ROSS TOWNSHIP, Pa. — “It’s ridiculous. They should’ve released it to begin with. Now, he’s falling on a sword, saying we decided to give it up. No, the judge told them this is public record,” said Ross Township resident Frank Colucci.
“We’re not hiding anything. We publicly summarized in a public meeting what was in the report. The main issue we had was the dissemination of misinformation,” said Commissioner Daniel Demarco.
Frank Colucci is a homeowner in Ross Township. He tells Channel 11 that he sued the board of commissioners to make them publicly release the report into the Police Department.
TRENDING NOW:
“When you have a police force that has a vote of no-confidence in their chief, that really makes you wonder what’s going on with your force,” said Colucci.
Commissioners paid an outside consultant to investigate the problems inside the department. We’re told a consultant interviewed the chief, sergeants and other officers. The report details several issues, like a breakdown of communication between police Chief Joseph Ley and other officers.
It identified problems with the promotion process, treatment of a K-9 officer, and concerns about other policies and procedures.
“Those are all issues that are currently being reviewed. We’re going to be addressing everything in that report,” said Daniel Demarco, president of the Ross Township commissioners.
:quality(70)/d1hfln2sfez66z.cloudfront.net/07-19-2022/t_00c7fefe5eb74fe09e0857fa9fe5534d_name_swissvalerocks6pp071922_transfer.jpg){kind=spacer}
He tells Channel 11 that the current police chief is retiring and that they’re interviewing the final two candidates for the job this week.
He says they’ll make their final recommendation to the board by mid-August.
“It’s not going to be overnight that we’re going to be able to address it and implement the solutions,” DeMarco said.
The report came after two different votes of no-confidence in the chief recently.
View the FULL report below:
A STUDY OF THE MANAGEMENT, OPERATIONS AND ISSUES CAUSING CONFLICT WITHIN THE ROSS TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT
Conducted and Prepared by
W. Ronald Smeal
Police Management Consultant
2349 Harvest Ridge Drive, State College, Pennsylvania 16803
Winter 2020 - 2021
FOREWORD
This report presents the findings and recommendations of the Consultant’s study of the management and operations of the Ross Township Police Department, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
Management studies, by their very nature, and particularly when the focus is on conflict, often appear somewhat negative and highly critical of current operating practices and procedures. Since the objective is to look for ways to improve the delivery of police service, shortcomings must be addressed more fully than the positive aspects of police operations, practices and procedures. Therefore, review of this report should be conducted with this understanding in mind.
The Consultant found the Chief and members of the Police Department to be candid, polite and professional. For this, each deserves special recognition. With continued attention, careful study, and implementation of the major recommendations of this report, the Police Department should experience improved function and efficiency.
This study was conducted by W. Ronald Smeal, Police Management Consult and retired Chief of Police of the Northern York County Regional Police Department in Dover, Pennsylvania.
The Consultant thanks the Township of Ross for the opportunity to assist in exploring improvement opportunities of its police services. The cooperation extended to the Consultant by everyone involved is appreciated.
W. Ronald Smeal
Police Management Consultant
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………........... 1 I: CURRENT ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING……………..........…….. 2
E. INTERNAL AFFAIRS……………………………………................ 35
F. PLANNING………………………………………………................. 41
IV:
PERSONNEL AND TRAINING……………………………………............
44
A. PROMOTION……………………………………………................. 44
B. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION………………………................ 46
C. EDUCATION AND TRAINING…………………………................ 48
VI: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................... 58
CHARTS
CHART I......ESTIMATED POLICE PERSONNEL NEEDS BY POPULATION 6
CHART II.....ESTIMATED POLICE PERSONNEL NEEDS BY POPULATION 6
CHART III...ESTIMATED POLICE PERSONNEL NEEDS BY EXPERTS OPINION...7 CHART IV....PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SURVEY 50
TABLES
TABLE 1 Accident Enforcement Index… 17
TABLE 2 Traffic Enforcement Index. 19
TABLE 3 Traffic Enforcement Index – New Officers. 20
TABLE 4 Part I Index Crimes… 21
TABLE 5 Crime Rate Comparisons. 23
TABLE 6 Part II Index Crimes… 24
TABLE 7 Ross Township Crime Rate 28
TABLE 8 Police Cost Overview 26
TABLE 9 Corrective Action 39
TABLE 10 Calls and Arrests. 48
APPENDICES
Job Description Patrol Officer
Conduct
Recognition of Achievement Awards
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study was to conduct a management and operations review of the issues creating conflict and morale issues. Morale is defined as confidence, enthusiasm and discipline of a person or group at a particular time. Trust is defined as a firm belief in the reliability, truth, ability or strength of someone or something. Conflict is defined as a fight, battle, or struggle, especially a prolonged struggle, strife, controversy, quarrel: conflicts between parties, discord of action, feeling, or effect; antagonism or opposition of interests or principles: a conflict of ideas.
Much of the distrust, poor morale and conflict is reported to be directly related to (or came to a breaking point) with the attempt to introduce the Van Meter Performance Evaluation System by the Ross Township Police Department Administration. This study was intended to develop strategies to improve overall management effectiveness and efficiencies of the Police Department and to provide recommendations with ways to improve the Township’s Police Department trust and morale. The study was not intended to investigate the accuracy of every individual complaint expressed by individual police personnel. The Consultant clearly does not have the authority to undertake such an assignment.
Wednesday, November 18, 2020 W. R. Smeal, Police Management Consultant, met with the Township Safety Committee Commissioners, Township Solicitor and Township Manager to discuss the issues related to the needs of the study. The meetings consisted of discussions regarding police operations, and the gathering of data and information necessary to conduct the study. The Chief of Police, two (2) Lieutenants, three (3) Sergeants, one being the Investigations Unit Supervisor, five (5) Police Officers, three (3) Township Safety Committee Members, and the Township Manager were among the primary individuals interviewed.
There were five (5) days of visiting RTPD during January and two (2) days during February, 2021. A review and collection of information involving the management, operations and individual interviews with police personnel encompassed the purpose of the seven (7) days of visits. Information as it relates to the current conflict was gathered. Much of the conflict involves the attempt(s) to introduce the Van Meter Performance Evaluation System. A Draft Study was prepared and a meeting with Township Representatives would be scheduled to review and discuss the draft. Thereafter, a Final Report was delivered.
The Township is located in Allegheny County. In accordance with the 2010 census, Ross Township had a population of 31,105. The 2018 estimated population was 30,487. The 1980 Census appears to be the high point when the population was reported to be 35,102. . The neighboring communities are the Pittsburgh neighborhoods of Summer Hill, Perry North and Brighton Heights, The Township was formed around 1809 and encompasses 14.47 square miles. The Township is mostly a suburban/residential community with three high rise complexes and an abundance of neighborhood communities. In addition, there is a business district on US Route 19 and Babcock Boulevard. There are three major shopping malls, five strip malls and numerous individual businesses on both sides of the road from Babcock Boulevard to Peebles Road.
The study reviewed and evaluated the policies, practices, problems, issues and operations as they relate to the following principles:
Management: goals, objectives setting and evaluation; policy development; written directives; communications and coordinating mechanisms; and supervision.
Management Controls: internal affairs.
Pernonnel Management: job descriptions, promotion and performance evaluation.
Crime Analysis: types and frequencies of analyses; data collection procedures; analytical techniques; dissemination patterns; and feedback and evaluation.
Records: report review; records controls; storage, maintenance, retrieval and retention; information security; privacy and access guidelines; and compliance with Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) and auditing requirements.
Planning and Research: long-range planning; proactive and reactive planning; status of planning in departmental hierarchy and quality of planning products.
Legal Services: use of legal services; legal bulletins and information dissemination.
The study also examined factors that condition the environment in which the Department now operates and is likely to operate in the near future. This includes the incidence of crime and workload trends.
I: CURRENT ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING
Ross Township Police Department provides 24-hour service 7 days a week. The Department works eight (8) hour shifts comprised of a Sergeant or Officer-In-Charge plus two (2) or three (3) Police Officers. Often times there are additional officers working “split shifts” that involve working 8 hours between two regular shifts, 7pm to 3 am – i.e.: evening and midnight. Currently the Police Department is staffed with forty three (43) full-time sworn Police Officers. There is one full-time civilian employee to support the Police Department. A breakdown of police members is as follows:
Chief of Police
2 Lieutenants
8 Sergeants (one of which assigned Detective Division, one assigned Special Programs)
3 Detectives
29 Police Officers (3 Traffic Officers & 3 K-9 Officers)
1 Civilian Office Clerk
The Department provides “Specialty” services of many types in addition to patrol and investigation of criminal incidents. Officers taking a crime report might conduct a follow up investigation or refer it to the Detective for follow-up. Three (3) Officers work Traffic and are Accident Re-constructionists, three (3) work K-9′s and several officers work Narcotics Investigations.
The study reviewed and evaluated the policies, practices, problems, issues and operations of the Ross Township Police Department as they relate to the following principles:
Responsibility must be clearly fixed to ensure that every function of a police agency should provide is performed.
Responsibility for every function that a police agency performs must be clearly assigned to one person.
Functions, which are similar or related in purpose, process, method, or clientele, should be grouped together in one or more units.
Responsibilities, duties and authority of units should be clearly defined and delineated so that accountability can be fixed and duplication of effort and non-performance of duties due to failure to assign can be prevented.
Through written directives, all members of a Department should know responsibilities, duties and authority of units.
Only one person should control each unit and each individual, thus achieving the principle of unity of command and avoiding the friction that results from duplication of direction and supervision.
Names of organizational units should reflect purpose.
Specialized units should exist only if they significantly increase overall departmental capability.
Control channels should exist to enable information to flow up and down, and to enable management to delegate authority, place responsibility, supervise work and coordinate efforts. These channels should be well understood by all members of a Department to ensure that they know to whom they are responsible and who is responsible to them.
Span of control must be broad enough for economical management and supervision, but not so broad that managers and supervisors cannot manage or supervise effectively.
Each assignment or duty must be paralleled by commensurate authority to fulfill the responsibility.
Persons to whom authority is delegated should be held accountable for the use of the authority or the failure to use it.
Current Conditions in the Ross Township Police Department:
Much of the conflict being experienced recently in the Department involves weaknesses involving the above “Principles of Organization”. Subsequently, a division within the officers of the Department has occurred creating what is often referred to as an “A- team” and a “B-team”. The B-team is often fewer in number representing approximately 35% of a Department. One team, feeling that they have little recourse to resolve their concerns within the Police Department, are reported to have taken their issues to some of the Township Commissioners (not the Public Safety Commissioners). Subsequently, the mission, functioning, well being, trust and morale of the Police Department has become conflicted and stressful for both rank and file.
It is noted that, in accordance with Title I Organization, Chapter 4 Chief’s Position Description, B)
Duties and Responsibilities, (1) Management responsibility for the Department as a whole, (a) “The Chief of Police shall be responsible for the overall function of the department”.
The Chief has accomplished much during his soon to be five (5) year tenure. The Chief has certified an officer with Narcan and implemented a Distracted Driving Program for the community. The Department became one of the first in the area to begin Lethality assessments, established a safe exchange location with 24-hour surveillance for internet exchange/custody exchanges. They established a Drug Drop-off box with 24 hour access and appointed a special programs supervisor to oversee special programs. He reorganized the funding of an undercover drug vehicle, developed a drone program, obtained a body worn camera grant and added a third K-9 officer that are just some of his accomplishments. However, these accomplishments have been overshadowed by the discipline, morale and trust issues that seem to consume the entire atmosphere of the department.
The accomplishments being duly noted, the Chief still must accept responsibility for the “overall dysfunction of the Department”. As such, it will be his responsibility to effectuate changes that will improve the overall health and well being of the Department.
Finding:
The overall trust, morale and performance of the Department has deteriorated over the past couple years and is in need of careful evaluation and direction. Immediate attention to polices, practices and procedures that have brought the Department to its current state of affairs must receive attention. The Chief must initiate positive change(s) and establish a new direction. Eventually, positive change will move the Department forward. Change will not come quickly. It will take years.
Recommendation:
Maintain the Department in accordance with the above Principles of Organization.
II MANPOWER AND SERVICES
The first step in evaluating whether Ross Township is receiving efficient and effective police service is to determine the number of officers necessary to service the Township and to staff the Police Department.
The International Association of Chiefs of Police has developed a method for determining patrol force manpower needs based upon the actual or estimated complaint or incident experience in a community. The Consultant has found the IACP method to be most reliable in determining manpower needs. The following procedure determines the level of required patrol officer positions and does not include supervisors, administrators or specialists.
Step 1 – Determine the number of complaints or incidents reported to or by the Police Department in a year. Complaints or incidents include all forms of police activity where an officer responded to a scene and took an official action. It does not include situations where advice is given over the telephone, running errands, doing follow-up work on previously reported incidents, handling internal Police Department matters, etc. The figure used (16,768) was achieved by using the IACP formula to calculate average incidents based upon population. According to the 2018 Census figure, Ross Township had an estimated population of 30,487. The IACP formula states that on average, .55 incidents will occur per 100,000 persons. Documentation of the Police Department incident/complaint data was not examined for accuracy and/or validity.
Step 2 – Multiply the total complaints or incidents by 0.75 (45 minutes). It is generally accepted that 45 minutes is the average time required to handle a complaint or incident (2,436.5 x 0.75 = 1,827.38).
Step 3 – Multiply by three to add a buffer factor and time for preventive patrol. General experience has shown that about one-third of an officer’s time should be spent handling requests for service. Other time requirements for servicing police vehicles, personal relief, eating, supervision, and to complete reporting of incidents on proper forms must be considered. The time required for aggressive preventive patrol should also be considered. Multiplying by three makes up for the aforementioned buffer factors (1,827.38 x 3 = 5,482.14).
Step 4 –Divide the product by 2,920, the number of hours necessary to staff one basic one-officer patrol unit for one year, 365 days x 8 hours. The result of this process represents the number of patrol elements necessary to adequately handle the number of incidents (not the number of police officers) occurring in Ross Township. To determine the number of officers required to staff each patrol element, the assignment/availability factor must be determined. Determining how many hours each year the average police officer is not available for duty on the street, and subtracting that time from the patrol element hours of 2,920 accomplish this for an 8 hour shift.
To determine the number of officers required to staff each patrol element, the assignment/availability factor must be determined. Determining how many hours each year the average police officer is not available for duty on the street and subtracting that time from the patrol element hours is used to accomplish this. Summarized below is that calculation:
8 HOUR SHIFT
Factor Annual Man Hours
Regular Days off (2 days per week)…………………………. 832
Vacation (15 days per year)………………………………….. 120
Holidays (10 days per year)………………………………….. 80
Court Days (5 days per year)………………………………… 40
Training (5 days per year)…………………………………… 40
Sick and injury (5 days per year)……………………………. 40
Miscellaneous leave (1 day per year)..………………………. 8
Total 1,160
(2,920 hours – 1,160 Non-available hours = 1,760 Available hours)
Once the total available hours of the average patrol officer are established, the assignment/availability factor is determined by dividing the available hours into the patrol element requirement of 2,920 hours for an 8 hour shift. In other words, it takes 1.66 police officers to staff each patrol element required to police the community when using an 8 hour shift. This does not include administrators, supervisors or specialists, but does include only patrol personnel.
