What does the summary of measures of the quantity and quality of police work performance achieved taking resource utilization into account mean?

ASSESSING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROGRAMS

Assessment and Evaluation

Handbook Series Number 1

Developed and Written by

Robert A. Kirchner
Roger K. Przybylski
Ruth A. Cardella

__________________________

Sponsored by the State Reporting and Evaluation Program

Prepared by
Justice Research and Statistics Association
777 North Capitol Street, N.E.
Suite 801
Washington, DC 20002

This Handbook is designed to aid criminal justice policy makers and program managers in assessing the effectiveness of their programs. In developing the Handbook, an attempt has been made to apply the concepts, principles, and techniques embodied in evaluation literature to fit the characteristics and uniqueness of the vast types of criminal justice programs being implemented across the nation. First, the Handbook proposes general criteria to identify program effectiveness and poses several questions designed to tell a program manager to what extent their program is effective. The second goal is to describe methods on how to translate the general criteria into specific program elements which are necessary to evaluate programs. Finally, specific program examples show how these program elements can be used to measure the extent to which programs are achieving their goals and objectives.

Robert A. Kirchner is Chief of Program Evaluation, and Ruth A. Cardella was a Program Analyst with the Bureau of Justice Assistance. Roger Przybylski is a Consultant who formerly served as the Statistical Analysis Center Director, Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority.

Table of Contents

I. Underlying Premise of Assessment and Evaluation

II. Assessing Program Effectiveness: Overview

III. Program Effectiveness Criteria

IV. Development of a Standard Program Effectiveness Model

V. Implementing the Program Effectiveness Model

        Step 1 - Program Description
        Step 2 - Program Goals and Objectives
        Step 3 - Program Activities
        Step 4 - Flow Model of Program Structure
        Step 5 - Performance Measurement

VI. Conclusion

Glossary of Terms

APPENDICES

        A.  Program Description: Elements to be Considered

        B.   Program Example: Organized Crime/Narcotics Trafficking Enforcement (OCN) Program

        C.   Program Example: Community Oriented Policing (COP) Program

I. Underlying Premise of Assessment and Evaluation

The need to focus on innovative programs which are successfully contributing to the State strategies emphasizing drug control, violent crime and criminal justice system improvement is well recognized. The study of individual programs, located across the country, will help identify "what works," and what may be transferable to other locations. These studies begin with in-depth analysis of each program likely to produce useful results.

The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) assesses the effectiveness of substance abuse prevention programs for the purpose of finding out how well they have been implemented and to compare the extent to which the activities funded have achieved the program's goals. Such assessments are designed to provide administrators and policy makers with an improved understanding of whether specific activities accomplish their desired results of enhancing the effectiveness of the stated program strategies.

Program evaluation is defined as follows:

A systematic assessment of the results or outcomes of program efforts to measure actual outcomes against the intended outcomes of the program; to discover achievement and results; to discover deviations from planned achievements; to judge the worth of the program; to identify unintended consequences; and to recommend expansion, contraction, elimination, or modification of the program.

It is obvious from the preceding definition that program evaluation is an invaluable aid in planning, developing, and managing programs. To be effective, however, program evaluation efforts must be placed within the broader context of program management. A flexible capacity for internal self-evaluation is fundamental to the management and ongoing improvement of programs.

The purpose of the process evaluation is to provide the criminal justice community with technical information that can assist them in developing and implementing similar programs. Special attention is given to identifying the lessons learned at the various sites and the guidance they can provide to other jurisdictions regarding organization and development of program activities and to the implementation of program elements which are useful in addressing particular kinds of problems relating to drug abuse and crime control. Notably, performing process evaluations establishes the foundation for more intensive impact evaluations.

The purpose of the impact evaluation is to provide management information needed by Federal, State and local officials and community leaders involved in policy and programming decisions which clearly confirms that specific programs and/or activities do work, or do not work. The impacts observed in the demonstration projects are distilled to provide assessment of the impact to the program strategies.

Evaluation of program performance should be done on a continuing basis and should provide an overall framework for all participants involved with the program to benefit through the utilization of evaluation findings and recommendations.

II. Assessing Program Effectiveness: Overview

This Handbook is designed as an aid for criminal justice policy makers and program managers in assessing the effectiveness of their programs. In developing the handbook, an attempt has been made to apply the concepts, principles, and techniques embodied in evaluation literature to fit the characteristics and peculiarities of criminal justice programs. An attempt was also made to produce a generic document, which can be applied across the board, to fit the characteristics and uniqueness of the vast types of criminal justice programs being implemented across the nation.

First we identify program effectiveness criteria and pose several questions designed to tell the program manager, in a general sense, to what extent their program is effective. The second part describes how to translate the general criteria into specific program elements which are necessary to evaluate criminal justice programs. It then describes, using examples, how these program elements can be used to measure the extent to which programs are achieving their goals and objectives.

The term "program" refers to an organized set of activities that are managed toward a particular set of goals for which the program can be held separately accountable. Evaluations can be directed at determining overall program effectiveness (e.g., a State's entire Drug Control and Violent Crime Strategy) or the effectiveness of particular program components, or sub-programs (e.g., the Alternatives to Corrections program). It is not always feasible to do the former, due to the level of generality involved. An alternative is to focus on program components (the parts) as a means of evaluating the overall program (the whole). Within a program, some components may be well defined and properly implemented, while others are not. Therefore, a pertinent question for program managers is what aspects, or components, of the program should be considered for inclusion in an assessment or evaluation.

If program evaluation is to be a fundamental part of effective program administration, the primary responsibility for program evaluation should rest with those responsible for administering programs. Program evaluation has often been carried out in isolation from program management and criticized for not meeting the needs of program managers and program oversight officials. To more closely integrate program evaluation and program administration, we propose that program managers be assigned primary responsibility for assuring that program evaluation functions: (1) demonstrate to the satisfaction of oversight officials, the extent to which the program is effectively administered, and (2) support the program manager in producing an effectively administered program.

III. Program Effectiveness Criteria

In order to assess the effectiveness of a criminal justice program, criteria which define an effectively managed program must first be developed. Criminal justice system activities are diverse. For criteria to apply across programs, they should not relate to only specific types or classes of programs, organizational arrangements, and management styles. Consequently, the criteria are described in terms of the program management and accountability processes. These two processes define, on a case-by-case basis for a program, what the program is and how its effectiveness is to be judged.

