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
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. 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 FYI: We tell you how to get your own copy of the original Law Enforcement Tech Guide on page 7.
About the Guide 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 doesn't. 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.
About the Guide 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 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 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 Be accountable to your grants. This icon will alert you when grant requirements may come into play. Tips If we've heard or know of shortcuts or have useful ideas on how to tackle a particular issue, we'll use this icon to let you know. Web Resource Whenever you see this icon, we have presented information that may be accessible via the Internet. International This icon symbolizes international performance management efforts, and alerts you to another valuable perspective on performance management initiatives. Performance Management Team 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. TECH GUIDE ORIGINAL s @
About the Guide Executive Sponsor 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 you're anxious to download the whole document at once—all 14 megabytes—the complete version can be found at SEARCH's 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 firstname.lastname@example.com.
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. Eight Facts About Performance Measurement of Technology Projects
Part I: Performance Measurement "Measurement is the first step that leads to control and eventually to improvement. If you can't measure something, you can't understand it. If you can't understand it, you can't control it. If you can't control it, you can't improve it." —H. James Harrington
Chapter 1 WHAT IS PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT AND WHY IS IT IMPORTANT? 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 CRASH Accidents Year to Date 859 Change Year Over Year .90 Fatalities Year to Date 948 Change Year Over Year .113 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%
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 CRASH Accidents Year to Date 859 Change Year Over Year .90 Fatalities Year to Date 948 Change Year Over Year .113 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%
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?
Part I: Performance Measurement 18 • 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. 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 enforcement—indeed, 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. @
Chapter 1:What Is Performance Measurement and Why Is It Important? 19 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 don't 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 "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 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.
Part I: Performance Measurement 20 "The Chicago Police Department demands more than meeting performance metrics—we 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. 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 Kelling's '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 Know Your Purpose No matter the nature of the program, agency, initiative or project, you're 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 Performance measurement, in simplest terms, is the comparison of actual levels of performance to pre-established target levels of performance. "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)
Chapter 1:What Is Performance Measurement and Why Is It Important? 21 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 Office's 2004 document Grant Monitoring Standards and Guidelines for Hiring and Redeployment: Return on Investment15 (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 CPD's 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
Part I: Performance Measurement 22 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 DOJ's Office of the Inspector General (OIG), the DOJ's 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 goals—it's 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.
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.) 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. 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. *
Chapter 2 Establish an Integrated Performance Management Framework 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 CRASH Accidents Year to Date 859 Change Year Over Year .90 Fatalities Year to Date 948 Change Year Over Year .113 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%
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 CRASH Accidents Year to Date 859 Change Year Over Year .90 Fatalities Year to Date 948 Change Year Over Year .113 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%
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. It's 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 agencies…in other words, a balanced scorecard for law enforcement.
Part I: Performance Measurement 28 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. 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/.
Chapter 2: Establish an Integrated Performance Management Framework 29 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. It's 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. 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 it's easy. Evaluating the performance of specific programs or projects is a complex process requiring careful planning before, during, and after implementation, rigorous 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 @
Part I: Performance Measurement 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)?" INPUT resources, including cost and workforce PROCESS activities, efforts, workflow + = Are we doing the thing RIGHT? (How?) OUTPUT products and services produced OUTCOME results, accomplishments, impact + = Are we doing the RIGHT THINGS? (What?)28
Chapter 2: Establish an Integrated Performance Management Framework 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 organization's 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
Part I: Performance Measurement 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 can't manage a project unless you measure it." —From Performance-based Management, General Services Administration
Chapter 3 Define mission and Strategic performance objectives 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 CRASH Accidents Year to Date 859 Change Year Over Year .90 Fatalities Year to Date 948 Change Year Over Year .113 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%
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 CRASH Accidents Year to Date 859 Change Year Over Year .90 Fatalities Year to Date 948 Change Year Over Year .113 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%
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 organization's strategic plan. 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. Senior departmental leadership, with active input and communication with employees, stakeholders, and customers/clients. Shortly after the decision-making structure is formed and prior to initiating major projects. Chapter 3: Define Mission and Strategic Performance Objectives What Why Who When 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 1: Define Organizational Mission and Strategic Performance Objectives Step 3: Establish Accountability for Performance