Chart 4 demonstrates the application of the manpower formula, using IACP formula based upon the population averages for an 8 hour shift. The column marked + A/S/I includes the Ross Township current members (Chief, 2 Lieutenants, 8 Sergeants & 3 Detectives) staffing administration, supervision and investigation positions.
CHART 1
ROSS TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT ESTIMATED POLICE PERSONNEL NEEDS BY POPULATION
INCIDENTS
X.75
X3
DIVIDE BY 2920
X1.66
+A/S/I TOTAL
Recommended Manpower
Population (30487 x .55)
16768 12576 37728 12.92 21.44 14 35.45
Chart 2 demonstrates the application of the IACP manpower formula, using the 2019 Ross Township’s incidents (not Calls for Service), as reported by the Ross Township Police Department for 2019. The 2019 statistics are being used, as they are the most recent total year’s information prior to the COVID pandemic. These 3,037 incident reports include criminal and non-criminal incidents, including the crimes listed in Table I Serious Crimes (2,701) reported under the NIBRS System on page 21 and the Part II Less Serious Crimes (3,412) listed in Table 3 on page 24.
CHART 2
ROSS TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT
ESTIMATED POLICE PERSONNEL NEEDS BY REPORTED INCIDENTS 2019
Incidents
X.75
X3 DIVIDE BY 2920
X1.66
+A/S/I
TOTAL Manpower
3037 2277.7 6833.2 2.34 3.88 14 17.88
Note: RTPD’s 2019 Agency Incident Reports were not reviewed for appropriateness of classification or for accuracy.
There were another 21,541 “Calls” that were not reviewed for appropriateness or accuracy. “Calls” are
NOT considered or used in the above IACP Formula.
Chart 3 follows and illustrates the application of Law Enforcement Experts that opine that it is their position that 20% of all activity will be Criminal in nature and 80 % will be Service in nature. Five (5) years of Ross Township’s record of Incident/NIBRS activity was reviewed. The 2019 record is the most current as the 2020 data was impacted by the COVID pandemic.
CHART 3
ROSS TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT ESTIMATED POLICE PERSONNEL NEEDS BY EXPERTS’ OPINION
Incidents
X.75
X3 DIVIDE BY 2920
X1.66
+A/S/I
TOTAL Manpower
5708 4281 12843 4.4 7.3 14 21.3
Findings:
The aforementioned calculations on Chart I are based upon the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) Population Averages Formula and the Chart II 2019 reported incidents by RTPD. The situation did not provide for verification of incidents reported by the Ross Township Police Department. The Consultant has found that Pennsylvania Police Departments generally report fewer or greater incidents per year than the IACP Population average of .55 per thousand. Many Departments include “Calls” that are not incidents, to include traffic citations, parking tickets, supplemental reports, vacation home and building checks, telephone calls/messages, paying fines and costs, fingerprinting, jail transports, training and a variety of non-obligated activity.
During 2019, RTPD reported 538 Part I and 889 Part II = 1,427 crimes to the Pennsylvania Uniform Crime Reporting System. As reported earlier, Law Enforcement Experts suggest that of all incidents handled, “crime related” incidents commonly account for 20% of a police department’s workload that would calculate to 713.5 crime related incidents and the 80 % or “service related” incidents would calculate to 5,708 incidents. If the experts are correct, RTPD should be handling 6,422 incidents. Also, if the experts are correct, RTPD Police were handling a greater number of crimes (1,427) or a fewer number of non-criminal – service related incidents (4,281) than experts opine. If the RTRPD reported 20%, or 1,427 crimes, and the 80% or 4,281 “Service” incidents = 5,708 total incidents were applied to the Formula, the total manpower needed would be 21.3 Police Officers.
Note: 2020 data was not used due to the COVID pandemic impact on data.
Unfortunately, a precise determination cannot be made about the exact number of Police Personnel needed for the Township, because the “Incident” workload is questionable.
As it now appears, the number of manpower is somewhere between high of 35.44 and low of 17.88 police personnel.
Recommendation:
Calculate the “Assignment/Availability figures on page five (5) with RTPD actual numbers, then along with recommendation two (2), recalculate the formula to determine the Personnel needs.
Review the Incident Report policy and procedure to insure the Department is capturing all “incident” crime and service related incidents and completing Incident reports on this activity as this is the main justification for manpower.
PATROL
Patrol accounts for the biggest portion of police work in most police agencies. The terms “patrolling” and “on patrol” generally refer to what officers do while not handling calls for service. Officers do this mostly in patrol cars, but sometimes on foot, on bicycles, on motorcycles or the like. While on patrol, Officers may look for traffic violations, suspicious behavior, disorder, and unsafe conditions. They may also look for opportunities to interact with the public in casual or more formal settings. This is all considered patrolling.
The time that police officers spend handling calls for service is also considered part of patrol work. Officers on patrol respond to calls, take reports, quell disturbances, and so forth. The combination of these two sets of activities – patrolling and handling calls – occupy most of the time of patrol officers, who in turn represent most of the personnel in a typical police department. Thus, patrol is the main business of policing.
We closely associate the term “patrol” with the police today. New Police Officers are usually assigned to patrol duties and are often called Patrol Officers. The largest unit in most police departments is the patrol division; in small police departments, everyone patrols. When we call for police assistance, whether for an emergency, to report a crime, to quiet a disturbance, or to request some type of routine service, a Patrol Officer is typically dispatched. When we encounter the police in that most ubiquitous of all enforcement situations, a traffic stop, it is usually an Officer on patrol who has stopped us.
The best studies have shown that patrol work combines a variety of crime control, order maintenance, traffic enforcement, and service duties and requests. Of these four (4) commonly used categories, crime control seems to account for the largest portion of calls handled by the police, as well as police encounters with citizens, and pure service accounts for the smallest portion. It must be emphasized that most crime-related calls and encounters involve minor offenses, routine report taking and no arrests (often because a suspect is never identified). Patrol Officers are more likely to take enforcement actions in traffic situations (citations or arrests), in order maintenance than they are in crime related situations.
Technology continues to affect police patrol. Officers now commonly have computers in their cars through which they can check in seconds, vehicle registrations, driving records, criminal records, warrant files, and a host of other databases. Technology has also affected police weaponry, police protective gear, audio and video taping of police-citizen encounters, night vision evidence location and collection, handling of high-speed pursuits, and many other conditions and aspects of the Patrol Officer’s job.
Despite significant changes during the past century or two, the work of Patrol Officers remains very challenging and controversial. Most use-of-force incidents, including deadly force, involve Patrol Officers responding to calls or investigating suspicious situations. Most high-speed chases involve Patrol Officers. The current controversy in the United States surrounding so-called racial profiling or “driving-while-black” centers primarily on the practices of Patrol Officers in stopping and searching vehicles and pedestrians.
Current conditions in the Ross Township Police Department:
The uniformed patrol section’s basic mission is to “prevent crime, and the protection of life and property, preservation of peace, order, and safety; enforcement of all laws and ordinances and the safeguarding of all constitutional guarantees”. In addition, there are a variety of additional tasks and functions enumerated as depicted on the Ross Township Police Department Manual, Procedures, Policies, Memorandum, etc.
The Police Department schedules Police Patrol service with eight (8) hour work shifts. There is a Lieutenant and six (6) Sergeants that supervise the Patrol Officers. During times when a Sergeant is unavailable to supervise, the senior Patrol Officer assumes command as the OIC to cover supervision of a shift. Weather permitting, there are three (3) motorcycle officers that are assigned Traffic. They have specialties such as accident reconstruction. There are three (3) K-9′s that also make up the patrol staffing and they have special duties related to that area of expertise. Report review is conducted by the Shift Supervisor (Sergeant). Follow up on incidents is decided by the Detective’s Supervisory Sergeant. However, most of the NIBRS more serious Criminal Offenses are automatically referred to the Detective for investigation. A Detective also assists an Officer following up on a case if/when needed or requested by a Patrol Officer.
INVESTIGATIONS/DETECTIVE UNIT
The investigation of crime is a basic responsibility of law enforcement officers. However, it should not be viewed as the sole responsibility of the criminal Investigator. To be successful, the investigative effort requires the cooperation of all personnel, but in particular, the uniformed Patrol Officer and the Investigator. The effectiveness of a patrol unit’s proactive strategies, the speed with which it responds to crimes in progress, and the quality of its preliminary investigations all have a major impact on whether or not an offender is ultimately apprehended.
When a call on a criminal matter results in an arrest by a Patrol Officer, the Detective’s role is usually limited to assisting. The Detective assists with filing complaints, recovering property when appropriate, and determining whether arrestees are responsible for other unsolved crimes. When a call on a criminal matter does not result in an arrest by a Patrol Officer, identity of offenders is not known and apprehension of an offender is not imminent, criminal investigators begin follow-up investigations. The responsibility of a Patrol Officer in these instances is to conduct a thorough preliminary investigation, gathering as much information about the nature of the crime and physical evidence as is available and practical. Departments must promote the effectiveness of the preliminary investigations process. This is accomplished by providing field report forms that are structured to ensure that essential information and evidence are sought and by having expert crime scene criminal investigators, evidence specialists, or both.
The Detective will analyze all reports and information supplied by the Patrol Officer, integrating them with the knowledge and experience gained by investigating other similar crimes. The Detective will employ the latest criminalistic techniques, as well as interview and interrogation skills to solve a case.
The Detective must be capable, dedicated and well trained. He/she must develop a close working relationship with the uniformed patrol personnel. This partnership should lead to a continuing exchange of case information and intelligence. If kept informed about current investigations, the Patrol Officer can focus efforts on the most productive areas.
The Investigative Supervisor (typically a Sergeant) must coordinate and manage the entire follow-up process to ensure that a Department’s limited manpower is used in the most productive manner. To maximize investigations’ productivity, which is measured by case clearances, criminal investigations Units should use solvability factors to determine which cases have a reasonable potential for clearance and will, therefore, be followed up. Cases that do not have a potential for clearance should not be followed up. When cases are not followed up, complainants should be so notified and told why the case is not being investigated further. Supervisors must distribute workload equitably, establish guidelines for the amount of time that can be committed to individual investigations, authorize investment of “exceptional” time on investigations and ensure that the case clearances and closures comply with UCR standards. Supervisors must evaluate the performance of the entire Unit and the performance of the individual Investigators.
Investigators must be selected carefully. Selection techniques, both written and oral, should emphasize analytical abilities and interpersonal skills. Tests used for the selection process must be based on job analysis. Once selected, Investigators must be well-trained in interviewing and interrogation; information development and retrieval; planning, organizing and conducting searches; forensics; arrest; case preparation and testimony. Upon appointment, new Criminal Investigators should undergo 80 or more hours of intensive, specialized training. Like other field personnel, Investigators need periodic in-service training to remain up-to-date on evolving legal issues and court decisions and need to become proficient in the use of new procedures and technology. Because of the significance of the preliminary investigation to the ultimate success of the follow-up investigations, field Patrol Officers must also be trained in the same subject areas, though not as in depth as full-time criminal Investigators.
Departments should have Investigators available or on call 24 hours per day, or should establish other flexible arrangements to accommodate investigative requirements at crime scenes. The varying schedules of citizen witnesses and other demands of the investigations process necessitate availability. The authority, responsibilities, policies and procedures of criminal investigation units should be covered by written directive. It is particularly important to establish clear, written directives for areas of great sensitivity. This includes the use of informants; use of Departmental funds, drugs, evidence, and other resources for investigative purposes, confidentiality of information, and especially information that pertains to youth and sexual abuse victims.
Current Conditions in the Ross Township Police Department:
There are four (4) full-time Detectives in the Police Department, one of which is a Sergeant.
The Policy Manual, Title III Operations, Chapter 13, Investigations, details the Procedures for this Unit. The Policy effective date is February 2004.
Finding:
The Policy Manual is silent on the manner in which Detectives are selected for this Unit. Some of the conflict that is occurring is reported to be the manner in which Detectives are selected and the make up of the Oral Board Members favoritism. Although the RTPD Policy Manual is silent, the Rules of the Township of Ross, Rules of the Civil Service Commission dictates the manner in which promotion examinations are to be conducted.
The Department does not track “Conviction Rates”. That issue will be discussed later in this report, III:
Tools for evaluating Department effectiveness in field operations, paragraph E, Conviction Rate, page 23.
Recommendations:
Selection techniques for the Detective position, both written and oral, should be reviewed and consider Officers concerns. Policy should then be reduced to writing, placed in the Police Department Manual with references to the Civil Service Commission Manual.
Consider a rotating “temporary assignment” of Patrol Officers to this Unit on a six month or one year time period. This will strengthen the Investigations Unit as well as provide valuable experience for the Patrol Officer as he returns to patrol. It may also provide the Officer with experience that will help him determine whether or not he wants to become a Detective. At the same time, it provides management the opportunity to evaluate the Officers potential as a Detective and strengthen the Officer’s report writing skills.
REPORTS/RECORDS
A Police Records System must be complete and accurate in its information gathering capability; swift in its ability to deliver needed information, and must be operated at a minimal cost. With such a system, a Police Department may keep a watchful eye on the criminal activities in the community and monitor its own success in suppressing these criminal activities. Without high-quality information, no Police Department can hope to provide the kind of service that the taxpayers deserve.
The basic tool of the modern Police Officer is the police report. It is in this report that the Officer forms the groundwork for an active and successful prosecution of the criminal offender. It also records information that the Officer has taken action on a complaint and has documented his/her reasons for acting or not acting on the complaint. The report also assists the Police Department by providing accurate proof of police activities. In a larger perspective, the individual police report becomes part of a larger tool used by the Department’s Record System. This system is the informational base of a police department.
It is here that the individual Officers deposit their findings in a common pool that other Officers may draw from when necessary. In order for this system and the Police Department to be effective, the system must have the ability to accurately record information and hold it and, conversely, quickly disseminate information when necessary.
Current Conditions in Ross Township Police Department:
This area functions with part-time supervision and/or direction. The Records Section does not receive day-to-day supervisory attention and functions under sub-standard operating procedures. There is one civilian support staff to handle the duties associated with this Unit. There is a Police Officer on limited duty assigned to assist in this Unit.
The Policy Manual devotes little information relating to Records Management and Reporting.
The Records Management System is now handled through Solution Records Management System by
Central Square. The Department’s crime reporting was changed from Uniform Crime Reporting to the
National Incident Based Records System. The Policy Manual still references UCR and does not mention NIBRS.
Findings:
The Department’s Records Section is not in compliance with established professional standards.
Recommendations:
Conduct a workload time study to determine the adequacy of retaining another full-time civilian to function as an “Administrative Assistant” to/for the Chief of Police and assist staff in the Records Section when needed. For certain, a civilian position would be more cost-effective and efficient than having sworn Police Officers perform these duties and functions.