There are four criteria which define an effectively managed program. They define a set of ideal conditions for program implementation and performance -- conditions to be brought about through the management and accountability processes. Since the criteria describe the ideal, the relevant question is, "To what extent do programs achieve the four criteria?"

A brief description of the FOUR criteria follows:

1. Acceptable Description of Goals and Objectives: Goals, the end results that programs pursue, are realistic and clearly stated. Program objectives (the effects or results to be achieved by the program in pursuing its goals) are both measurable and achievable.

2. Linkage between Program Activities and Objectives: The program has sufficient and appropriate activities in place to achieve the objective (results) expected by program managers. "Sufficient and appropriate activities" means there is evidence that the existing pattern of program activities can produce the results expected. In other words, the causal linkage between program activities and objectives is plausible.

3. Performance Information: Performance measures are developed which signal whether and/or to what extent the program is meeting its objectives (achieving expected results). This information is obtained by measuring the program's actual results, then comparing them with the program's expected results.

4. Acceptable Performance: The program meets or exceeds the expectations (objectives) set for it, and its actual performance is acceptable to program managers and oversight officials. This criterion recognizes there may be times when a program does not fully achieve its objectives (due to unforeseen and uncontrollable events), but is nevertheless considered to be performing successfully.

IV. Development of Standard Program Effectiveness Model

This part translates the general program effectiveness criteria into specific criminal justice system language -- program elements (goals, objectives, activities, etc.) which can be used to measure the extent to which BJA program objectives are achieved.

A case approach is used to explain the process of developing these program elements for specific programs. The development of each element will be illustrated by using the program example found in the appendices to fill in each step in the process. Of course, given the diversity of programs, the process may have to vary slightly from program to program. However, the process should be essentially the same for all programs, that is, all criminal justice programs should have goals and objectives, activities in place to achieve them, performance measurements, and so on.

The results produce a standard program evaluation design, or model, depicting the program elements of a program and how they should interrelate in the performance of a program evaluation. In utilizing such a model for their programs, managers should quickly become aware of any program deficiencies.

The steps involved in developing a standard program effectiveness model are as follows:

1. Develop a narrative description of the program from available program documents.
2. Identify goals and objectives.
3. Identify program activities that "flow" from the objectives identified in step 2.
4. Develop a flow model depicting the program's structure -- the interrelationship of the elements identified in steps 2 and 3.
5. Develop performance indicators to measure program accomplishment against objectives.

V. Implementing the Program Effectiveness Model

Program Description: Step 1

The program description should depict the program as it appears in formal documents such as annual reports, legislation, budget documents, published brochures, and other relevant material. When completing this step for a program not yet implemented, this can be accomplished by accumulating program concept papers, policy mandate statements and program development and implementation plans. The description should reflect the formal commitments made by program management to the governmental authorities, funding agencies, the clients it serves, and the general public in the broadest sense. An important byproduct of analyzing formal documents is the explicit acknowledgement of formally stated goals that are either not pursued by the program or considered to be unrealistic or unattainable. Insert an appropriate program description, and its source(s), from the example, or one of your own, below:

INSERT A PROGRAM DESCRIPTION HERE

(or Example 1 from Appendix B or C)

Program Goals and Objectives: Step 2

Program goals and objectives should be evident from program descriptions. However, the identification of goals and objectives is not as easy a task as it may appear.

1. Goals.

A goal is the end toward which effort is directed. Program goals should be clearly stated and realistic. Vaguely stated goals should be measured for determining whether reliable and valid measurement is possible. As a consequence, vague goals affect management's ability to evaluate a program due to the lack of criteria for program effectiveness.

Goals must also be realistic. For instance, reducing the amount of recidivism of drug offenders may be a worthwhile goal, but not a realistic one from a law enforcement standpoint. The problem is that a goal may be beyond program management's control.

Additionally, goals must be distinguished from the program itself because it is common to find goals stated in documents that are in fact the program. For example, making arrests refers to what a multijurisdictional task force does, not what it intends to accomplish. The notion of goals should be used in reference to outcomes. Insert an appropriate program goal, and its source(s), from the example, or one of your own, below:

INSERT A PROGRAM GOAL HERE

(or Example 2 from Appendix B or C)

2. Objectives

Objectives are the intermediate effects or results to be achieved by the program in pursuing its ultimate goal. Arising from program goals, objectives represent the means by which program mangers can measure the extent program goals are being accomplished (or approached). It is imperative that objectives be both achievable and measurable. They should be clearly stated to ensure the development of appropriate measures of program effectiveness.

Like goals, objectives should be stated in terms of outcomes (expected effects or results). A distinction must be made between outputs (quantities produced) and effects/results. For example, the number arrests made or number of drug offenders diverted to treatment programs are outputs.  On the other hand, the effects/results are the consequences of the arrests or treated offenders (safer streets and lower recidivism, respectively).

Applying the concepts and principals discussed up to this point, identify appropriate objectives which could logically flow from a program goal. Insert an appropriate program objectives from the examples, or one of your own, below:

INSERT A PROGRAM OBJECTIVES HERE

(or Example 3 from Appendix B or C)

Program Activities: Step 3

Program activities are those activities that are expected to produce results which meet the stated goals and objectives. The program must have a realistic chance of attaining its specified goals and objectives, if a meaningful assessment of a program's effectiveness is to occur. Therefore, the cause-and-effect relationship between program activities and goals and objectives must be identified and assessed.

Just as objectives are the means by which program goals can be assessed, program activities serve as the vehicle for assessing to what extent objectives are achieved. The clear description of program activities provides the basis for developing procedures to measure program implementation.

To identify program activities, look for those activities that are more directly (plausibly) linked to the program's goals/objectives. Refer to Example 4a in the appendix which shows how program activities can be identified that produce the program's stated objectives.

INSERT A PROGRAM ACTIVITIES/OBJECTIVES ANALYSIS HERE

(or Example 4a from Appendix B or C)

Then, by reference to Example 4b in the appendix it can be shown how additional analysis of these activities can improve the correspondence of objectives and activities by grouping them under the program objectives from which they should logically flow.

INSERT AN ENHANCED ACTIVITIES/OBJECTIVES ANALYSIS HERE

(or Example 4b from Appendix B or C)

Note that several program activities are aligned under two objectives. This indicates that an activity has a causal linkage with, or can be expected to produce, both program objectives.

