Evaluation and the Police Supervisor - Second Edition

• NCJ Number: 85714
• Author(s): N H Orr
• Date Published: 1980
• Length: 14 pages
• Corporate Author: Northwestern University Traffic Institute
• Sale Source: Northwestern University Traffic Institute; National Institute of Justice/
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Part of the Supervision Series

Annotation

This discussion of evaluation and the police supervisor provides guidance on how to set standards for judging performance, how to conduct an evaluation interview, and how to improve the job performance of police personnel through the judicious use of evaluation results.

Abstract

The basic purposes of performance evaluation are judgmental and developmental. In the former, the supervisor judges the officer's performance in comparison with a performance standard which may reflect any aspect of competence, judgment, or performance. Evaluation can also be used as a developmental tool to correct weaknesses or improve strengths. Both systematic and informal evaluation processes must meet a number of requirements to be effective. The agency should have defined goals and objectives against which personnel performance can be measured, and the job description of the officer should translate the goals and objectives of the department into tasks. A performance standard should exist for each aspect of performance being rated and for the various levels of performance. Officers should be permitted to review their evaluations, discuss them with their supervisors, and add written comments or disagreements. A basic component of any evaluation process is the observation of officers in as many different situations as possible. The supervisor should collect notes on critical incidents of officer performance and observe officer activity in relation to evaluation criteria. Common evaluation errors are (1) bias, (2) the tendency to rate overall performance according to the officer's strongest performance area, (3) tendency to be lenient in evaluations, and (4) the tendency to rate all officers as average. The key to working with the problem officer is to identify the problem and have the officer understand its impact on the job, followed by any needed counseling and training. The appendixes contain types of performance evaluation systems, factors used in evaluation, and an annotated bibliography of 12 listings.