Develop and establish Policy on Records in accordance with the Municipal Records Manual approved on July 16, 1995 and in accordance with Act 428 of 1968, each individual act of disposition shall be approved by resolution of the governing body of the Municipality (Ross Township Commissioners).
Create, publish and deliver to the Public Safety Committee and Manager a “Department Monthly and Annual Report” of relevant crime and personnel activity, special projects, etc. throughout a given month and year. The Report should include any formal discipline (without employee information) regarding the nature of the infraction, finding (founded/unfounded) and the action taken.
POLICY
Policy embodies the philosophies, principles, attitudes, values and intentions of management. It can be expressed orally or in writing, or it can be implied as a result of longstanding practices. Policy guides objective-directed performance. A contemporary, high-quality manual that the IACP uses as a model contains 151 individual policy statements.
The governing body that provides formal authority for the police function establishes basic policy both explicitly and through budgetary allocations. Consistent with the policies of local government, the Police Chief executive should develop policy to guide employees. Where the Police Chief executive is silent, the next lower person in the hierarchy may develop his policy. Where there is no policy established by higher authority, the field Police Officer may develop his own policy, which may not be consistent with that desired by the governing body or Police Chief executive.
Policy is different from rules and procedures. Policy should be stated in broad terms to guide employees. It sets limits of discretion. A policy statement deals with the principles and values that guide the performance of activities directed toward the achievement of agency objectives. A procedure is a way or proceeding – a routine to achieve an objective. Rules significantly reduce or eliminate discretion by specifically stating what must and must not be done.
The difference between policies, procedures and rules might be illustrated in an agency’s decision to
identify the true level of crime. That decision would require an agency policy to report crime honestly.
A number of procedures might then be established to set limits on the conduct of personnel following these procedures. For example, a rule might require a written report each time a patrol car is dispatched to a reported crime, whether a crime is found to have been committed or not.
Policy should be clear and positive so it can be understood by everyone in the organization. Policies are tools for directing employees toward uniform goals and objectives.
If a policy is not in writing, it cannot be considered a firm commitment and personnel cannot be held strictly accountable to it. Some argue that certain policies should be unwritten to protect confidential police operations. Others argue that written policy increases civil liability by identifying a standard of care that may be used against the agency in civil actions. Nevertheless, the value of written policy to police agencies far outweighs any disadvantages.
Written policy provides the employee with guidance and discretion to assist him in determining his course of action and to protect him when he takes that course. Written policy promotes uniformity and aids coordination among individuals and units of the agency. Policy promotes continuity; transmitting the agency’s customs, traditions and heritage to new employees, serving as a training aid for all instructors, and promoting understanding by eliminating the distortion that can result from verbal communication.
Written policy aids supervisors in making fair and consistent decisions. Employees know what is expected of them.
Written policy must include enough detail to ensure that the action it directs will produce the desired result, but not so much detail that it unnecessarily limits the exercise of discretion. Articulating exact expressions of intent or attitude is not an easy task, but this is no excuse for a Police Chief executive not to provide his agency with necessary direction.
Goals and objectives established without formal written policy to guide the agency’s activities will never be achieved. To be effective, policy must cover all areas of the police operation in which direction is needed. Although incomplete written policy is better than no written policy at all, it can be disconcerting to an employee who has to perform on his own. Policy is a guideline for effective decision-making, and the chief executive owes the employee the stability and security of the well- defined policy necessary to make decisions or exercise discretion.
Many Police Chief executives have intentionally avoided establishing written policy in such sensitive areas as the use of force, particularly the use of weapons, because they fear criticism of policy and other repercussions that could follow employee actions within the scope of the policy. However, employee actions are less apt to have adverse consequences if employees are guided by sound, written policy.
Most agencies incorporate their policy statements into the agencies’ written procedures and rules. Policy compiled into a single document offers the advantage of convenience if one is specifically interested only in policy on a given subject. Combining policies, procedures and rules offers the advantage of providing all directions on a given subject in one place is clearly set out in one place, but with the accompanying disadvantage of mixing flexible rules with flexible policy. However, format is not critical as long as policy is in a form understandable to all employees.
Current Conditions in the Ross Township Police Department:
Ross Township Police Department “Manual of Policies, Rules and Regulations” enumerates 155 policies. A second Manual, “Directives/Additions Policy” contains a total of fifty-three (53) directives; six (6) during 2011, three (3) during 2012, five (5) during 2013, two (2) during 2014, one during 2015, six (6) during 2016, eight (8) during 2017, nine (9) during 2018, (6) during 2019 and seven (7) during 2020.
The first section of the Manual of Policies is a compilation of Titles, followed by the Index Section. There is no Indices Section. The pages are not numbered in any coherent manner and it is very difficult to find a specific policy. There are additional areas of policing that require policy that needs added to the Manual. Many, if not most current policies, require update and revision. RTPD is significantly lacking in this area, mostly due to the Manual’s effective dates of 2000 and June 2002. The most recent revision date on a few policies is February 2004 – some seventeen (17) years ago, but for the most part the majority of policy was last visited some nineteen (19 years ago.
One extremely important example is there is no “Job Description” for Police Officer in the Manual, Title I, Organization, Chapter 4, Position Descriptions. However, Title III, Operations, Chapter 2 Patrol Practices, section 203 Patrol Duties, (A) Conduct on Patrol depicts seven (7) pages of information pertaining to Officers. However, this is not a job description. The effective date is 02/04, some seventeen years ago. All Job Descriptions require update including the addition of “Essential Functions of the Position” including civilian employees. Thereafter, they need to be incorporated into the Department Policy Manual.
Administration: Chapter 6 Records and Data Management, 603 Uniform Crime Reports details information related to UCR’s. However, the Department switched to the National Incident Management System - NIBMS some time ago. The Manual is silent on NIMBS.
There is also no Captain position currently on the RTPD or Job Description for this position in the Policy Manual. However, Title IV, Uniform Regulations, discusses Captain five (5) times. Other areas would include, but not be limited to: Records Retention and Destruction, Automated Data Based Information Systems, Performance Evaluation, Probationary Period for new Police Officers, newly promoted Sergeants and Lieutenants, Report Writing, Social Media, etc. are among the needed topics.
The Chief did indicate that he was planning to update the Manual. He specifically mentioned interest in LEXIPOL. Lexipol provides fully developed, state specific policies researched and written by subject matter experts and vetted by attorneys. Their policies are based on nationwide standards and best practices while also incorporating state and federal laws and regulations where appropriate. This Consultant is unfamiliar with this provider.
This Consultant is hesitant to accept a “One Size Fits All” approach that would meet the needs of every individual Police Department regardless of size. Serious consideration and other options should be evaluated and considered prior to determining the direction to be taken in this area.
Evaluation
The RTPD Manual of Rules and Regulations and Manual of Directives are not in compliance with established professional standards.
Recommendations:
Begin an immediate review and revision of the entire Manual of Policies Rules and Regulations. This includes a review and revision of the Manual of Directives/Additions. Make changes and additions as required and described above and throughout this study/report.
Update the Mission Statement through considerable research, thought and input from Department members. In addition, create a list of Core Values for members of the Department. In addition to inclusion in the Manual, place copies of the Mission Statement in a conspicuous place in the Police Department for all sworn members to view and memorize. Periodically question members to repeat the Mission Statement during friendly conversations to assist in creating an esprit de corps. Make certain management including the Chief memorize them also and are able to recite them as well.
Create a “Hard Paper Copy” Manual, with an Indices section of the Manual of Policies Rules and Regulations. Policy/Procedures Manuals, alphabetized, with page numbers for easier referencing of Information. Retain a hard copy of the Manual(s) in the Patrol room.
Involve command and supervisory employees whose units will be working within the policy guidelines to be involved in policy development.
Routinely inspect policy and procedure to update and to insure completeness, accuracy, and training for Department members.
Update all Job Descriptions and include the “Essential Functions” of the position.
Prepare a Job Description for the position of Police Officer to include the Essential Functions of the position. (See Appendix A)
Strongly consider contact and work with Mr. Jim Adams, Accreditation Manager, to receive assistance necessary to achieve Accreditation by the Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association.
There are 127 Police Agencies that have been accredited across the Commonwealth by the Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association according to Mr. Adams, Accreditation Manager of the Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association. Currently, there are eight (8) Agencies in Allegheny County that are accredited. They are Findlay Township, Baldwin Borough, Allegheny County Sherri ff, Point Park University Police, Pittsburgh Police, Allegheny County Police, Duquesne University Police and CMU University Police.
Research, develop and institute a Special Order/Procedure on Report Writing to include
Incident/Offense/Supplemental and other reports. Include a Report Correction Form to be required within the Record Management System.
Reactivate the deleted Performance Evaluation Policy for all sworn RTPD employees.
Create an Open Book Examination of approximately 10 questions on various General/Special Orders and policies adopted by the Department. Officers can access these testing areas during work hours from the Manual available to them in the Patrol Room. Copies of these examinations should be placed in the Officer’s Training File, Training Section. This will document knowledge of the specific areas pertaining to their performance.
The “General Rules of Conduct”, Title III, Chapter 1 require immediate attention. Consider building the Code around the following areas:
Unbecoming Conduct Immoral Conduct
Conformance to Laws Reporting for Duty
Neglect of Duty Fictitious Illness or Injury Reports
Sleeping on Duty Leaving Duty Post
Meals Unsatisfactory Performance
Employment Outside of Department Alcoholic Beverages and Drugs in Police Installation Possession and Use of Drugs
Use of Alcohol on Duty or in Uniform Use of Alcohol Off Duty
Use of Tobacco Insubordination
Conflicting or Illegal Orders Gifts, Gratuities, Bribes or Rewards
Abuse of Position Endorsements and Referrals
Identification Citizen Complaints
Courtesy Requests for Assistance
Associations Visiting prohibited Establishments
Gambling Public Statements and Appearances
Personal Appearances Political Activity
Labor Activity Dissemination of Information
Intervention Departmental Reports
Processing Property and Evidence Abuse of Process
Use of Department Equipment Operating Vehicles
Carrying Firearms Truthfulness
Use of Polygraph, Medical Examinations, Treatment of Persons in Custody Photographs, and Lineups Use of Weapons
Financial Disclosure
Use of Force
Arrest, Search and Seizure
See Appendix B, Code of Conduct
III: TOOLS FOR EVALUATING DEPARTMENT EFFECTIVENESS IN FIELD OPERATIONS
The effectiveness of a Police Department is determined by many factors. The Police Department and the citizens of the community look upon crime and the relative feeling of safety that exists within the jurisdiction as a primary role of the police. There is some question concerning how much impact the police really have on crime. However, we must look at the crime rate, the ability of the police to respond in a timely fashion, the amount of violent crimes (Part I offenses), and the less serious crimes (Part II offenses) occurring in the community as effectiveness measures.
Another important factor is the ability of police to solve crime once it is brought to their attention. This deals with a Police Department’s arrest rate and clearance rate. Yet another factor can be examined by looking at the conviction rate – those cases in which an arrest was made and whether or not a court conviction was achieved.
Patrol is the backbone of any law enforcement agency. The philosophy held by Officers on patrol has very serious ramifications toward accomplishment of the police mission. Studies indicate that Police Departments employing an “aggressive” patrol strategy experience higher arrest rates and lower crime rates for robberies than jurisdictions with a “passive” patrol strategy. Making frequent “street stops” or issuing an above-average number of traffic citations accomplishes this. Generally, if a criminal knows that police are actively stopping suspicious persons and making field checks, or if the criminal sees more police on patrol, he may not commit crime because he perceives that his chances of being caught are greater. This perception will often lower the crime rate in a given jurisdiction.
ACCIDENT ENFORCEMENT INDEX
The Accident Enforcement Index is another measure of effectiveness that can be drawn through an examination of data. Experts (Northwestern Traffic Command Institute) report that for every injury accident, fifteen to twenty (15 - 20) citations should be issued for optimum enforcement. Optimum enforcement is desirable in an effort to reduce injury accidents.
The Ross Township Police Department computerized data indicates the number of traffic citations and specific injury accident data that are included with the “reportable accident” statistics. They were able to provide the following five (5) years information:
TABLE 1:
ROSS TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT ACCIDENT ENFORCEMENT INDEX
Year Citations Issued Injury Accidents Enforcement Index
2016 1574 129 12.2
2017 1586 112 14.2
2018 2012 104 19.3
2019 2609 134 19.5
2020 812 40 20.3
Notes:
Source: Ross Township Police Department Records Section 17.
When considering 2020 data, the COVID pandemic undoubtedly had a tremendous impact on both accident and citation figures.
Citation numbers include special details such as Click It or Ticket.
There were five (5) new additional Officers added during 2019 and 2020 increasing the citations issued by 869 in 2019 and 316 in 2020.
Findings:
The table indicates RTPD’s accident enforcement index during 2016 was 66% of optimum, then increased to 72% of optimum during 2014, moved above optimum during 2018, decreased slightly to 94% of optimum during 2019 and far exceeded optimum during 2020.
Citations issued by RTPD increased five (5) years in a row from 1,574 in 2016, to 2,609 in 2019. The total increase was 1,035 (65.76%) citations over the four-year period. However, 1,191 of those citations were issued by the five (5) new Officers.
Van Meter PES was introduced during the fall of 2018. Without the citations issued by the new Officers, the AEI would have been lower during 2019 and 2020.
Depending whether you consider 15 or 20 citations as optimum enforcement per injury accident, the total five (5) year enforcement record (8,593 divide by 519 = 16.55) suggests a patrol mission that subscribes to an “aggressive patrol strategy” as it relates to reducing injury AEI accidents.
It should be noted that 40.89% (3,514 – 8,593) of these citations were issued by just four (4) Officers. These Officers should be commended for their performance in this area of patrol work.
Injury Accidents investigated by RTPD decreased slightly for two (2) years until 2018 when they experienced an increase of thirty (30) during 2019. During 2020 the decrease was significant – ninety (90) or 78.15%.
Injury Accidents have a five (5) year average of 103.8 per year with an enforcement index of 17.1.
Recommendation:
1. Research, evaluate and consider the causal factors impacting the accident enforcement index as it might have been without the new Officers. However, continue strategies impacting the improving overall index number led by the great efforts of four (4) specific Officers.
VEHICLE CODE ENFORCEMENT INDEX
The Vehicle Code Enforcement Index is another measure of effectiveness that can be drawn through an
examination of data. The following Table provides information regarding the number of vehicles stopped for vehicle code violations, in comparison to the number of citations issued. Officers do have the option to give the vehicle operator a verbal warning, a written warning or a faulty equipment card if the purpose of the vehicle stop was equipment related, for example, a tail light out. This is one of many responsibilities of a Police Officer.
TABLE 2:
ROSS TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT INDEX
Year Vehicle Stops Citations Issued Percentage Index
2016 1691 1574 93..08%
2017 1565 1586 100.01%
2018 2120 2012 94.90%
2019 1941 1740 89.64%
2020 1253 496 39.58%
Source: Ross Township Police Department Records Section
Notes:
When considering 2020 data, the COVID pandemic undoubtedly had an impact on traffic stops.
However, the vehicle stops and citations issued are still a valid comparison to previous years.