Flow Model Of Program Structure: Step 4

The flow model ties together the previously discussed program elements (examples 2 through 4) to depict the program's structure. Note that the flow of elements from goals to activities is both logical and plausible. Arrows are used to connect program activities that are related.

INSERT A FLOW MODEL OF PROGRAM STRUCTURE HERE

(or Example 5 from Appendix B or C)

Developing a program flow model is a particularly useful exercise. It should enable the evaluator to develop an understanding of the program. Poorly defined program activities and goals/objectives can be readily identified. Gaps in the chain causal linkages become apparent and potentially conflicting goals surface.

Performance Measurement: Step 5

To be effective, evaluation measurements should focus on the lowest possible level of the program flow model (on program activities versus goals/objectives). Activities are more specific and well-defined than goals/objectives and thus allow better measures of program effectiveness. Therefore, evaluations should focus on program activities as a strategy for assessing projects or the larger programs of which they are a part. This strategy provides the basis for documenting, modifying and/or eliminating particular program activities in response to identified weaknesses in the program.

Measuring the impact of activities in relation to the goals and objectives which they seek to achieve requires the development of performance indicators. An indicator is defined as an explicit measure of effects or results expected. It tells to what extent an activity has been successful in achieving, or contributing to, an objective.

Indicators may be quantitative or qualitative. A quantitative indicator can be expressed as a single measure (number of individuals on parole), or as a degree of change (increase/ decrease in number of domestic violence cases). Qualitative indicators can be used where quantitative measures are not feasible. It is not possible, for example, to assign a direct quantitative measure to the extent to which neighborhoods have been made safer through crime watch programs. However, a qualitative (or indirect) measure can be used through the use of surveys, direct observation, etc.

In reference to the example in the Appendix, insert Example 6 below, which provides some suggested performance indicators for each of a program's objectives, or the effects/results expected from the program's efforts. It also provides a few examples of how the indicators, or standards, can be compared to actual performance in measuring program effectiveness. Note that the indicators are closely related to the activities which flow from the program's objectives.

INSERT A PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT CHART HERE

(or Example 6 from Appendix B or C)

The final examples from the Appendices, Example 7, combines the preceding chart with the program flow model in Example 5 to form a standard program evaluation model (a generic version of the model appears on page 14 below) for an program. The model demonstrates the flow of evaluation and performance data from program goals to specific program activities, through performance measurement, to analysis and interpretation of results and necessary corrective measures. Note the arrows pointed upward from the "Feedback/corrective measures" line. These indicated that failure to fully meet objectives is not always attributed to program activities. Problems with other program elements such as unrealistic goals and objectives and their resulting performance indicators can just as well as causes of program deficiencies.

INSERT A STANDARD PROGRAM EVALUATION MODEL HERE

(or Example 7 from Appendix B)

VI. Conclusion

We have sought to: (1) Describe the concepts, principles, and techniques involved in assessing program efficiency and effectiveness, and (2) show, through use of a specific examples, how they can be applied to criminal justice programs. The document's major benefit is in providing the framework for conducting assessments and evaluations.

Information developed according to the standard program evaluation model is essential for determining if programs are working well. Once the informational framework is developed, however, the model must be made an ongoing part of the program management. Someone within program management, for instance, must be assigned responsibility for conducting periodic effectiveness evaluations pursuant to the model. Additionally, the model is designed only to highlight accomplishments or shortcomings in program performance, not their causes or solutions. Positive findings should be followed up on to determine if program replication is appropriate. Program deficiencies will have to be followed up on to isolate causes and ensure that corrective actions are taken.

With information provided by program evaluations, the criminal justice program manager can ensure effective program performance and fix program accountability in the eyes of the Attorney General, Congressional oversight officials, State Governors, and the public.

Glossary of Terms

Alternatives: Different ways of reaching an objective or goal. In program analysis, objectives and goals are defined so that the consideration of different options or alternatives is not precluded. See: Cost-Benefit, Program Analysis.

Analysis: A systematic approach to problem solving. Complex problems are made simpler by separating them into more understandable elements. This involves the identification of purposes and facts, the statement of defensible assumptions, and the formulation of conclusions. See: Cost-Benefit Analysis, Cost-Effectiveness, Program Analysis, Policy Analysis, Performance Evaluation, Program Evaluation, and Strategic Evaluation.

Audit: The systematic examination of records and the investigation of other evidence to determine the propriety, compliance, and adequacy of programs, systems, and operations. The auditing process may include tools and techniques available from such diverse areas as engineering, economics, statistics, and accounting. The U.S. General Accounting Office auditing standards are applicable to all levels of government and relate not only to auditing of financial operations, but are also concerned with whether governmental organizations are: (1) achieving the purposes for which programs are authorized and funds made available, (2) doing so economically and efficiently, and (3) complying with applicable laws and regulations.

Benefit, Direct: Result attained which is closely related with the program in a cause and effect relationship. For example, increased adherence to probation restrictions is a result of a compliance and sanctions program.

Benefit, Indirect: Results attained that are related to a program, but not its intended goal. For example, increases in acceptable caseload per probation officer is due to increased adherence to probation restrictions arising from a compliance program.

Causal Relationship: The relationship of cause and effect. The cause is the act or event that comes before the effect is produced. For example, the demand for more police on the street causes increased employment or reassignments within police departments. The cause is necessary to produce the effect.

Chart, Flow: A graphic presentation using symbols to show the step-by-step sequence of operations, activities, or procedures. Used in computer system analysis, activity analysis, and in general program sequence representations. See: Process.

Constraints: Limitations of any kind to be considered in planning, programming, scheduling, implementing, or evaluating programs.

Control: The exercise of direction over people and activities. Also, the manager's ability to produce desired results by directing efforts and expenditures. It involves evaluation and corrective action.

Cost-Benefit: A criterion for comparing programs and alternatives when benefits can be valued in dollars. This refers to the ratio, dollar value of benefit divided by cost. It provides comparisons between programs and alternative methods. See: Cost Effectiveness, Effectiveness.

Cost-Benefit Analysis: Comparing present values of all benefits less those of related costs, where benefits can be valued in dollars the same way as costs in order to select the alternative which maximizes the benefits of a program. See: Cost-Effectiveness, Effectiveness.