Part II: Performance Management 38 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 department's 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 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 "If you don't know where you're going, any plan will do." —Peter F. Drucker Legendary management authority 51-62 TECH GUIDE ORIGINAL s
Chapter 3: Define Mission and Strategic Performance Objectives 39 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 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
Part II: Performance Management 40 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.). Method of Prevention Focus Effects Key Police Activities Focused Law Enforcement Repeat criminal offenders and regulation violators. Repeat criminal offenses. Communities in distress. Disruption or termination of chronic crime activity, reduction of fear, and building of community confidence in the police. Crime analysis, directed patrol, tactical, follow-up investigations, arrests, and partnership with other regulatory or law enforcement agencies. Neighborhood Partnerships Physical and social conditions that lead to chronic crime and disorder. Community building. Active involvement of community and other government services leading to neighbor- hood stabilization. PSA [Police Service Area] integrity, PSA meetings, problem solving, and partnership with other agencies and the community. Systemic Prevention Health, social, educational, and economic conditions of individuals, families, and communities. Individuals, families, and communities build a resistance to crime and violence. Sharing information with, working with, and being advocates for the government and non- government agencies that effectively serve people and communities. Figure 3.1 MPDC: Comparing the Three Approaches35
Chapter 3: Define Mission and Strategic Performance Objectives 41 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 agency's 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
Part II: Performance Management 42 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) 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. 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
Chapter 3: Define Mission and Strategic Performance Objectives 43 Figure 3.2 Metropolitan Police Department Performance Plan PROGRAM REGIONAL FIELD OPERATIONS Activity Regional Operations Command - Central Activity Purpose Statement 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. Services that Comprise the Activity 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 Operations Office of the Assistant Chief for ROC-Central Activity Performance Measures (Target and Measure) 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 for service 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 Responsible Program Manager EAC Michael J. Fitzgerald Responsible Activity Manager AC Brian Jordan FY 2004 Budget (Gross Funds) $68,169,413 FTEs 1,032
Part II: Performance Management 44 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. Mission / Vision / Values / Assumptions Strategic Performance Objective 1 Operation/Activity Purpose Execution Performance Target(s) Performance Measures Owner Resources Budget FTE Strategic Performance Objective 2 Operation/Activity Purpose Execution Performance Target(s) Performance Measures Owner Resources Budget FTE Define Title Describe purpose(s) of initiative Define how you're going to do it Target(s) (e.g., reduce violent crime by 10%) How you're going to measure it Person responsible/accountable Resources needed for this initiative Funding dedicated to this initiative Staffing dedicated to this initiative PERFORMANCE PLAN TEMPLATE
Chapter 3: Define Mission and Strategic Performance Objectives 45 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 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. Step 1: Define Organizational Mission and Strategic Performance Objectives ¸
Chapter 4 Establish a performance mANAGEment framework 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 CRASH Accidents Year to Date 859 Change Year Over Year .90 Fatalities Year to Date 948 Change Year Over Year .113 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%
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 CRASH Accidents Year to Date 859 Change Year Over Year .90 Fatalities Year to Date 948 Change Year Over Year .113 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%
Chapter 4: Establish a Performance Management Framework What Why Who When 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 2: Establish an Integrated Performance Measurement System Step 1: Define Organizational Mission and Strategic Performance Objectives Step 3: Establish Accountability for Performance 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. 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. Senior departmental leadership and the Performance Management Team, with active input and communication with employees, stakeholders, and customers and clients (the general public). As part of the strategic planning process for the agency.
Part II: Performance Management 50 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. Remember—performance measurement will look both at how we implemented an operation, as well as whether the operation produced the intended result. 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 2003–2006.42 As part of the Plan, and the planning process, the Home Office developed a Policing Performance Assessment Framework (implemented in 2003–2004 and described in their 2004–2007 National Policing Plan43 ) 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). "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
Chapter 4: Establish a Performance Management Framework 51 The National Policing Plan 2004–2007, 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. (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 improvement—what 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 3–5 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. Figure 4.1 Performance Management Cycle Priorities Objectives Performance Indicators Targets Assess Performance
Part II: Performance Management 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. 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. 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).
Chapter 4: Establish a Performance Management Framework 53 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 organization's 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 management's 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 54 The UK's 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). Figure 4.2 UK's Policing Performance Assessment Framework "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 citizen's 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 non- crime (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 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
Chapter 4: Establish a Performance Management Framework 55 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 Measures—Used 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 Measures—Used 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 Measures—Used 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 Measures—The 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 Measures—The 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)


text:
In Case Of Fire PRO
User Stats
Profile Images
User Bio
In Case Of Fire is a professional allround production company for commercials, based in Amsterdam.
With the wide variety of directors we can produce any idea in advertising.
Just so you know who to call...
External Links
Related RSS Feeds
Recently Uploaded+ See all 507 videos
Recent Activity
Martijn Scholte followed In Case Of Fire

subset: commoncrawl