Citation numbers include special details such as Click It or Ticket and Officers that have been promoted.
During 2016, twenty-four (24) Officers were working patrol and issued a combined 1,489 traffic citations. During 2017, those same twenty-four (24) Officers issued 1,504 for an increase of fifteen (15) or .01%. During 2018, the numbers increased to 1,895 for another increase of 391 citations or 26%. During 2019, the numbers decreased 207 citations or 10.92% to 1,688 and during 2020 again decreased another 1205 or 71.38%.
During 2018, sixteen (16) of the twenty-three (23) or 69.53% of the Patrol Officers wrote a combined 1,411 (74.46%) of the total 1,895 traffic citations. During 2019, those same Officers wrote a combined 1,061 traffic citations. The decrease was 350 or 24.81% fewer traffic citations.
During 2020, twenty-two (22) of the twenty-three (23) or 95.65% of the Patrol Officers wrote a combined 483 or 45.52% fewer traffic citations than they did during 2019.
During 2019 and 2020, five (5) Officers were newly hired. Their Traffic Enforcement Index appears in Table 3 that follows:
TABLE 3:
ROSS TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT INDEX
NEW OFFICERS
Year Vehicle Stops Citations Issued Percentage Index
2019 1005 869 86.47%
2020 1056 316 29.92%
Source: Ross Township Police Department Records Section
Notes:
When considering 2020 data, the COVID pandemic undoubtedly had a impact on traffic stops. However, the vehicle stops and citations issued are still a valid comparison to previous years.
Citation numbers include special details such as Click It or Ticket.
The new Officers (2 years seniority) percentages of vehicles stopped and citations percentages are lower than senior officer averages while both senior and junior Officers numbers have decreased since 2018.
During 2020, the newest Patrol Officers wrote a combined 316 citations during 2020 or a decrease of 553 - 63.64% fewer traffic citations than they did during 2019.
The junior Officers traffic enforcement efforts decreased 18.12% greater than the senior Officers.
Findings:
The table indicates RTPD’s Vehicle Stops – Citations percentage index during 2016 was 101%, then increased to 107% during 2017, moved down to 103% during 2018, decreased significantly to 83% during 2019 then fell again to 54% during 2020.
Citations issued by RTPD have increased from 1,705 during 2016, to 2,451 during 2019 or 746 (43.75%) over the four-year period.
During the 5 year period (2016 – 2020) the highest number of vehicle stops by an individual Officer was 316 during 2017. If the Officer had no days off he would work 260 days and on average stop 1.2 vehicles per shift. One Officer stopped only one vehicle last year.
Vehicle stops were 62.5% fewer by fifteen (15) of the twenty-three (23) Patrol Officers during 2019. During 2018, those Officers stopped 1,831 vehicles. During 2020, all but one Officer stopped (1,686 – 1,194 = 492 or 29.18%) fewer vehicles.
Six Officers stopped less than twelve (12) vehicles during the entire year of 2020 compared with one Officer stopping only four (4) vehicles during 2019.
Recommendation:
Research and determine what, if anything, in addition to the introduction of the Van Meter Performance Evaluation System might have caused the drop-off in percentages of citations issued/vehicles stopped during the years of 2018 – 2019.
REPORTED PART I INDEX CRIMES
Table 2, Reported Part I Index crimes 2016 – 2020. The table follows and summarizes the number of serious crimes reported to the RTPD during this five (5) year period ending December 31, 2020. Index crimes are commonly used to portray the level and nature of crime in a jurisdiction. Part I crimes include the offenses of murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, and arson.
TABLE 4
ROSS TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT REPORTED PART I INDEX CRIMES
2016-2020
Year
Murder
Rape
Robbery
Assault
Burglary
Larceny Theft Motor Vehicle Theft
Arson
Total
2016 1 2 6 14 45 595 9 0 672
2017 0 3 10 13 19 498 13 0 556
2018 1 1 5 13 30 536 16 1 603
2019 0 2 7 11 17 471 30 0 538
2020 1 2 7 1 15 282 24 0 332
TOTAL 3 10 35 52 126 2382 92 1 2701
Source: RTPD Records Section
A table showing, Allegheny County statistics was not provided due to the Pennsylvania Uniform Crime Reporting System being out-of-service and off-line.
Statistics for 2020 should consider the COVID impact on communities. Findings:
Ross Township’s Index Crimes decreased by 116 from 2016 to 2017, increased by 47 in 2018, then decreased by 65 in 2019, then decreased again by 206 from 2019 to 2020. Overall index crimes decreased by 340 or 50.59% compared to five (5) years earlier.
During that same time period, Index Crimes across the entire County was unable to be provided due to the PSP Uniform Crime Reporting System being off-line and unavailable.
In the Ross Township jurisdiction, the greatest number of Part I crimes (672), were reported in 2016.
Larceny-Theft (2382) was the crime category most frequently reported in Ross. Burglaries
(126) and Motor Vehicle Theft (92) followed as the number two (2) and three (3) crime categories in the Township. Comparisons with the County again are unavailable.
RTPD’ average clearance rate during 2016 was 53.08%; during 2017 it was 50.37%; during
2018 it was 49.11%; during 2019 it was 50.81% and during 2020 it was 59.69%. The five (5) year average clearance rate was 52.61% .
Evaluation:
Comparisons with Allegheny County Statistics and clearance rates were unable to be calculated due to the Uniform Crime Reporting System data compiled by the Pennsylvania State Police, Bureau of Research and Development being down and out-of-service. The last years information available through PSP was 2017. The Consultant does have data from Montgomery County from another study. Montgomery County’s average for 2016 was 36.15% compared with 53.08% for RTPD and 2017, RTPD 2017 Clearance Rate was 50.37% compared to Montgomery County Average of 33.30%.
It appears that RTPD is within professionally acceptable Part I Crime Clearances.
Recommendation:
1. Once the PSP Bureau of Research comes online, make comparisons with Allegheny County average clearance rates to determine whether or not Ross Township Clearance Rate compares with the county average. If Ross clearances are below County average, initiate action plans to bring RTPD up to or near average.
CRIME RATE
A review was conducted of the reported crime in the Ross Township Police Jurisdiction over the past five (5) years from 2016 through 2020 as reported in their figures for the Uniform Crime Report.
Figures compiled by the Pennsylvania State Police, Bureau of Research and Development were unavailable due to their system being out-of-service.
The same review, for the entire County to be able to make comparisons was not possible at the time of this study since PSP Bureau of Research and Development was off-line. This would have allowed Ross to better understand the Crime Trends and Clearances in their jurisdiction in comparison to all the reporting municipalities across the County. It should be noted that the RTPD statistics are included in the Allegheny County statistics.
Crime Rate information follows and provides a formula to indicate a municipalities’ crime rate in numerical terms. The rate is determined by dividing 100,000 by a municipalities population (2010
County census), times the Part I reported Crimes that provides the crime rate in numerical terms. Clearance Rate is determined by dividing the number of crimes cleared by the number of crimes
occurred. This information is as follows:
TABLE 5
CRIME RATE COMPARISONS 2016-2020
MUNICIPALI TY POPULATION CALCULATION PART 1 CRIMES CRIME RATE
YEAR CLEARANCE RATE
Ross Township 3.21 3.21 x 672 2157.12 2016 53.08%
(100,000-31,105)
3.21 x 556
1784.76
2017
50.37
3.21 x 603 1935.63 2018 49.11
3.21 x 538 1726.98 2019 50.81
3.21 x 332 1065.72 2020 59.69
Allegheny County
0.01
.01 x Unkn
2016
(100,000-
1,214,810,000)
2017
2018
2019
2020
Source: Ross Township Records
Findings:
The data suggests that RTPD, over a five (5) year period from 2016 to 2020, has experienced a decrease of 1091.40 or 50.59% in the crime rate, down from 2,157.12 in 2015 to 1,065.72 in 2020.
Ross Township’s average Crime Rate can be compared with the County’s once the PSP Bureau of Research & Development System comes back online.
Evaluation:
From the data examined, Ross Township Police Department’s Crime Classification and reporting and the Investigation of Crime reported to the Uniform Crime Reporting System appears to be acceptable, however, a better assessment can be forthcoming when County data is available for comparison purposes.
CONVICTION RATE
Another measure of effectiveness can be gleaned from a Department’s “conviction rate”. A conviction is the successful prosecution of an offender arrested, charged and prosecuted for committing a crime.
Finding:
Ross Township Police Department does not track conviction rate information regarding the disposition of offenders arrested, charged and tried for committing crimes within their jurisdiction. Therefore, for the purposes of this report, it was not possible to determine the “conviction rate”.
Recommendation:
Include statistical information on crimes being investigated (followed up by Officers/Detectives) on the monthly and annual reports.
REPORTED PART II INDEX CRIME
Table 5, Reported Part II Index Crimes summarizes the less serious crimes reported by the Ross Township Police Department during the five (5) year time period.
TABLE 6
ROSS TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT REPORTED PART II INDEX CRIMES
2016-2020
Crime 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 TOTAL
Other Assault 45 38 36 53 31 203
Forgery 0 0 10 0 0 10
Fraud 158 135 140 110 73 616
Embezzlement 0 0 0 0 0 0
Stolen Property 6 2 4 8 4 24
Vandalism 100 64 55 55 31 305
Weapons 9 6 10 14 7 46
Prostitution 1 1 1 2 0 5
Sex Offenses 12 16 19 19 14 80
Narcotics 96 106 86 188 84 560
Gambling 0 0 0 0 0 0
Family Offenses 9 11 13 11 7 51
DUI 56 52 47 119 37 311
Liquor Laws 2 3 0 1 0 6
Drunkenness 22 13 21 20 9 85
Disorderly Conduct 15 19 18 20 21 93
Vagrancy 0 0 0 0 0 0
All Others 222 190 203 269 133 1017
TOTAL 753 656 663 889 451 3412
Source: Ross Township Police Records Unit converted NIBRS to UCR statistics.
Findings:
Part II crimes increased by 136 or 18.06% in , up from 753 in 2016 to 889 in 2019. The 2020 statistics were, undoubtedly, impacted by COVID.
During the same time period, All Others 1,017, Fraud 616, Narcotics 560, Vandalism 305 and DUI 311 were the top five (4) Part II crimes reported.
In the Ross Township’s jurisdiction, the greatest number of Part I crimes (889), were reported in 2019.
RTPD’s five (5) year average clearance rate was 59.05% (6,113 divided by 3,610 = 59.05%) The County average is unknown and unable to be compared with the Ross average, again due to the PSP System being down.
Total Crime Statistics Notes:
There were 6,113 total crimes ( 2,701 Part I and 3,412 Part II) reported to or observed by Ross Township Police Department during the study period (2016 through 2020).
Serious crimes totaled 44.18% of the total (2701 of 6,113).
Less serious crimes totaled 3,412 or 55.82% of the total (3,412 of 6,113).
Larceny Theft accounted for 88.01% (2,382 of 2,701) of the Part I Serious crime in the Township.
Fraud accounted for 18.05% (616 of 3,412 ) of the Part II Less Serious crime in the Township.
It is unusual that there is only a 711 incident differential between Part I and Part II crimes over the five year (5) period of time. There is normally, many more less serious crimes reported than there are serious Part I crimes reported. That may indicate there is more work occurring and being done than is being captured and reported.
Recommendations:
Study the factors impacting the reporting of Part I and Part II crimes occurring in Ross Township; Develop policies, procedures, assignments, training, etc. that can be implemented to improve the capturing and reporting of crime.
Compare clearance rates with average county clearances once PSP Bureau of Research & Development comes on line and implement improvement of Ross clearance rates that more closely mirror county averages if warranted.
POLICE COST OVERVIEW:
TABLE 7 POLICE COST DATA
ROSS TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT 2020
Police Expenditures $7,268,197.00
Percent of Total Municipal Expenditures
19.01 %
Per Capita Cost for Police Service $238.40
Per Incident Cost for Police Service $7,911.13 to
$776.26
Per Man-Year Cost for Police Service $169,027.83
Per Hour Cost for Police Service $81.26
Cost for Police Leadership Component $1,859,306.10
Cost for Investigative Component $676,111.32
During 2020, the cost per resident using the 2018 estimated population 30,487 (2010 Census 31,105) and budget expenditure of $7,268,197.00 for police service is $238.40.
During 2020, the cost per incident – 3,037 and the annual budget expenditure of $7,268,197.00 is $2,393.22.
The man-year cost during 2020 is $169,027.83 This figure is also determined by dividing the Police Budget ($7,268,197.00) by the total 43 sworn Police Officers.
The hourly cost can be calculated by dividing the total number of hours worked (2080 x 43 = 89,440) annually by all sworn members into the annual budget ($7,268,197.00). Therefore, the hourly cost is $81.26.
The Police Leadership Component Cost during 2020 is $1,859,306.10. This figure is determined by multiplying the man-year cost $169,027.83 times eleven (11) – Chief, 2 Lieutenants and 8 Sergeants.
The Investigative Component Cost during 2020 is $676,111.32. This figure is determined by multiplying the man-year cost $169,027.83 times four (4) Detectives,
The costs associated with each individual element in the Police Department structure can be assessed more accurately by measuring each actual cost. However, for the purposes of this report and the information available, using the man-year cost, is adequate.
The procedure just described is intended to result in an objective-based program budget that will support development of costs of service for each organizational section and for each function within the Police Department. This should increase the awareness of the Police Chief to program costs and his role in managing programs in the most cost-effective manner. The costs associated with each individual element in the Police Department structure can be assessed more accurately by measuring each actual cost. However, for the purposes of this report and the information available, using the man- year cost is adequate.
IV: MANAGEMENT, TECHNICAL AND SUPPORT SERVICES
Management is the process of organizing and using personnel and material resources to accomplish objectives. The management process comprises a comprehensive and diverse array of functions.
Among the most essential are setting organizational objectives; organizing programs to achieve objectives; assembling staff and other resources required to conduct programs; establishing policies and procedures to govern programs; directing programs through written directives, internal communications and supervision; and controlling programs to ensure compliance with policies and procedures.
The Chief of the Ross Township Police Department bears ultimate responsibility for achieving objectives and for the effectiveness of the management process. Because the Chief cannot be omnipresent nor conduct the management process by himself, responsibility must be delegated to division and section commanders and supervisors. To manage the Department effectively, the Chief and his delegates must have the support of a number of executive or administrative services, principally, research and planning, legal counsel, public information and fiscal management.
Management is a science and outstanding management training for police organizations is readily available. A Manager plans, organizes and controls the efforts of an organization. He or she focuses on function, facts and priorities.
Lee P. Brown, past President of the IACP once stated: “A leader is a visionary, charting a course for the organization then guiding it toward the chosen destination. A leader influences others to achieve stated purposes and reach the goals that are consistent with established values. Courageous individuals, leaders are those who dream and have the ability not only to share their dream with others, but to translate the dream into reality”
ORGANIZATIONAL OBJECTIVES
Objectives are ultimate ends that police agencies strive to achieve. Although objectives are not immutable, they do not change substantially over time. Crime prevention, apprehension of offenders, clearance of crimes, and recovery of property, locating missing persons, and protecting constitutional guarantees has long characterized the police function. In both theory and practice, objectives are often referred to as goals. They are also referred to as outcomes. Although there are technical distinctions, these terms are used synonymously in this report.