Cost-Effectiveness: A criterion for comparing alternatives when benefits or outputs cannot be valued in dollars. This relates costs of programs to performance by measuring outcomes in nonmonetary form. It is useful in comparing methods of attaining an explicit objective on the basis of least cost or greatest effectiveness for a given level of cost. See: Cost-Benefit, Effectiveness.

Criteria: The standards against which evaluations are performed.

Critical Path Method (CPM and PERT): (CPM Critical Path Method) and PERT (Program Evaluation and Review Techniques) are activity models. In a program activity presentation, the critical points usually depict events (lease request received, lease offered, lease inspected, etc.) and the links depict activities (adjudication, recording leases, resource evaluation, etc.). CPM seeks to determine the expected time of completion of the total project and times of completion of the subprojects of which it is composed. PERT goes further and seeks to evaluate activities with the expected times of completion.

Data: Documented information or evidence of any kind.

Effectiveness: The rate at which progress towards attainment of the goal or objective of a program is achieved, judged in terms of both output and impact. Effectiveness of program outputs, however, may increase without necessarily increasing effectiveness or the quality of the output. See: Quality Control, Output, Impact, Cost-Effectiveness.

Efficiency: The degree to which outputs are achieved in terms of productivity and the inputs (resources allocated). Efficiency is a measure of performance in terms of which management may set objectives and plan schedules and for which staff members may be held accountable. See: Cost-Benefit, Effectiveness, Process, Productivity, Resources.

Evaluation: Evaluation has several distinguishing characteristics relating to focus, methodology, and function. The following operational description clarifies these characteristics: Evaluation (1) assesses the effectiveness of an ongoing program in achieving its objectives, (2) relies on the standards of project design to distinguish a program's effects from those of other forces working in a situation, and (3) aims at program improvement through a modification of current operations. See: Evaluation Practices, Outcome Evaluation, Performance Evaluation, Program Evaluation, Strategic Evaluation.

Evaluation Practices: These practices consist mainly of management information and data incorporated into regular program management information systems to allow managers to monitor and assess the progress being made in each program toward its preestablished goals and objectives. Ideally, all programs are self-evaluating, continuously monitoring their own activities. See: Information System.

Feasibility Study: A study of the applicability or practicability of a proposed action or plan.

Function: A group of related activities and/or projects for which an organizational unit is responsible. This is also the principal purpose a program is intended to serve.

Goal: A desired state of affairs which outlines the ultimate purpose of a program. This is the end toward which program efforts are directed. It is a statement of intent and commitment including the rationale for its merit and causal linkages. See: Objective, Causal Relationship.

Impact: The ultimate effects of the program on the problem or condition that the program or activity was supposed to do something about (i.e., increased arrest activity as a result of financial investigations). There also may be unexpected or unintended impacts.

Information System: An organized collection, storage, and presentation system of data and other knowledge for decisionmaking, progress reporting, and for planning and evaluation of programs. It can be either manual or computerized, or a combination of both.

Input: Organizational units, people, dollars, and other resources actually devoted to the particular program or activity.

Management: The guidance and control of action required to execute a program. This is also the individuals charged with the responsibility of conducting a program.

Mission: That part of a goal or endeavor assigned as the specific responsibility of a particular organizational unit. Includes the task, together with the purpose, which clearly indicates the action to be taken and the reasons.

Objective: Statement of what is to be accomplished, setting forth, if possible, in measurable terms such as: time, resource allocation, funding, expected output. An objective is a short term, specific interpretation of a goal. See: Goal.

Outcome Evaluation: Is used by management to identify the results of a program's effort. It seeks to answer management's question, "What difference did the program make?" It provides management with a statement about the net effects of a program after a specified period of operation. This type of evaluation provides management with knowledge about: (1) The extent to which the problems and needs which gave rise to the program still exist, (2) ways to ameliorate adverse impacts and enhance desirable impacts, and (3) program design adjustments which may be indicated for the future. See: Evaluation.

Outcomes: The results of program operations or activities.

Output: Immediate measures of what the program did (number of offenders sent to treatment programs, amount of marijuana shipments seized, number of subjects charged, etc.).

Performance Evaluation: Compares actual performance with that planned, both in terms of resource utilization and production. It is used by management to redirect program efforts and resources and to redesign the program structure. See: Evaluation.

Performance Measurement: Comparing amount of work accomplished with established standard. It includes both individual and organizational levels of performance.

Planning: The process of anticipating future occurrences and problems, exploring their probable impacts, and detailing policies, goals, objectives, and strategies to solve the problems. This often includes preparing options' documents, considering alternatives, and issuing of final plans, See: Program Planning.

Plan, Operational: A tactical statement of when and what critical milestones must be passed to attain objectives programmed for a specific period.

Plan, Strategic: The process of comprehensive, integrated program planning which considers, at a minimum the future of current decisions, overall policy, organizational development, and links to operational plans. Strategies are produced which are of vital importance to the outcome of the program, considering the whole integrated set of activities.

Policy: A governing principle, pertaining to goals, objectives, and/or activities. It is a decision on an issue not resolved on the basis of facts and logic only. For example, the policy of expediting drug cases in the courts might be adopted as a basis for reducing the average number of days from arraignment to disposition.

Policy Analysis: Used to help managers understand the extent of the problem or need which exists and to set realistic goals and objectives in response to such problem or need. It may be used to compare actual program activities with the program's legally established purposes in order to ensure legal compliance. See: Policy.

Population: The total number of individuals or objects being analyzed or evaluated. See: Sample.

Priority: Ranking of problems, decisions, projects, programs according to urgency with which they are needed. It often involves ranking related to spending a specified budget. See: Cost-Benefit, Resources.

Process: The programmed, sequenced set of things actually done to carry out a program mission.

Productivity: The relationship between production of an output and one, some, or all of the resource inputs used in accomplishing the assigned task, It is measured as a ratio of output per unit of input over a period of time. It is a measure of efficiency and is usually considered as output per person-hour.

Program: A major endeavor, authorized and funded to achieve a significant purpose, defined in terms of the principal actions/activities required. It may cross organizational lines.

Program Analysis: The analysis of options in relation to goals and objectives, strategies, procedures, and resources by comparing alternatives for proposed and ongoing programs. It embraces the processes involved in program planning and program evaluation. See: Alternative, Analysis, Program Planning, Program Evaluation.

Program Elements: Identifiable tasks or actions which are the building blocks in the program structure.