Objectives, by definition, are prerequisite to managing by objectives. Their existence allows all management functions to be directed toward their achievement. Objectives should exist for a Department as a whole and for each division, section and unit within it. Logical relationships must exist between and among levels of objectives. Division objectives, for example, should connect, integrate and in some instances be identical with objectives of a Department. Objectives must be started with sufficient precision to yield to valid measurement. Agencies must measure the degree to which objectives are achieved, which is effectiveness, and the cost incurred to achieve objectives, which is productivity.
Most agencies prepare objectives, mainly to satisfy municipal-level budgeting requirements. Agencies normally assign the development task to a budget or planning unit and require only perfunctory involvement of operating personnel. Few agencies exploit the management, evaluation and performance measurement potential of objectives. This defeats the entire purpose of efforts that are made.
Current Conditions in the Ross Township Police Department:
There is nothing written in the Policy Manual dealing with this area.
Evaluation:
None.
Recommendations:
To strengthen its system of organizational objectives, the Department should consider the following actions:
Develop a structure of organizational objectives.
The structure must include objectives for the Department and for each Unit. The objectives must specify the ultimate outcomes that the Department and the sub-divisional organizational Units wish to achieve. The objectives must be measurable. Particular attention should be directed to Patrol, Investigation/Detective and Records.
Develop one or more measures of achievement for each objective in the structure.
Effectiveness measures are most important. Productivity, efficiency and workload measures are also important since they have many additional valuable managerial uses.
Responsibility for developing and implementing the system of objectives and measures should be assigned to the Department’s command staff (Lieutenants and Sergeants).
The Chief, Lieutenant and Sergeants should be trained to use the objectives and measures for the foregoing management process.
INTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS
A variety of techniques should be used, in addition to written directives, to communicate intended objectives, policies and procedures to Department personnel. Those found to be effective, when properly designed and administered, are staff meetings, distribution of staff meeting summaries and/or similar in-house communications media; roll-call discussions; work site and field visits by the Chief of Police and other departmental executives; major events, such as awards presentations, which rank-and-file employees are expected to attend; and frequent interaction, both formal and informal, between police executives and benevolent, Fraternal Order of Police or union association representatives. While these communication mechanisms are designed to help Department Commanders and Supervisors communicate and direct downward, a number of them provide a simultaneous opportunity for rank- and-file officers and employees to communicate upwards – to ask questions, make comments and generally express feelings and concerns. A Department should take every opportunity to use these situations and mechanisms to improve upward communications.
As a medium for directing departmental operations, the importance and potential of staff meetings cannot be overemphasized. Staff meetings provide face-to-face opportunities for managers to communicate intent and explain rationales. In addition, the meetings transmit facts, and provide opportunities for staff to comment on operations and their effectiveness. They also provide opportunity to discuss and resolve specific problems and policy proposals and to express ideas that can contribute to the progress of an agency. Contributing tends to promote satisfaction and a sense of accomplishment among staff. Through participation, subordinates tend to identify with organizational objectives and endorse management plans.
In most departments, only senior Officers attend or have staff meetings. This should not nor need not be the case. Staff meetings should be held at all levels of a police agency. Staff meetings should follow regular schedules and prepared agendas. Written minutes should be kept. Minutes of previous meetings should be reviewed as a matter of regular business. This ensures automatic review of previously discussed matters and provides the basics for determining whether controlling actions have been taken between meetings.
Stable departments require fewer meetings than those undergoing reorganization, rapid growth or other forms of transition. Frequent meetings are desirable when new systems or programs are being planned or introduced. Departments should modify standard schedules of meetings as conditions warrant, either increasing or decreasing the number. It is preferable to err on the high side when determining frequency of meetings, since redundant communication is preferable to under- communication. At the same time, care must be taken to avoid scheduling meetings so frequently that participants lose valuable time unnecessarily.
Current Conditions in Ross Township Police Department:
Communication has become a significant issue within the Police Department. There is very little positive verbal communication or interaction between and among management, supervision and rank and file Officers. Communication via the computer email system is reported to be the dominant manner of communication. Face to face, eye to eye communication is reported to be limited to only when it is unavoidable. If accurate, this is problematic.
Indications are that there has not been a staff meeting or awards ceremony in more than a year. There are accusations of differential treatment by the Chief and Lieutenants. Sharp words are reported to have been uttered toward subordinates and critical one-on-one conversations regarding an individual’s performance are reported to have occurred with others around rather than in private. Letters/emails have been exchanged rather than in person meetings. Each blame the other for the situation(s).
Note: A long time ago, a Detective and I were discussing matters similar to this about one of our superiors. The detective said " Lieutenant, “words are like bullets, once they leave your mouth, you can’t take them back”! I never forgot our discussion. It seems appropriate here.
There are indications that some of the Officers are going around the chain-of-command directly to Township Supervisor(s). This is exceptionally problematic and will be discussed later in this report.
There appears to be no standing committees, such as policy, planning, awards, and/or drug investigations that enable management and non-management personnel to work together on any issue regardless of its importance. The exception is the Officers of the Police Bargaining Association that meet with Township Officials to air their complaints and on contractual matters. Concerns were expressed about some Police Department members going outside the Department Chain of Command to some of the Township Supervisor(s) to express their complaints. Unfortunately, this tends to be oriented more toward adversarial relationships than it does toward harmonious relationships within the Police Department and the Township.
Finding:
The Department appears to utilize very few of the internal communications mechanisms available. They have limited use of internal communications and opportunities. Internal Communications have deteriorated the forums of up-and-down communications.
The Department has not developed or instituted a strong Internal Communications System and is not in compliance with established professional standards.
Recommendations:
Immediately initiate and use the above internal communication mechanisms.
All Police members should follow the Police Manual and Directives as they perform their duties. Complaints and/or concerns should be addressed through the Chain-of-Command and grievance procedures.
Township Commissioners (other than the Public Safety Committee) and staff that may or may not be approached by Police Officers regarding police matters/working conditions/complaints, should direct those Police Officer(s) back to their Chain-of-Command, then advise the Township Manager/Public Safety Committee, who in-turn, should advise the Chief of Police about the incident. This is not to impose on or fail to recognize normal conversation involving non-police matters and/or any Officers’ right to Free Speech.
Review the RTPD Directive Number 13-002, issued by Chief R. Bellan. This Directive “Awards and Department Recognition” states that it was to be added to the Department’s Manual of Policies, Rules and Regulations, Title II Administration, Chapter 1 Personnel Policies, to the address Awards and Department Recognition. There is no such mention of this Section/Directive in the Manual.
Establish an “Awards Review Board” consisting of one member of the Ross Township Public
Safety Committee (who shall act as Chairman), the Chief of Police, one Supervisor and two Police Officers. All awards granted by the ARB should be presented with appropriate ceremony and publicity. Presentation of awards (badges) should take place at the Ross Township Municipal Headquarters at the regular scheduled meeting of the Township Commissioners. The following awards might be awarded by the Chief and added to their recipients’ permanent personnel file, without approval of the AWB:
Safe Driving Award
Life Saving Award
Good Conduct Award
Officer of the Year Award
Perfect Attendance Award
Advanced Certification Award
Service Award
Years of Service Award
Marksmanship Award
Letter of Commendation Award
Field Training Officer Award
The Awards Review Board should include and make such awards available to sworn personnel as follows:
Medal of Valor:
Award of Merit:
Public Safety Committees’ or Chief’s Commendation:
Award for Injury in Line of Duty:
Marksmanship Award:
Service Award:
Safe Driving Award:
Life Saving Award:
Years of Service Award:
Good Conduct Award:
Perfect Attendance Award:
Advanced Certification Award:
Officer of the Year Award:
Field Training Officer Award:
The Awards Review Board should include Awards for/to non-members of Ross Township Police Department. The following topics could be considered:
Meritorious Service Certificate:
Certificate of Appreciation:
Note: See Appendix 3 for an example of Policy for the aforementioned Recognition of Achievement Awards.
Command and Supervisors should remember to condemn subordinates in private and praise in public.
The Chief, Lieutenants and Sergeants should review the article “Improving Motivation and
Productivity of Police Officers” by Chief Fortenbery, Edenton, North Carolina Police Department found online at https://leb.fbi.gov/articles/improving-motivation-and-productivity- of-police-officers.
Take a 2″ x 2″ facial photograph, of all Officers, in uniform and civilian employees. Place the photographs in a conspicuous location in the Police Department Lobby.
Take an 8″ x 10″ photograph of the Officer Of The Year, framed it and place it in a conspicuous location in the Police Department. Replace it from year to year with the annual award recipient.
SUPERVISION
First-line supervisors are critical links in the direction process. Being closest to those who actually administer most police services and who are directly responsible for their performance, it is the first- line Supervisors who must ensure on a day-to-day basis that objectives are being met and that policies and procedures are being carried out as intended. To do so, Supervisors must be thoroughly conversant with Departmental objectives, policies and procedures that pertain to their areas of supervision and with the jobs to be performed by those supervised. They must monitor and evaluate the performance of personnel and must correct and teach when personnel do not perform as required. The most influential supervisor in a police agency is the Patrol Supervisor, usually a Field Sergeant. The Patrol Supervisor normally has more personnel to manage than other Supervisors. He or she controls effectively, or ineffectively, the actions of those police employees who are most often and most directly involved in the delivery of police services.
To produce Supervisors who can direct effectively, a Police Department must take a series of deliberate actions. It must administer promotional examinations and employ selection procedures that validly and accurately measure supervisory skills and potential. The procedures include the following: provide extensive training to those appointed to supervisory positions; make clear that Supervisors are part of the management structure and will be held accountable for exercising the authority granted to them; use formal, structured, evaluation methods to measure and assess Supervisory performance; give Supervisors the tools they need to systematically diagnose and evaluate the performance and needs of their subordinates; correct inadequate performance (this should also be accomplished through a formal, structured system of performance evaluation); and Supervisors must be provided time to evaluate subordinates and correct deficiencies through training. When Supervisors must spend most or all of a shift on emergencies, other duties, effective direction, evaluation and training cannot occur. For Supervisors to train effectively, Officers must have sufficient free time to be trained.
Current Conditions in Ross Township Police Department:
There are ten (10) command and supervisory positions in the Department, two (2) Lieutenants and eight (8) Sergeants. One of the Sergeants has been off duty due to a medical procedure. During times when a Shift Supervisor (Sergeant) is not working, a senior Officer will assume supervision of the shift in the capacity of Officer-in-Charge. The OIC receives Sergeant salary when working in that capacity. There are times when two (2) Sergeants are working the same shift. When this occurs, the senior Sergeant is in command.
The Lieutenants and Sergeants have outdated job descriptions that will be discussed in a later portion of this report.
There is a definite split between several first-line Supervisors (Sergeants) and the Command Officers (Lieutenants and Chief of Police). This is a very problematic situation that is in need of immediate and continued attention.
Finding:
The Department subscribes several journals and publications, but not additional informative ones such as, but not limited to Americans for Effective Law Enforcement, The Effective Executive, Labor Contract Law Bulletin, etc.
The atmosphere has become so conflicted that there have been no staff meetings. Communications and discussions, for the most part, are primarily around corrective measures and negative issues.
Several of the Sergeants have reached or are near retirement and the Lieutenants are around mid career. There is significant disagreement concerning the Lieutenants’ performance and the Van Meter Performance Evaluation System. It appears that most everything the Lieutenants and Chief attempt to do is met with opposition.
The Supervision of RTPD is not in compliance with professionally accepted standards.
Recommendations:
Become familiar with and practice the “Principles of Quality Leadership”:
Believe in, foster and support TEAMWORK.
Be committed to the PROBLEM-SOLVING process; use it and let DATA, not emotions, drive decisions.
Seek employees’ INPUT before making key decisions.
Believe that the best way to improve the quality of work or service is to ASK and LISTEN to employees who are doing the work.
Strive to develop mutual RESPECT and TRUST among employees.
Have a CUSTOMER orientation with focus toward employees and citizens.
Manage on the BEHAVIOR of 95 percent of employees and not on the 5 percent who cause problems. Deal with the 5 percent.
Improve SYSTEMS and examine PROCESSES before placing blame on people.
Avoid “top-down” POWER ORIENTED decision making when possible.
Encourage CREATIVITY through RISK TAKING, and be TOLERANT of honest MISTAKES.
Be a FACILITATOR and COACH. Develop an OPEN atmosphere that encourages providing and accepting FEEDBACK.
With TEAMWORK, develop with employees the agreed upon GOALS and a PLAN to achieve them.
Prior to future promotions, evaluate the current “Span of Control”. The Department Command 33.
Supervisory Personnel account for 25.58% of the Department’s total manpower.
Purchase relevant publications and make them available and required reading for the Supervisors and Officers of the Department.
Involve Sergeants in other areas such as the Planning Committee, Awards Committee, etc. as mentioned in other sections of this report.
MANAGEMENT CONTROLS
Results are not achieved only by issuing orders, or by directing an objective to be achieved, a plan implemented, or a task undertaken. To achieve a desired end, management must do more than direct. It must control. Control is the process of ensuring that policies, procedures and operations correspond to the intent and directives of management. Control is part of a larger four-step process. Determining what results or objectives are to be achieved and selecting policies, procedures, and operations to achieve them is the first step. Issuing directions designed to produce the desired results is the second step. Monitoring the operations to identify undesirable deviations is the third step. If operations are proceeding as planned and monitoring does not disclose deviations, there is no need for action. If the monitoring discloses deviations or side effects, then action must be taken. Correcting the deviation, or undertaking some other course of action designed to promote success, is the fourth step. The last two steps are the elements of control. Line inspections, staff inspections and internal affairs reviews are three (3) forms of management controls that should be administered in every Police Department.
The inspections process is designed to observe, evaluate and record flaws in the application of sanctioned policies and procedures and in use of human and material resources to accomplish the Departmental mission. Line and staff are two types of inspections in the police service. Supervisors in the regular course of activities should perform line inspections. Though line inspections are commonly associated with patrol, line inspections should be conducted by Supervisors at all levels in all Units.
The appearance of subordinates, the condition of equipment, the completeness of the orders manual and officer demeanor with the public, typify the focus of line inspections. Written line inspections in the instances of major or continuing problems should produce reports. When training or some other remedy is in order, it must be approved at executive levels.
Staff inspections are essentially “independent audits.” Members of a Special Unit, in the name of the Chief of Police, should perform them. Staff inspections should focus on the degree to which established policies and procedures have been implemented properly, the degree to which orders are being carried out and upon the proper or improper use of personnel and material resources.
Organizational units should be inspected bi-annually, at a minimum. Written reports of findings and recommendations should be prepared for the Chief of Police subsequent to every inspection. He should share reports with executive staff and the Commanders of Units that are to be inspected, except in cases of extreme sensitivity and where confidentiality is required. Unit Supervisors should be required to evaluate and comment on reports, especially when findings are negative and/or recommendations seem questionable. Timetables should be established for corrective actions in all situations where such actions are preferred.
There is a common feeling among police administrators that close proximity to subordinates reduces or eliminates the need for continuing the inspection process. This belief is especially prevalent in small agencies, but is without basis. Police administrators should hold all Supervisors responsible for line inspections. The Chief of Police should also assign responsibility for staff inspections to a command individual who has a comprehensive understanding of the Department as well as the Department’s policies and procedures. Members of a Department should view inspections as a normal and desirable administrative activity. They should be completely informed about reasons for inspections, the nature of inspection procedures to be used, and the consequences, which will follow when deficiencies are noted and reported. Covert inspections should be conducted only when a probability exists that very serious conditions detrimental to the best interests of a Department are present. Even then, covert inspections should be conducted only under the immediate direction of the Chief of Police. Although covert inspections usually unearth a greater number of defects than open inspections, they also engender serious morale problems when used routinely. Covert inspections should be resorted to only when it is absolutely necessary to protect the Department from grave public embarrassment. For the most part, open inspections, known and anticipated by the employees, will produce desired remedial results.
Current Conditions in the Ross Township Police Department:
The Department does not have a formal, comprehensive, agency wide inspections program. The Patrol Officers do limited inspections (inspecting vehicles for damage and operating condition). The inspections program utilized for the most part is an informal one of dealing with issues as they may become apparent from time to time.
Finding
Formal Line and Staff inspections are nonexistent. Accordingly, the Department fails to comply with professional standards in this area. Absence of line and staff inspections is mainly attributable to the common and mistaken perception that small agencies do not require the formal, structured inspections program necessary in larger Departments. Every agency, regardless of size, must have organized, systematically administered management controls.
Recommendations:
To strengthen the inspections process, the Department should consider the following actions:
Formally establish a line and staff inspections program. Line inspections could be the responsibility of a Sergeant (perhaps the Special Programs Sergeant).
Prepare a written directive to govern line and staff inspections. The directive should cover objectives, procedures, and criteria to identify those inspections. Inspections require a written report and follow-up procedures to ensure corrective action is taken with provisions for inspection of every organizational component at least every other year. The Records Section would be a good start.
Arrange for all Sergeants to attend a workshop on the inspections function.
INTERNAL AFFAIRS
A Police Department cannot be successful for very long without public belief in its integrity. Integrity is demonstrated and protected through a strong, fair and responsive Internal Affairs process. This gives notice to both the community and members of the Department that an agency is willing to “police its own.” It is Management’s way of demonstrating that Officers and civilian employees will be held accountable for complying with sanctioned forms of behavior and punished for violating them.
A Police Department should have a central Internal Affairs Unit or Officer. The Unit or Officer reports directly to the Chief of Police, when practical. Principal functions of the Unit or Officer should be to receive, record, process, investigate and control complaints against employees. Adequate resources must be devoted to the Internal Affairs function. Internal Affairs must have a positive emphasis.
Management should view Internal Affairs as a proactive tool to achieve positive results. Police Officers, normally skeptical about Internal Affairs procedures, usually respond in a highly professional manner to an affirmative process as long as the rules are clear, fair and applied consistently. Too often, the function is managed in a way that reduces morale and motivation and strains community relations. In many agencies it is mysterious and burdensome, appearing deliberately designed to discourage complaints. Citizens have also traditionally been suspicious of the Internal Affairs process. When an informed public believes that its Police Department will investigate all allegations of misconduct against its members honestly and fairly, it will be less likely to become prematurely indignant or seek redress elsewhere.
A Police Department should have a simple and efficient system for receiving and processing complaints. Once a complaint has been received, from either inside or outside the agency, it must be investigated thoroughly and impartially and in a timely manner. Anonymous complaints should be handled in the same manner as any other. Frivolous allegations should be screened out during the preliminary investigation. Minor complaints should be referred to an employee’s supervisor. The Internal Affairs Unit should handle serious allegations. Internal Affairs should maintain staff control over all investigations, even when complaints have been referred. The Department must take positive steps to be sure that the public understands how the Internal Affairs process works. Citizens should be notified when complaints are being investigated and advised of the outcome. The investigative phase is the most critical part of the Internal Affairs process. Both the public and the employee must be satisfied that the investigation is thorough and fair. An Officer should be advised promptly when a complaint of misconduct is received, except in those cases where it would jeopardize the investigation. A Department must have a procedure for temporarily relieving employees from duty when charges dictate such action. This form of supervision is to be distinguished from one imposed as punishment following a final determination of misconduct. Neither Officers nor civilian employees have a constitutional right to counsel during an internal investigation, although Departmental policy or labor contracts often establish the privilege. Officers can be ordered to answer questions and submit to a polygraph test. When criminal prosecution is contemplated, Miranda guidelines apply. A search warrant or voluntary agreement is required to search an Officer’s home or personal vehicle. Search of a locker or Department office requires neither.
When an internal investigation sustains an allegation of misconduct, formal charges should be filed. Filing officially notifies Officers that they are being charged with violations of Departmental rules, explains the nature of the charges and advises what procedural steps can be taken to answer them. Police misconduct may constitute violation of both criminal law and Departmental policy. In most jurisdictions, criminal and administrative procedures are entirely separate and distinct. An acquittal on criminal charges does not prevent a Department from taking disciplinary action against an Officer based on the same conduct. The laws of most states, as well as federal due process standards, require that an Officer be allowed a hearing on disciplinary charges at some point before discipline becomes final. A court reviewing an appeal of a Department’s disciplinary action will only examine a written record. Generally, a court will not consider new evidence. As a result, although adherence to strict rules of evidence is not required in an administrative hearing, a verbatim record should be kept with the hearing board clearly stating the evidence on which its decision is based. As with any important administrative decision, a Chief is well advised to consult with various levels of his staff before imposing penalties.
Internal Affairs policies and procedures and the functioning of the Internal Affairs Unit or Officer should be formalized in a written directive.
Current Conditions in the Ross Township Police Department:
For the most part, responsibility for Internal Affairs is documented in the Manual of Policies, Rules and Regulations,TITLE 1, ORGANIZATION, Chapter 4, “Position Description for Chief of Police”, paragraph B (5) and (6). B 5 states “Disposition of civilian complaints (a) The Chief of police shall be ultimately responsible for the dispositions of civilian complaints. The Chief may, at his discretion, delegate the investigation of these complaints to other staff members”. Number 6 states “Disposition of disciplinary matters (a) The Chief of police shall be ultimately responsible for dispositions in disciplinary matters. The Chief indicated that he and the Lieutenants have attended one-day seminars on internal investigations but no in-depth training has been attended.
There is a “perception” by several Officers that they are being mistreated by the Chief and Lieutenants, and that they (25 officers) have no confidence in the Chief according to a memorandum sent to the Township Commissioners. In addition, it is believed that some of the Officers go directly to some of the Elected Commissioners with rumors and complaints. The result, if true, is a disregard of Policy by going around the Police Command - Chief and Lieutenants.
Officers cited examples of “dis parent treatment” by Administration. One example involved the issue of Lying. One Officer was offered the option to resign or be terminated while the other Officer received nothing according to some Officers. However, the complaining Officer(s) were only aware of part of the facts. Corrective Action/Discipline is a personnel matter and as such is confidential. It is not appropriate for other Officers to have knowledge of exactly how Administration specifically handles corrective action. Personnel files are confidential. It sometimes comes down to the unfortunate rumor mill and an opportunity to express dissatisfaction with management. This is an example of why Township Commissioners should be aware of “all” information.
The policy of not working more than 16 hours in a 24 hour period was discussed. Corrective Action was taken that involved one Officer working one hour over while another involving six (6) hours over was ignored. Again, there are mitigating circumstances in many issues that seem similar but are different. However, if this situation is factual, it is an error in Administration’s judgment.
Other issues such as, but not limited to, vehicle assignments, scheduling, overtime, seniority and hiring practices were referenced. There is a significant number of differential opinions about much of what occurs in the Police Department. One might argue that several Sergeants and Officers opine that nothing is being handled correctly.
The Chief indicated that the Department has not experienced an outside citizen complaint regarding the conduct of any Ross Township Police Officer in a long time. Subsequently, the formal Internal Affairs 37.
Investigations have involved Internal, self-inflicted Complaints and Policy Manual Violations.
There are many grievances being initiated by Officers. Again, it was learned that some Officers go around the chain-of-command and the grievance procedure directly to several Township Commissioners. One serious discipline issue was reversed without the Chief’s knowledge. In addition, either the Board of Supervisors received poor advice from their Labor Attorney, they did not adhere to the Labor Attorney’s advice, or the Labor Attorney did not have knowledge of the Commissioner’s actions.
Whatever the situation, by the Board of Commissioners usurping the Chief’s participation and non-use of the grievance procedure in this matter, the Chief’s authority and ability to be responsible for the Department has been seriously diminished. This behind the scene involvement could have negative reverberations. For example, should the Chief withdraw from his duties and responsibilities, the Township might experience Vicarious Liability issues that could be very costly, and could bring negative media coverage with it.
The following Table summarizes the Discipline over the last five years related to current employees.
TABLE 8 CORRECTIVE ACTION
ROSS TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT 2016-2020
Supervisor Year Violation Action Status
7 by Sergeants
2 by Lieutenants
1 by Chief 2016 3 Counseling
4 Oral Reprimand – 2Written reprimand 1 Other? 7 Deactivated
3 Active
8 by Sergeants
5 by Lieutenants
2 by Chief 2017 8 Counseling
5 Oral Reprimand – 1WrittenReprimand 1 Suspension 11 Deactivated
4 Active
2 by Sergeants
3 by Lieutenants 2018 2 Counseling
3 Oral Reprimand 5 Deactivated
3 by Sergeants
1 by Lieutenants
12 by Chief 2019 No Action 1Counseling
Oral Reprimand – 7 Written Reprimand 4 Suspension 10 Deactivated
5 Active
1 by Board Of Commissioners 2019 Suspension Active
10 by Sergeants
1 by Lieutenants
3 by Chief 2020 9 Remedial Training
3 Oral Reprimands
2 Suspensions 1 Deactivated
13 Active
Source: Chief – Raw data without Names or information from records or personnel files.
Findings:
During the five (5) year period, Sergeants initiated 30 or 50.85% of the fifty-nine (59) Disciplinary actions. Lieutenants initiated 10 or 16.95% of the fifty-nine (59) Disciplinary actions and the Chief initiated 18 or 30.51% of the Disciplinary Actions. The Ross Township Commissioners initiated one or 1.69% of the Disciplinary Actions.
Remedial Training involved such violations as:
CFS Location Fields
Failure to properly complete reports
Disregarding direct supervision
Failure to collect evidence – overdose
In-House Counseling involved such violations as
Failure to return equipment
Failure to back up another Officer
Overdue reports
Leaving work early
Improper currency evidence handling
Violation of overtime procedure
Conduct at Court
Failure to attend work detail
Failure to report for duty
General rules of conduct
Improper currency handling of evidence
Improper juvenile handcuffing during juvenile retail theft
Incorrect report approval
Oral Reprimands involved such violations as:
Insubordination
Leaving work early – not documented
No documentation on time sheet
Permitting excessive work hours
Failure to complete assigned duties
Excessive hours worked
Improper use of force
Improper comments
Failure to present information
Failure to report for duty
Improperly handling investigation
Failure to complete reports
Disregarding Direct Supervision
Other involved such violations as:
Failure to report for duty
Written Reprimands involved such violations as:
Computer Breach (6)
Failure to report for duty
Various infractions
Infraction with K-9 needs off duty
Suspension involved such violations as:
Lying to Supervisor (Emergency Suspension – Officer no longer with RTPD)
Improper social media post (5 days)
Note: The RTPD Policy Manual & Procedures Manual provides no information or guidelines on Social Media for Police Officers. Ross Township Personnel Policies & Procedures Manual, # 804 Social Networking Policy does include information, on the subject, for all township employees.
Improper comments (5 days-overturned)
Computer Breach of files (reduced to 2 days)
Computer Breach of files ( reduced to 4 days)
Improper Communication with civilian (10 days)
Failure to report for duty (1 day)
Policy procedure violation – cash (2 days)
Termination involved such violations as:
Computer Breach of files (overturned – reduced to 4 months suspension)
The Department has various written policies on the Internal Affairs/Discipline and Termination . In addition to the Chief’s Position Description, Title II ADMINISTRATION, Chapter 1, Personnel Policies gives the Chief, Lieutenant, Sergeant, Shift Supervisor or OIC to conduct investigations of varying level of seriousness.
Anxiety is also being inflamed partly through the use of e-mail rather than person to person communication. E-Mail communication prevents face-to-face communication that often leads to misunderstandings. One-on-one communication tends to provide less opportunities for misunderstanding whereby communications and can be less antagonistic.
Current conditions in Ross Township Police Department:
It is noted that of the nine (9) serious disciplinary actions (suspension and termination), three (3) or 33.3% were “related to” the Van Meter Performance Evaluation System. Another five (5) Officers received Written Reprimands related to the Computer Breach related to Van Meter. This is not to suggest or infer that Van Meter was at fault, however, there are no other violations related to Computer Breach. The disciplinary file indicates that eight (8) Officers were disciplined relative to their conduct in this incident.
It was indicated that during the Computer Breach incident, some of the involved Officers were looking to find “hit list” information one of the Lieutenants had on the Officers from when he was a Sergeant. If accurate, this is unfortunate as police employees have a legal right to view their personnel files. Any disciplinary or performance related information, not documented and reduced to writing (with a copy to the employee) and placed in the employee’s personnel file will be impossible or difficult, at best, to use against said employee(s).
Recommendations:
To strengthen the Internal Affairs function, the Department should consider the following action:
Township Commissioners (other than the Public Safety Committee) and staff that may or may not be approached by Police Officers regarding police matters/working conditions/complaints, should direct those Police Officer(s) back to their Chain-of- Command, then advise the Township Manager/Public Safety Committee who in-turn should advise the Chief of Police about the incident. This is not to impose on or fail to recognize normal conversation involving non-police matters and/or any officers’ right to Free Speech.
The Chief should investigate, study and attempt to resolve these issues by immediately inserting himself into the communication (emails) and other interactions causing conflict
among some/many Department Sergeants, Officers and the Lieutenants. Perceived or valid workplace issues reported by some of the “Sergeants and Officers” should be closely monitored by the Chief until such time as the atmosphere/morale of the Department shows improvement.
Affix responsibility for the Internal Affairs function in the job description of the Chief of Police or Lieutenant and/or Sergeant after a written assignment by the Chief of Police to conduct such Investigation. One Command Officer should be assigned as the Internal Affairs Officer with advanced training. Conflicts of Interest should be considered in any IA assignment. IPTM Police Internal Affairs training at the University of North Florida is one example of a week long program that provides excellent instruction in this area.
The Chief should review the Inspection of Employment Records Law, Act of November 26, 1978, P.C. 1212, No 286. The right to view discipline and performance records is among the many Employee rights guaranteed under this law. After review, the Chief should reduce the information to policy and include it in the RTPD Manual of Policies, Rules and Regulations.