Program Evaluation: Appraising the efficiency and effectiveness of ongoing or completed programs. It aims at program improvement through comparisons of existing programs with alternative programs and techniques. It uses actual performance data to gauge progress towards program goals and tells whether programs are improving over time.

Program Justification: The narrative and related analyses and statistical presentations supporting a program budget request. It includes: (1) definitions of program objectives, including a rationale as to how the proposed program is expected to help solve the problem and the magnitude of the need, (2) plans for achieving the objectives, and (3) the derivation of the requested appropriation in terms of outputs or workloads showing productivity trends and the distribution of funds among organizational units.

Program Planning: The process of developing a goal-oriented, time phased presentation of each program to provide the Bureau's framework within which the need for individual programs and the levels of output can be validated. See: Planning, Plan; Operational, Plan; Strategic.

Public Program: Program conducted by a Federal, State, or local governmental agency.

Quality Control: A procedure for keeping quality of inputs or outputs to specifications.

Resources: Assets available and anticipated for operations. It includes people, equipment, facilities and other things used to plan, implement and evaluate public programs whether or not paid for directly by public funds.

Sample: A subset of the population. Elements are selected intentionally as a representation of the population being studied. See: Population.

Scoping: Analyzing alternative ways for conducting an evaluation. It is clarifying the validity of issues, the complexity of the assignment, the users of final reports, and the selection of team members to meet the needs of an evaluation. Scoping ends when a major go/no-go decision is made about whether to do the evaluation.

Staffing: Personnel required for a program or a project. See: Cost-Benefit, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Productivity.

Standard: A criterion for evaluating performance and results. It may be a quantity or quality of output to be produced, a rule of conduct to be observed, a model of operation to be adhered to, or a degree of progress towards a goal.

Strategic Evaluation: Is used by managers as an aid to decide which strategy a program should adopt in order to accomplish its goals and objectives at a minimum cost. In addition, strategy evaluation might include alternative specifications of the program design itself, detailing milestone and flow networks, manpower specifications, progress objectives, and budget allocations. See: Evaluation.

Target: An objective (constraint or expected result) set by management to communicate program purpose to operating personnel. For example, it may be a monthly output level to be maintained.

Trend: The change in a series of data over a period of years, remaining after the data have been adjusted to remove seasonal and cyclical fluctuations. For example, the annual timber sales increase in output over a period of several years excluding fluctuations due to the changing demands of the construction industry.

Variables: Variables can be classified into three categories:

• Independent (input, manipulated, treatment, or stimulus) variables, so-called because they are "independent" of the outcome itself; instead, they are presumed to cause, effect, or influence the outcome.

• Dependent (output, outcome, or response) variables, so-called because they are "dependent" on the independent variable: the outcome presumably depends on how these input variables are managed or manipulated.
  
• Control (background, classificatory, or organismic) variables, so-called because they need to be controlled, held constant, or randomized so that their effects are neutralized, cancelled out, or equated for all conditions. Typically included are such factors as age, sex, IQ, SES (socio-economic status), educational level, and motivational level; it is often possible to redefine these particular examples as either independent or dependent variables, according to the intent of the research.

A fourth category often is cited having to do with conceptual states within the organism: intervening variables (higher order constructs). These cannot be directly observed or measured and are hypothetical conceptions intended to explain processes between the stimulus and response. Such concepts as learning, intelligence, perception, motivation, need, self, personality, trait, and feeling illustrate this category.

APPENDIX A

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: ELEMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED

Background of the Problem to be addressed by the Program

       How important is the problem; to whom

       What has been attempted in the past

       Are there any obstacles to be overcome in the development of
        the program

Statement of the Specific Situation to be impacted by Program

       What will the Program NOT do

       Is information available, or is there a need for more information, such as surveys, data, etc. to create a "before" situation                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         before implementation

Need for the Program, emphasizing practical outcomes and results

        Questions to be answered/objectives to be investigated

        What do we believe the actual results will be

        How will we measure performance and outcomes

        How will we know if there are unexpected/unintended results

Initial implementation actions/steps

        Who will be involved

        Locations/sites designated for demonstrations

        Funding and resources

        Agreements, administrative changes, materials, systems necessary

APPENDIX B

PROGRAM EXAMPLE: ORGANIZED CRIME/NARCOTICS (OCN) TRAFFICKING ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

Example 1: OCN Program Description

The Organized Crime Narcotics (OCN) Trafficking Enforcement Program is an effort that provides support to law enforcement and prosecution agencies which develop multi-agency projects to investigate and prosecute major narcotics trafficking conspiracies and offenders. The program is intended to develop successful cases against these multijurisdictional offenses, which require unique, time consuming investigative techniques and where coordination among agencies is essential.

Drug trafficking is a major cause of crime and violence in our nation. The diffusion of responsibility among local, state, and federal law enforcement jurisdictions works to the advantage of criminal groups. Major criminal conspiracies almost invariably span jurisdictional boundaries to the extent that two or more local or state jurisdictions may be required to respond to the same offense or offenders.

In order to avoid a fragmented, duplicative, or less than adequate response to these serious problems, the Organized Crime Narcotics Trafficking Enforcement Program formalizes joint operations by law enforcement agencies which share their crime fighting resources and capabilities. A control group of all participating agencies must unanimously approve investigative matters by agencies involved in a particular investigation. Increased prosecutions are anticipated, along with the prosecution of higher level conspirators and offenders.

Example 2: OCN Program Goal

The goal of the Organized Crime Narcotics Trafficking Enforcement Program is to enhance, through jointly controlled operations, the ability of federal, state, and local criminal justice agencies to remove specifically targeted major organized crime narcotics trafficking conspiracies and offenders through investigation, arrest, prosecution, and conviction. The Program will formally structure and jointly coordinate multijurisdictional activities, resources, and functions of law enforcement and prosecution agencies in the successful investigation and prosecution of complex multijurisdictional crimes and their perpetrators.

Example 3: OCN Program Objectives

1. Investigation, prosecution, and conviction of major multijurisdictional narcotics conspirators.

2. Enhanced recovery of criminal assets (e.g., assets acquired with funds traceable to criminal activity; assets used in the commission of crime; contraband and stolen property).

3. Formulation of a control group that is composed of a representative from each agency participating in the project.

4. Reduction of fractional and duplicative investigations and prosecutions.

Example 4a: OCN Program Activities/Performance Indicators

OBJECTIVE 1: Investigation, prosecution and conviction of major multijurisdictional drug conspirators.