The Chief should re-evaluate the amount time of suspensions he issues as several of them were reduced after review by higher authority.
Attempt to use the word “Untruthful” rather than “Lying”.
Publish a summary of the number, type and disposition of complaints against Officers in the Departments annual report. There should be no mention of any specific Officer’s names, but only generic information (complaint, violation, founded/unfounded and disposition) so as to not divulge personal information.
Review the Feature Article “In the Line of Fire”, Evaluating the supervision of municipal police departments, by Christopher P. Gerber, Esq. This article appeared in the Borough News, May 2016 edition – www.boroughs.org.
PLANNING
Planning is the process of developing and selecting the best possible course of action to meet a police need or achieve a police objective. It is a basis for rational, effective police decision-making, management and operations. Without planning, the objectives of police agencies will not be achieved effectively. Lack of formal planning, particularly long-range planning, is one of the most critical deficiencies in police management today. Many Police Chiefs attempt to manage their Departments without adequate planning.
A Police Department should have a full-time Planning Unit. Small agencies should have at least a part- time Planning Officer. Planning Units and Officers should have Department-wide staff supervision over all planning activities. They should: .
Evaluate and recommend improvements to existing programs, systems, procedures and methods.
Prepare crime projections and complete allocation studies.
Conduct long-range planning and research to design new systems and develop new policies, procedures and methods.
Work with Township management to plan and coordinate long-range fiscal needs.
Conduct demographic studies and research to match future police service in developing community requirements.
Develop plans for responding to natural or technological disasters and civil disorders.
The Unit should also subject each existing procedure and operation to a test of efficiency. This is accomplished by applying the following questions:
What is accomplished by the procedure or operation?
Would the Department’s overall operation be materially impaired if the process or procedure were eliminated entirely?
Can some other person or unit accomplish the process or procedure more efficiently or effectively?
Has another agency found a better way of performing this process or operation?
If the procedure or operation is continued unmodified, is the result worth the cost?
Systematic analysis of existing procedures is a valuable technique for maintaining Departmental efficiency and effectiveness. The investment of time in the procedure usually produces substantial savings in police manpower and money and results in better service to the public.
Variation in the foregoing list of responsibilities, additions or deletions will be dictated by local conditions.
Persons who collectively combine all of the knowledge and skills required to effectively conduct the contemporary police planning function should staff a planning unit. Police science; principles of organization and management; principles and techniques of planning; research methods; information collection, handling, and processing; long-range planning; budgeting; performance measurement; governmental operations and law enforcement technology. A staff must maintain up-to-date knowledge of emerging Criminal Justice research and development of current and emerging issues and problems. A Planning Officer must have many of these skills and the resources to acquire the remainder when necessary.
A Unit may be composed of either civilian or sworn personnel. A blend usually works well. The Director of a Planning Unit may be either sworn or civilian. He or she must, however, be a skilled manager and be knowledgeable in at least several of the disciplines mentioned above. A Planning Unit should report directly to the Police Chief.
Planning and research units should produce completed staff work. Completed staff work involves study of a problem, examination and presentation of alternative solutions and presentation of the best solution in such form that the Chief of Police only need review and approve or disapprove the proposed plan of action. The principal idea of the concept is to avoid presenting an incomplete plan, which would unnecessarily consume the valuable time of the Chief and the command staff.
The responsibilities of a Planning Unit should be formalized in a written directive.
Current Conditions in the Ross Township Police Department:
According to the RTPD Policy Manual, Title 1, Organization, Chapter 2 Organization and Function Chart, , there is no Officer in charge of the Planning Function. However, Title 1 Organization, Chapter 4 Position Descriptions, 401- B) Duties and Responsibilities, paragraph (3) Oversight of planning and research discusses this function. Other than that, there appears to be little formal planning being conducted. Informally, planning occurs on an ad hock basis. There is no written policy.
Finding:
The Department is not in compliance with established professional standards in this area.
Recommendations:
To strengthen the planning function, the Department should consider the following actions:
Expand the responsibility for the planning function in the job description of the Chief of Police.
Develop written directives on the planning and research function.
Prepare an agenda or inventory of planning and research needs. Special care must be taken to ensure that long-range needs are given due consideration. This could be a topic of discussion for Staff Meetings.
Prioritize items on the agenda. This should be a joint effort of the Chief, Lieutenant, Supervisors and Officers.
Formally adopt the inventory and the priorities on the work plan for the planning function.
IV: PERSONNEL AND TRAINING
The quality of the service provided by a Police Department depends directly upon the quality of the personnel employed. The current quality and level of service provided by the Ross Township
Police Department rests largely with the competence and capabilities of the personnel presently
employed. Future achievements and effectiveness will depend on the competence and capabilities of the men and women now being hired, those remaining in the Department and those hired in the future.
The Personnel Administrator for a police agency has complex and demanding functional responsibilities. Personnel administrators must be sensitive to validity issues in selection and promotion, affirmative action requirements, collective bargaining procedures and potential challenges to the Township’s selection, promotion or retirement systems. These concerns cause many Personnel Administrators to approach their work defensively and in so doing, lose sight of the overall goal of molding a quality workforce well suited to careers in police service.
To guarantee that the workforce is of the highest professional quality, an agency must have a comprehensive personnel program. It must maximize the effectiveness of its recruiting selection, promotional and performance evaluation practices. Of utmost importance, it must be competitive in the labor market. Once quality personnel are employed, their abilities must be developed to their maximum potential through career-long education and training.
Finding:
The Department has not developed or instituted a strong personnel program and is not in compliance with established professional standards.
Recommendations:
To strengthen the organization of the personnel function, the Department should consider the following actions:
Prepare a written directive (in addition to Civil Service) that clarifies and documents the responsibilities, authority and pertinent personnel practices assigned to the Department and the Chief of Police.
PROMOTION
Leadership qualities, intelligence, mastery of law enforcement procedures and supervisory or management skills are requisites for promotion to positions of higher responsibility. It is especially important that these characteristics be present in those promoted to the rank of Sergeant since they form the group from which future command officers and administrators will be selected.
All aspects of the promotion process must be based on a detailed analysis of positions into which personnel will be promoted. To observe this principle, written job analyses must exist. Written notices that describe qualifications testing procedures to be employed and other essential data needed by potential applicants should be posted prominently, well in advance of the closing date for applications.
Three (3) years in grade as a Police Officer should be required for promotion to Sergeant and at least one (1) year in grade should be required for promotion to ranks above Sergeant. Recommended times in grade are considered a good compromise between limiting promotional opportunities to personnel with sufficient experience for advancement and creating a broad competitive base.
Testing should include a written examination, an oral examination and a medical examination for those who pass the written and oral examination. Performance evaluation also should be used to determine eligibility. Study materials should either be identified for applicants or be provided to them. The promotional process, in its entirety and in each of its elements, must meet requirements of validity and utility and minimize adverse impact. If assessment centers are used to examine candidates for promotion, a team of assessors should be used, a battery of assessment techniques should be employed, and the appraisals of assessors should be pooled to form recommendations on and to rank candidates. Candidates should be ranked on eligibility lists in order of total scores of the various elements of the testing process. The “rule of three” should be followed. A Chief of Police should be able to recommend (to the Board of Supervisors, Council members, or Commissioners) individuals for promotion from among the first three (3) qualified or presented to an examining board. This gives a Chief some latitude in the actual promotion of successful candidates. It is unfair to hold the Chief responsible for the performance of the Agency, while at the same time withholding from the Chief some discretionary power in the appointment of supervisory and command personnel from among qualified applicants. The “rule of three” recognizes imperfections inherent in any examination process and provides the Chief an opportunity to exercise professional judgment in selecting staff. At the same time, however, the rule limits the Chief’s discretion to acceptable bounds. To exploit the value of “rule of three”, the Chief of Police should have or be able to obtain knowledge about the capabilities of individuals, the demands of the position to be filled, and the personal attributes necessary for successful performance on the job. The performance of new Supervisors, normally new Sergeants, should be evaluated every three (3) months during a one-year probationary period. Findings should be discussed with them. Their supervisors should counsel probationers and corrective measures taken to assist those who fall short of expectations. The Chief of Police should give the probationer permanent status only after successful completion of the probationary period and after certification. Those probationers who cannot adjust to the responsibilities of higher rank should be returned to their previous grade, without prejudice.
Mitchell P. Weinzetl, Chief of Police, Buffalo, Minnesota, Police Department discussed the concept of succession planning in the Police Chief Magazine, November, 2012, page 46. That article is applicable here. Succession planning is a process through which many organizations – public and private – prepare for the eventual departure of key leaders. Through this process, organizations engage in a variety of strategies to identify individuals who might eventually assume a primary leadership role, generally taking steps along the way to prepare these individuals for transition. This can be important from a strategic perspective because “during a leadership change, a succession plan maintains the continuity of the agency’s mission and reduces uncertainty.”
Organizational leadership involves identification of potential talent within the organization. Training should be provided to those individuals identified. Individuals who show promise should be “mentored.” Staff should be empowered to make key decisions within an agency.
Current Conditions in the Ross Township Police Department:
The Department does not have a specific written policy or procedure on the promotional process. However, there is information contained within the Township of Ross, “Rules of the Civil Service Commission”.
Some Officers were unaware whether or not a job description for their position was in existence. There is no job description for Police Officer and all the existing job descriptions fail to include Education, Experience, Specific Tasks, or the “Essential Functions of the Position. However, the
Township’s Civil Service Commission Rules Manual does cover these areas. The Civil Service Manual dated June 23, 2015 does cover these areas.
There were concerns expressed about the manner in which Detectives are selected. The practice is reported to be an interview of Officers by the Chief, Lieutenant and supervising Sergeant of Detectives, then the Chief selects the Officer to be assigned to the position. Some Officers are of the opinion that the Chief selects only officers that support him.
Finding:
The Department is not in compliance with recommended standards in this area of professional personnel management as it relates to promotional procedures and job descriptions.
Recommendations:
Adopt and practice succession planning as discussed above.
Prepare a written Policy on the Promotional Process for inclusion in the Policy Manual. Policy should include a one (1) year probationary period for Sergeant and Lieutenant, and Police Officer positions. The RTPD Manual should make reference to the Rules of the Civil Service Commission where appropriate and applicable.
3. Prepare and publish job descriptions including one for Police Officer, that will meet the needs of the Department, including the Essential Functions of the Position and include them in the Policy Manual.
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Performance evaluation is the measurement and analysis of on-the-job performance of police employees. It focuses on the manner and effectiveness by which prescribed duties are carried out. Performance evaluation serves valuable purposes to administrators, supervisors and employees.
Performance evaluations provide information to enable Officers to maintain acceptable performance and improve unacceptable performance; reveal training needs individual and collective; provide the basis for decisions including assignment, promotion, discipline and termination; and provide a medium for supervisor-subordinate discussion and counseling. Performance evaluations promote job satisfaction for Officers who are performing well and provide incentive to improve for those who are not performing well.
Every police agency should have a formal performance evaluation system. Each Officer in the agency should be evaluated, at least annually, preferably semi-annually. Probationary employees should be evaluated at least bi-monthly, preferably monthly. The entire evaluation process must meet standards of validity. The evaluation period must be specified on evaluation instruments or otherwise recorded.
Evaluations are to be done by the immediate Supervisor or Supervisors of the employee being rated and reviewed by the Supervisor or the rater/raters. The work of all raters should be evaluated for quality and consistency.
Employees must have the opportunity to review evaluations and should be required to sign evaluations to validate that they have been read. A signature should neither state nor imply agreement or disagreement with an evaluation. Raters and employees should discuss the contents of evaluations, even positive evaluations. Unsatisfactory ratings must be explained both orally and in writing.
Employees should have the right to contest ratings and seek formal review. A copy of each evaluation should be provided to the employee. The operation of the performance evaluation system should be evaluated annually.
Current Conditions in the Ross Township Police Department:
The RTPD Manual of Policies, Rules and Regulations, Title II, Chapter 1 Personnel Policies, 103, Performance Evaluations, was deleted in 2004, according to the Index of Revisions . However, the Department continued evaluations, using their old evaluation system, with the most recent evaluation for some, but not all employees, in 2019. Some Officers report never being evaluated while one indicated he was evaluated only twice in twenty (20) plus years. Evaluations were not completed, in part, during 2020 due to the COVID pandemic.
The Chief advised that two (2) current forms of evaluation are being used. One is a “rolling-type” Performance Observation Report with a revised effective date of August 2011. The second form is the RTPD Annual Performance Evaluation with no effective date.
The Performance Observation Report appears to be more related to a recommendation for some form of commendation as there is a check off box for (Job Well Done) or negative recommendation for some form of (Corrective/Disciplinary Action). The Annual Performance Evaluation is a typical form related to performance.
Each employee of the Department has a Personnel File that contains information regarding their entire history/record. The Personnel Files are maintained by the Chief of Police and under his control in his office.
Ross Township Police Department does not have the mechanisms documented and in place to properly evaluate performance that is understood by Officers. They do document Traffic Citations issued by Officers, Incident reports, arrests and calls. Most activities/expectations are not reduced to writing and/or in policy, and little else regarding performance is currently available. The Department does not use an Officer’s Daily Report to track work and assignments, vehicle assigned, mileage, issued equipment, etc. completed during a work shift. The number of traffic violation verbal warnings, written warnings, traffic accident investigations, Incident/Offense/Supplemental reports, parking tickets, faulty equipment cards, vacation home checks, business checks, parking tickets, foot patrol, school patrol, mileage traveled, etc. are not documented as such, but are lumped into a category of “calls”.
Incidents, Calls and Arrests are tracked by the RTPD Records Unit, for each individual Officer. Incidents are all crimes and service occurrences that require a formal report – incident. Calls (not incident reports) are an accumulation of the many tasks that a Patrol Officer performs. Arrests include Summary, Misdemeanor and Felony charges resulting from an incident as shown in Table 10 that follows:
TABLE 9
INCIDENTS – CALLS AND ARRESTS ROSS TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT
YEAR INCIDENTS CALLS ARRESTS
2016 2031 16180 496
2017 2988 16347 523
2018 2797 17328 458
2019 3037 21541 753
2020 2233 13653 358
RTPD records unit.
During 2016, there were 2,031 Incidents reported by RTPD. Incidents increased by 957 or 47.12% during 2017, decreased 191 or 6.39% during 2018, increased 240 or 8.58% during 2019, then decreased 804 or 26,47% in 2020.
During the four (4) year period – 2016 to 2019, incidents increased 1,006 or 49.53%. The 2020 statistics were not considered due to the COVID pandemic.
There were 3,037 Incident Reports during 2019 and there were 28 Patrol Officers. If all incidents were divided equally (which they are not – i.e. busier shifts, busier days) they would have handled 108.46 reports per officer during that year. Officers can work 2,080 hours per year (which they do not – i.e. sick time, vacations, etc.) they would have handled one incident every 19.17 hours or one every 2.4 shifts. Actual incidents per Officer per shift can be accurately calculated by RTPD, however, the incident workload appears to be minimal.