ACTIVITIES:

                A. Case selection: establish case priorities and selection criteria.

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS:

1. # of criminal subjects identified
2. # of criminal activities under investigation
3. # of arrests
4. # of subjects charged
5. # of convictions
6. length of sentence
7. amount of fines

OBJECTIVE 2: Recovery of Criminal assets

ACTIVITIES:

                A. Financial Investigation

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS:

1. Amount of cash seized
2. Amount of marijuana shipments seized (dollars)
3. Amount of real estate connected with narcotics traffickers seized (worth in dollars)
4. Amount of cocaine (and crack cocaine) seized (dollars)
5. Amount of chemicals nd products from illegal labs confiscated (in dollars)
6. # and worth of vehicles, aircraft, boats confiscated by the police through OCN projects
7. Amount of firearms seized by OCN projects

OBJECTIVE 3: Control Group

        ACTIVITIES:

1. Establishes policies and selects cases to be investigated
2. Allocates project resources and jointly monitors OCN investigations.
3. Determines whether proposed cases merit OCN project designation.
4. Incorporates each case presented in a case plan which includes target information, type and level of criminal activities, potential investigative impediments, proposed investigative actions, prosecutive strategy deemed most conducive to success, personnel and equipment needed, and anticipated expenses. Approves, disapproves, or defers action on these candidates for OCN project case designation.
5. Organizes and allocates program resources in accordance with the unique enforcement requirements of their locale.
6. Enhances information sharing, communication, cooperation and understanding between law enforcement and prosecuting agencies.

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS:

1. # of cases presented to the Control Group for consideration and their disposition
2. # of cases managed by the Control Group
3. # of arrests or indictments and the percentage of arrests that result in guilty pleas or convictions.
4. Value in dollars and amount of contraband and forfeitable property seized as a result of task force investigations.
5. The number of criminal organizations and leaders investigated and the results in terms of disruption and elimination.

OBJECTIVE 4: Reduction of fractional and duplicative investigations and prosecutions

ACTIVITIES:

1. Selection of a management system for the coordination and direction of personnel, financial, equipment and technical resources for the investigation of targeted conspirators in support of the strategy.
2. Creation of a management system of shared enforcement resources which:
   
   1. Establishes criteria to identify, select, and prioritize investigative targets.
   2. Assigns cases for initiation of investigation and subsequent prosecution.
   3. Creates a formal mechanism for identification, acquisition, and assignment of resources and skills required in the investigative and prosecutorial process throughout the duration of the case.
   4. Coordinates and monitors the cases to ensure proper timing of investigative and prosecutorial activities, and facilitates decision making concerning case continuance, referrals, refocusing, and closure.

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS:

                        1. # of instances of interagency information exchange.

                        2. # of cases assigned for initiation of investigation and subsequent prosecution.

                        3. Criteria used (specify) to identify, select and prioritize investigative targets.

                        4. Type of management system used (# of members, type of tracking system for cases)

Example 4B: OCN Program Objective/Activity Analysis

Example 5: OCN Program Flow Model

Example 6: OCN Performance Measurement

EXAMPLE 7: STANDARD PROGRAM EVALUATION MODEL

APPENDIX C
COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING (COP) PROGRAM

Program Examples

Example 1: COP Program Description

Our jurisdiction is adopting a new community-oriented philosophy of policing and crime prevention in which the police, other government agencies and the community work together to identify and solve problems of crime and disorder and to improve the quality of life in neighborhoods citywide. The initiative is not strictly a foot patrol program and it is not soft on crime. Crime control and crime prevention are recognized as dual parts of the policing mission. Vigorous and impartial enforcement of the law, rapid response to serious crimes and life-threatening emergencies, and proactive problem solving in the neighborhoods are the foundations of the new policing strategy.

To accomplish these goals, the entire police department is adopting the philosophy of community policing. At the patrol level, teams of rapid response officers and beat officers will be established. Both groups are expected to engage in proactive problem solving, although the rapid response teams will be responsible for the most serious emergencies. This frees up beat officers from constantly handling 911 calls and provides them more time to work with residents in addressing problems on their beats. To provide continuity between police officers and the communities they serve, officers will work the same beat during the same hours each day.

The community is involved at all levels of the strategy. A Community Advisory Committee which identifies district-level issues and problems, and helps set broad priorities will be established in each police district. More specific problem identification and problem solving will be accomplished at the beat level, through community meetings and face-to-face contact with officers on the beat.

Problem solving is formalized through a process known as beat profiling and action planning. Officers create the beat profile by recording the characteristics and chronic problems of their beats and by identifying the resources available to address those problems. Police, other city agencies and the community then use the beat profile to develop specific plans of action. These action plans prioritize problems, identify strategies and provide a means for measuring success.

Recognizing that graffiti, abandoned vehicles and building, malfunctioning street lights and similar problems have an adverse effect on the community and on crime levels, community policing must be made a priority of the entire city government, not just the police department. Police officers and personnel from other city agencies will be crossed-trained in each others' operations, and special procedures for requesting, logging and following up on requests for city services will be established.

The collection and analysis of data at the neighborhood level will be another key element of the program. To assist in this process, each police district will receive a local area network of advanced computer workstations. These computers will allow the districts to analyze and map crime hot spots, to track other neighborhood problems (such as problem liquor establishments) and to share this information with city agencies and the community.

A significant investment must be made in training both officers and supervisors. A curriculum that includes an orientation to community policing, interpersonal communication, problem solving, alliance building and, for sergeants and lieutenants, advanced leadership skills will be presented.

Communicating the new community policing philosophy to members of the police department and to the community-and getting their feedback and suggestions for improvement-are fundamental to the strategy. Ongoing communication includes a newsletter and regular community meetings.

For community policing to be effective in the long term, the police department must change from a largely centralized, incident-driven, crime suppression agency to a more decentralized, customer-driven organization dedicated to solving problems, preventing crime and improving the quality of life in each of the city's neighborhoods. The infrastructure, management practices and entire corporate culture of the Department must be redefined to emphasize and reward organizational and individual behavior that makes a real difference in fighting crime and helping to solve other neighborhood problems. Results, not simply activities, will be the barometer by which all activities will be measured.

Example 2: COP Goals

To improve the quality of life in our neighborhoods by creating an environment that stimulates police, other government agencies and community residents to work closely together to solve problems of crime and neighborhood disorder.

To recognize crime control and crime prevention as dual parts of the policing mission.

To establish a relationship between the community and the police that reduces isolation, opens up avenues of communication and collaboration and embodies shared responsibility for the safety of our neighborhoods.

To change the police department from a largely centralized, incident-driven, crime suppression agency to a more decentralized, customer-driven organization dedicated to solving problems, preventing crime and improving the quality of life in our neighborhoods.

Example 3: COP Objectives

• Deploy personnel in manner that ensures vigorous enforcement of the law and rapid response to all serious crimes and life-threatening emergencies, but also enables the Department to engage in proactive policing activities.

• Provide the time and tools needed for proactive problem solving on our beats and in our neighborhoods.

• Develop a partnership with the community based on open, ongoing, and constructive communication, and aggressively seek input from the community in setting priorities and in developing and implementing crime-fighting and problem-solving strategies at the neighborhood level.

• Maximize communication and coordination with other city services.

• Redefine organizational values and management practices to emphasize and reward organizational and individual behavior that makes a real difference in fighting crime and helping to solve other neighborhood problems.

• Provide recruit and in-service training that emphasizes and reinforces the law enforcement role of our Department and, as importantly, the skills that are critical to the success of community policing.

Example 4a: COP Program Activities

Assign rapid response team cars, whose primary responsibility will be handling serious emergencies, on every watch, in all police districts.

Assign beat officers whose primary responsibility will be handling problems on their beat, to each beat, on every watch, in all police districts. Beat officers will work the same beat during the same watch each day.

Establish and implement a dispatch policy that assigns serious emergencies to rapid response teams, keeps beat officers on their home beat as much as possible, and responds to each call with the appropriate service, whether that be personal, telephonic, or other police response, or through another government or community-based agency.

Develop alternatives to 911 for non-emergency calls and modify the public's expectations of how the Department handles routine services through both public education efforts and the ongoing interaction between Department members and the community.

Formalize problem solving through beat profiling and action planning. Officers create the beat profile by recording the characteristics and chronic problems of their beats and by identifying the resources available to address those problems. Police, other City agencies and the community then use the beat profile to develop specific action plans that prioritize problems, identify strategies and provide a means for measuring success.

Establish Community Advisory Committee in each district.

Hold meetings between the District Commander, the Community Advisory Committee and other relevant parties at least monthly to identify district-level issues and problems and help set broad priorities.

Hold monthly beat-level community meetings, to identify problems and plan solutions, on each beat in every district.

Establish a monthly newsletter concerning community policing activities and a telephone hotline for community policing feedback.

Establish formal relationships with other city service agencies.

Establish procedures for requesting, logging and following up on requests for city services.

Develop city service resource guide and distribute to department members.

Cross-train police officers and personnel from other city agencies in each others' operations.

Decentralize the decision making process so that officers at the beat level have the opportunity and authority to identify and prioritize problems and to make decisions about how to solve them, so that supervisors have the chance to be mentors and motivators and to manage people and resources.

Decentralize data and crime analysis by installing a local area network of advanced computer workstations in each district that will allow district personnel to analyze and map crime hot spots, to track other neighborhood problems (such as problem liquor establishments) and to share this information with the community.

Establish new ways of measuring individual performance that reward initiative and creativity and that are based on results, not just activities.

Initiate better and more consistent career development opportunities that reflect the importance of the patrol officer.

Amend disciplinary process so that it better differentiates between intentional violations of Department values and policies, and mistakes made in a good-faith attempts to solve a problem or serve the community. The disciplinary system must quickly and decisively punish the intentional violators. For people who err unintentionally, it must provide counseling, development and better training.

Develop both recruit and in-service training curricula that emphasizes the law enforcement role of the Department and, communication, team building, problem solving, community outreach and leadership skills. Incorporate components that will enable Department members to develop an intimate understanding of the communities they serve - their cultures and customs, their problems, and their needs.

Develop training curricula for community members that will enable them to develop a deeper understanding and appreciation of police work and a greater willingness to take responsibility for the safety of their own neighborhoods.

Deliver training to supervisors, followed by beat officers, then rapid response officers and finally other department personnel.

Deliver training to community members.

Example 4b: COP Objective/Activity Analysis

Objective 1

Deploy personnel in manner that ensures vigorous enforcement of the law and rapid response to all serious crimes and life-threatening emergencies, but also enables the Department to engage in proactive policing activities.

Related Activities 1

Assign rapid response team cars, whose primary responsibility will be handling serious emergencies, for each watch in all police districts.

Assign beat officers, whose primary responsibility will be handling problems on their beat, to each beat, on every watch, in all police districts. Beat officers will work the same watch each day.

Objective 2

Provide the time and tools needed for proactive problem solving on our beats and in our neighborhoods.

Related Activities 2

Establish and implement a dispatch policy that assigns serious emergencies to rapid response teams, keeps beat officers on their home beat as much as possible, and responds to each call with the most appropriate service, whether that be personal, telephonic, or other police response, or through another government or community-based agency.

Develop alternatives to 911 for non-emergency calls and modify the public's expectations of how the Department handles routine services through both public education efforts and the ongoing interaction between Department members and the community.

Formalize problem solving through beat profiling and action planning. Officers create the beat profile by recording the characteristics and chronic problems of their beats and by identifying the resources available to address those problems. Police, other City agencies and the community then use the beat profile to develop specific action plans that prioritize problems, identify strategies and provide a means for measuring success.

Objective 3

Develop a partnership with the community based on open, ongoing, and constructive communication, and aggressively seek input from the community in setting priorities and in developing and implementing crime-fighting and problem-solving strategies at the neighborhood level.

Related Activities 3

Establish Community Advisory Committees in each district.

Hold meetings between the District Commander, the Community Advisory Committee and other relevant parties at least monthly to identify district-level issues and problems and help set broad priorities.

Hold monthly beat level community meetings, to identify problems and plan solutions, on each beat in every district.

Establish a monthly newsletter concerning community policing activities and a telephone hotline for community policing feedback.

Objective 4

Maximize communication and coordination with other city services.

Related Activities 4

Establish formal relationships with other city service agencies.

Establish procedures for requesting, logging and following up on requests for city services.

Develop city service resource guide and distribute to department members.Cross-train police officers and personnel from other city agencies in each others' operations.

Objective 5

Redefine organizational values and management practices to emphasize and reward organizational and individual behavior that makes a real difference in fighting crime and helping to solve other neighborhood problems.

Related Activities 5

Decentralize the decision making process so that officers at the beat level have the opportunity and authority to identify and prioritize problems and to make decisions about how to solve them, and so that supervisors have the chance to be the mentors and motivators and to manage people and resources.

Decentralize data and crime analysis by installing a local area network of advanced computer workstations in each district that will allow district personnel to analyze and map crime hot spots, to track other neighborhood problems (such as problem liquor establishments) and to share this information with the community.

Establish new ways of measuring individual performance that reward initiative and creativity and that are based on results, not just activities.

Initiate better and more consistent career development opportunities that reflect the importance of the patrol officer.

Amend disciplinary process so that it better differentiates between intentional violations of Department values and policies, and mistakes made in a good-faith attempt to solve a problem for serve the community. The disciplinary system must quickly and decisively punish the intentional violators. For people who err unintentionally, it must provide counseling, development and better training.

Objective 6

Provide recruit and in-service training that emphasizes and reinforces the law enforcement role of our Department and, as importantly, the skills that are critical to the success of community policing.

Related Activities 6

Develop both recruit and in-service training curricula that emphasizes, in addition to the law enforcement role of the Department, communication, team building, problem solving, community outreach and leadership skills. Incorporate components that will enable Department members to develop an intimate understanding of the communities they serve - their cultures and customs, their problems, and their needs.

Develop training curricula for community members that will enable them to develop a deeper understanding and appreciation of police work and a greater willingness to take responsibility for the safety of their own neighborhoods.

Deliver training to supervisors, followed by beat officers, then rapid response officers, and finally other department personnel.

Deliver training to community members.

NOTE: Examples 2 through 4 are used to construct the "Flow Model of Program Structure," which results in Example 5. Although this has not been done for the COP program, see Appendix B, for a completed Example 5.

Example 6: COP Performance Measures

Measures Related to Objective/Related Activities 1

Duty logs reflect a minimum of 5 rapid response team cars operating 1st watch and a minimum of 7 operating 2nd and 3rd watches in each district.

Duty logs reflect two beat officers assigned to each beat, on each watch, in each district.

Duty logs reflect 90% consistency in beat assignment, on each watch, in each district.

Radio dispatch logs reflect an average response time of 3 minutes or better for all emergency, life-threatening calls for service.

Measures Related to Objective/Related Activities 2

Radio dispatch logs reflect 90% of all emergency, life-threatening calls for service dispatched to rapid response teams.

Radio dispatch logs reflect beat integrity (the percentage of calls handled by a beat officers that originate from the officer's assigned beat) of 75% or better, on each watch, in each district.

Reduction in 911 calls for service of 10% during the first year of the program.

Increase in calls for service handled by non-emergency desk of 20% during the first year of the program.

Radio dispatch logs reflect beat officer down time (time in which the officer is handling a call, performing administrative duties, or otherwise unavailable for proactive policing activities) of no more than 50% on 1st and 2nd watches and no more than 75% on 3rd watch in each district.

Standard beat planner containing protocols for developing beat profiles and action plans in use by every beat officer and rapid response team department-wide.

Number of problems identified.

Number of problems solved.

Periodic review of beat profiling and action planning activities as part of individuals performance evaluations.

Measures Related to Objective/Related Activities 3

Community Advisory committee of at least 5 members established in each district by the end of the first monthof the program.

Hold meetings between the District Commander, the Community Advisory Committee and other relevant parties at least monthly in each district; review agenda, minutes and attendance log.

Identify location for beat meetings on each beat in each district by the end of the first month of the program.

Hold beat meetings between beat officers, community residents and other relevant parties at least monthly, on each beat, in every district; review agenda, minutes and attendance log.

Community policing newsletter distributed each household and business address citywide; number of newsletters printed and distributed monthly.

Community policing telephone hotline (800 number) established by the end of the first month of the program; review number of calls received and follow-up action.

Training in policing activities provided to at least 25 community members from each police district during the first year of the program.

Cultural, communication and team building skills training provided to all department members during the first year of the program.

Performance Measures Related to Objective/Related Activities 4

Summit meeting between mayor and all department heads resulting in designated contacts and staff to handle communication and collaboration; review agenda, minutes and attendance log.

Documented procedures for accessing city services.

Resource guide distributed to all departments members by the end of the first program.

One day of training in police activities provided to all designated contacts and service providers during the first year of the program.

One day of training concerning city services provided to all department members during the first year of program.

Number of requests for city services, by type of service.

Number of requests completed, satisfactorily and unsatisfactorily, by type of service.

Performance Measures Related to Objective/Related Activities 5

Formal policy regarding decision making amended and distributed to all department members.

Formal disciplinary policy amended and distributed to all department members.

Computer hardware and software installed in each district by the end of the first month of the program.

Crime incidence/activity maps generated and distributed weekly at roll calls in every district and monthly at all beat and Community Advisory Committee meetings.

Problem solving incorporated into individual performance evaluation process.

Goals, process and timeline established for negotiating salary/contract adjustments for incremental salary increases within the patrol division.

Increase in bids for beat assignments 10% during the first year of the program.

Increase in commendations for problem solving of 100% during the first year of the program, decrease in commendations for arrest activities of 10% during the first year.

Decrease in disciplinary citations of 25% during the first year of the program.

Increase in in-service training days delivered of 50% during the first year of the program.

Performance Measures Related to Objective/Related Activities 6

Cultural, communication and team building skills training provided to all department members during the first year of the program.

One day of training in police activities provided to all designated contacts for and providers of city services during the first year of the program.

One day of training concerning city services provided to all department members during the first year of program.

Training in policing activities provided to at least 25 community members from each police district during the first year of the program.

Increase in in-service training days delivered to department members of 50% during the first year of the program.

NOTE: Examples 2 through 4, combined with Example 5 and the Performance Measures the Example 6 above are used to construct the "Standard Program Evaluation Model," which results in Example7. Although this has not been done for the COP program, see Appendix A, for a completed Example 7.

What are the factors being used to measure the performance of the police?

What is the most important goal for police to achieve?

What is the importance of knowing the principles of management in the police service?

What are those factors affecting the effectiveness of police performance the Philippines?