Incidents are a critical part of law enforcement as this is the primary methodology used in determining manpower as illustrated in Chart 2, page 6.
Calls increased 167 from 2016 through 2017, increased 981 during 2018, increased 4,213 during 2019 (3,859 were new Officers), and decreased 7,888 (3,294 were new Officers) in 2020.
During the four (4) year period – 2016 to 2019, calls increased 5,361 or 33.1% (increased 354 or 2% if the new Officers calls are not included) . Due to COVID, the 2020 statistics were not considered.
During the two (2) years 2016 through 2017, there were thirty-five (35) Officers effecting arrests. During 2018, there were thirty-three (33) Officers effecting arrests. During 2019 and 2020, there were 39 Officers effecting arrests.
Arrests increased by 27 during 2016 to 2017, decreased 27 during 2018, increased 295 during 2019, then decreased 395 during 2020.
8. During the four (4) year period – 2016 to 2019, arrests increased 257 or 51.8%. Due to COVID, the 2020 statistics were not considered.
Further, the Department is without a Policy on Report Writing that details the specific information required on a report or when a report is required to be prepared. A “Report Correction Form” or Computer Tracking System to document reports are returned requiring correction(s). There has been some training and remedial training on report writing on the Management Information System.
Reports are allowed to be prepared up to four (4) days after responding to the incident and collecting all the relevant information – other than when it is a major crime when the report is done sooner. During 2019, there were 3,037 Incidents reported. That would break down to 3.9 incidents per day (3,037 divided by 365 days = 8.32) If all shifts received an equal amount of incidents (which they do not), it would be .77 per shift. It is difficult to understand the four (4) day allowance to prepare a report – particularly with the low number being reported. Finally, it is difficult not to believe that there is more work being done than is being accounted for.
Without Management Controls, a violation of General Order #26.1, “Code of Conduct”, #28 Incompetence (that would be better named Unsatisfactory Performance), if challenged, will in all probability be difficult to support. Without the aforementioned policy and documentation, discipline will be doubtful to be upheld during an arbitration process.
A Performance Appraisal Survey was distributed to members of the RTPD in order to ascertain information regarding their thoughts about the process. The information appears in the Chart that follows:
Chart IV Performance Appraisal Survey
On the basis of your prior experience regarding performance appraisal system, please answer the following questions on the scale: (1=strongly agree, 2=agree, 3= neutral, 4= disagree and 5=strongly disagree)
1 2 3 4 5
Fairness about Appraisal
The results of appraisal are fair 4 2 1 4 1
Assessors appraise performance without any biases 3 2 2 3 2
Any other employee is not prioritized during performance appraisal system 4 1 5 1 1
Appraisers treat you fairly during performance appraisal process 4 1 2 5 0
Appraisal Accuracy
Appraisal outcomes are accurate 4 2 1 2 3
Minimum Errors are identified in the appraisal system 2 3 3 2 2
The reliability of results of appraisal system are high 3 3 2 0 4
Relations with peers and supervisors
You are allowed to discuss appraisal results with supervisors 4 5 3 0 0
You are allowed to deliver feedback to management regarding appraisal results 5 3 2 1 1
Interaction between you and management enhances appraisal effectiveness 4 2 1 2 3
Interaction with supervisors and management also enhances your motivation 3 2 3 3 1
Performance appraisal satisfaction
You are satisfied with the outcomes of appraisal 3 3 4 0 2
You are satisfied with the way by which your performance is appraised 3 4 1 1 3
You think that current appraisal system has limitations 3 4 4 0 0
Employee Performance
Performance appraisal has provided opportunity to improve performance 4 1 3 4 0
Your motivation has increased through appraisal outcomes 1 4 2 0 5
Appraisal outcomes have given you opportunity to eliminate weak areas in performance 4 3 1 1 3
You think that training delivered after appraisal will improve your performance 2 2 5 1 2
You have noticed no change in your performance through appraisal system 2 2 3 4 1
Note: Survey Anyplace, Agile Research and others suggest that Internal Surveys generally receive a 30% to 40% response and response rates may be higher if anonymity is protected. Anonymity was protected. Police officers were provided with two (2) weeks to complete and return the surveys.
Forty two (42) surveys were distributed with twelve (12) or 28.6% completed and returned, one or
.02% were returned uncompleted but marked “never evaluated”. Two surveys or .05% were returned blank, however, they had letters of response attached. The two (2) letters mentioned comments that follow:
The Van Meter System would not affect me. Evaluating Officers based on stats is not effective. Input by Sergeants was taken away, evaluation based on productivity in a quota based system. Primary focus on traffic stops, citations issued and arrests made. A goal of identifying Officers as incompetent or insubordinate to work toward termination. Only evaluated two (2) or three (3) times in 20 + years. Based on old “biased” Supervisor rating system and answers would be completely different under newly proposed evaluation system as it was designed to eliminate a lot of these category deficiencies. Twelve-hour shifts, external vest carriers and reforming the language regarding extra work details.
Finding:
First, it is relevant to point out that Ross Township is not the only agency to experience conflict related to the Van Meter Performance-Based Management System. For example, Cumru Township in Berks County, PA discontinued using it some 15 years ago. The number (if any) of grievances in Cumru Township is unknown. Raleigh Police Department Officers in North Carolina filed 160 formal grievances. They claimed the system was “quota based”. In December 2019, Officer Robert Wysokowsi won a lawsuit with Mendham Township New Jersey and the Chief of Police in amount of $675,000.00. In total, the cost to the Township was reported to be $715,000.00. The Officer claimed he was denied a promotion because he refused to issue traffic tickets to younger motorists. After his refusal to issue traffic tickets, he claimed his bosses allegedly retaliated against him by denying him job promotions.
The Ross Township Police Administration’s position is that it is NOT a “quota system” and this Consultant agrees. However, with the issues and weaknesses discussed throughout this report, it will be difficult to support and defend any claim from the Police Officers Association. In addition, the Township and Chief should consider the cost-effectiveness of implementing Van Meter at this time.
The Department’s performance evaluation system, policies and practices are not in compliance with acceptable standards of professional personnel management.
Recommendations:
With respect to performance evaluation, the Department should consider developing specific, identifiable criteria to quantify and identify acceptable and unacceptable performance and then take the following actions:
Put on hold, the implementation of the Van Meter Performance-Based Management System until the RTPD Manual of Policies, Rules and Regulations and Procedures Manuals are updated and the trust and morale of the Department are more conducive to moving forward.
Research, develop and utilize a probationary sworn Officer, permanent Officer, Detective/Investigator, Supervisor, Command and civilian police employees performance evaluation system.
Research, develop and institute via Policy and Procedure, all jobs that are to be considered as “performance measures” – ie. (calls). Create and use a Daily Report for all sworn RTPD employees with blocks to account for performance credit, mileage, equipment issued, etc.
Research, develop and institute a Special Order/Procedure on Report Writing to include Incident/Offense/Supplemental and other reports required within the RTDRMS.
Research, develop and institute a Special Order/Procedure on a Report Correction Form or Computer Tracking Correction Mechanism to document reports that are returned for correction.
The “General Rules of Conduct”, Title III, Chapter 1 require immediate attention. Consider building the Code around the following areas:
Unbecoming Conduct
Immoral Conduct
Conformance to Laws
Reporting for Duty
Neglect of Duty
Fictitious Illness or Injury Reports
Sleeping on Duty
Leaving Duty Post
Meals
Unsatisfactory Performance
Employment Outside of Department
Alcoholic Beverages and Drugs in Police Installation
Possession and Use of Drugs
Use of Alcohol on Duty or in Uniform
Use of Alcohol Off Duty
Use of Tobacco
Insubordination
Conflicting or Illegal Orders
Gifts, Gratuities, Bribes or Rewards
Abuse of Position
Endorsements and Referrals
Identification
Citizen Complaints
Courtesy
Requests for Assistance
Associations
Visiting prohibited Establishments
Gambling
Public Statements and Appearances
Personal Appearances
Political Activity
Labor Activity
Dissemination of Information
Intervention
Departmental Reports
Processing Property and Evidence
Abuse of Process
Use of Department Equipment
Operating Vehicles
Carrying Firearms
Truthfulness
Use of Polygraph, Medical Examinations, Photographs, and Lineups
Financial Disclosure
Treatment of Persons in Custody
Use of Force
Use of Weapons
Arrest, Search and Seizure (See Appendix B - CONDUCT)
Develop and institute Policy and Procedure on Performance Improvement. This is a process to help an employee to perform to the expected standards of the Department, rather than providing a basis for disciplinary action. (See Appendix C – PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT PLAN)
EDUCATION AND TRAINING
It is the unanimous opinion of professional police administrators, civic officials and informed laymen that improvements in the police service will parallel advancements in the level and quality of the education and training of the Police Officer. Education tends to “round” a Police Officer, to provide broader understanding of the social problems with which he or she comes in contact, and to judge alternative resolutions to a problem or situation more insightfully. It enables Officers to cope more effectively with citizens and makes them more receptive to social and organizational change, and new ideas and concepts. Training improves the ability of Police Officers to make correct decisions and take appropriate action at the right time. It prepares Officers to act decisively and correctly, makes them more productive, and instills a personal sense of competence and worth. The trained Police
Officer can function better if well educated. An educated person cannot function effectively as a Police Officer until well trained. Obviously, both education and training are needed for contemporary police work. While a Department should approach education and training positively and emphasize their contributions to police service, it is no longer possible to ignore the value of strong programs of education and particularly, training as essential defenses in “failure to train” liability situations.
For decades it has been recommended that a police agency should establish college education, preferably a degree as a minimum entrance requirement for employment. The national educational level of police officers has increased to 13.5 years as noted in a recently published report. Working Officers without degrees should be required to earn them. An agency should strive to have a uniformed force composed entirely of Officers with degrees. To encourage basic and continuing education, an agency should have an incentive pay program that awards pay increments for credits earned toward and beyond the minimum college requirement. A small percent increment is commonly recommended for each 30 credits needed for a degree.
Earning full credit would result in a larger percent incentive pay. Agencies must also support educational efforts by reimbursing tuition payments, granting educational leaves and providing shift preferences whenever possible so that Officers can attend classes.
A police agency should provide six (6) types of training: basic, field, specialized, advanced, refresher, and remedial.
Basic Recruit Training: Recruit training prepares new Officers to function as policemen and policewomen. Its purpose is to develop fundamental operational skills, to impact a Department’s philosophy, and to familiarize recruits with Departmental policies and procedures. Recruit training is the most intensive training an officer receives and in many ways the most important. It helps form attitudes, philosophies and habits that influence Officers throughout their careers. Every sworn member of a Department must go through recruit training. Recruit training is classroom based, though it should also include field exercises.
The Municipal Police Officers’ Education and Training Act requires that Officers receive a minimum of 520 hours of basic instruction. Instruction must include the vehicles code, the crimes code, rules of criminal procedure, legal issues, investigative techniques, interviews, interrogation, surveillance, firearms, first-aid, collection and preservation of evidence, and a variety of other topics important to the recruit.
Field training: Field training is an extension or continuation of recruit training. Assigning a recruit to work in the field with an experienced Patrol Officer or a number of Patrol Officers is the central feature of field training. It is on-the-job training in the truest sense. Field training must be designed to enable recruits to apply and practice in the field what is taught in the classroom.
Field Training Officers must be selected very carefully since the success of field training depends, ultimately, upon the ability of these Officers to instruct and guide. The following factors should govern selection:
Desire to serve: Only enthusiastic volunteers should be considered. Half-hearted instruction is inadequate.
Ability: The Training Officer should be able to properly demonstrate approved techniques for conducting both routine and non-routine duties. The Training Officer must have mastered all tasks of the uniformed Patrol Officer.
Attitude: A Field Training Officer must have a positive attitude toward top management, command and supervisory Officers, and the policies of the organization. The attitude conveyed to the recruit must consistently be one of a professional Police Officer dedicated to public service. The recruit will look to the Training Officer for interpretation of policy, will begin to internalize attitudes toward the public, and will learn intangibles of police service which can never be completely transmitted in the classroom. Therefore, the examples shown to the recruit must be exceptional.
Neither age nor seniority should be given any great weight in the selection of a field-training officer, since ability and attitude are not related to age.
Field Training Officers should be instructed on how to conduct field training. They should have field-training guides and lesson plans. The guides should state training objectives and describe preferred training methods. Lesson plans should familiarize Field-Training Officers with what recruits are to have learned during recruit training. The field training itself should cover a majority of the situations the trainee will encounter when he or she performs independently.
It is essential to formally evaluate the performance of recruits. Weekly evaluations are counseling sessions to discuss evaluations and to permit recruits to ask questions. Sessions should be private and confidential. At the end of the training period, Field-Training Officers should recommend retention, termination, or retention with additional training and/or monitoring. All recommendations must be justified and documented. A recruit whose termination is recommended should be entitled to basic due process protections. Field training should last at least three (3) months.
Specialized Training: Specialized training prepares those who serve on special assignments or conduct special activities, either managerial or technical, to function more effectively. It is designed to develop skills, abilities and attitudes in areas not dealt with during recruit and field training. Executive development, supervision, crime analysis, data processing, juvenile investigations and records management exemplify this class of training. Training to provide new skills and information to those in patrol, investigations, or other basic Departmental assignments also qualifies as specialized training.
Whenever possible, every sworn and non-sworn individual who functions in a specialized job should be trained for that job prior to assignment. This is especially essential for new patrol and other supervisors who command large groups of personnel. To ensure that all who require specialized training receive it, a police agency must maintain an inventory of jobs requiring specialized training, the amount and kind of training required, and determine whether incumbents of the jobs have the requisite training.
Advanced Training: Advanced training is a form of specialized training. The term is reserved, however, for training designed to impart the skills, knowledge and attitudes required for the highest executive and leadership positions in an agency. Advanced training is mainly available from outside providers. The FBI National Academy, Southern Police Institute, Northwestern University Traffic Institute, and the International Association of Chiefs of Police are the best- known providers of advanced training. A Department should ensure that all personnel serving in leadership and executive capacities, or being groomed for leadership, receive advanced training.
Refresher Training: Refresher training is designed to reinforce, update and review, aspects of the basic training curriculum. Duration can vary from a few minutes during roll call to a week 55. or more in a classroom or academy setting. A Department should use the roll call constantly to provide refresher training. Patrol Officers should have a 40-hour refresher session every year. Curriculum should be geared to areas of critical significance and to problem areas. Arrest procedures, Officer safety, report writing and community relations are samples of refresher training. The MPOETC annual mandatory training meets this training area for the most part; however, Police Chiefs have continued to lobby for improvement in the selection of topic areas.
Remedial Training: Remedial training is designed to correct specific deficiencies of individual Officers. Deficiencies are normally discovered by Supervisors during the course of work, by Instructors during training sessions, through preparation of evaluations, or during testing.
A Department should insist on remedial training for all Officers who exhibit continuing deficiency in important aspects of job performance.
To maximize the quality of training, a Department must ensure that all courses are taught by certified or otherwise qualified Instructors. Instructors must be supervised and evaluated by a Department’s training director and trainees. Trainees should be tested and evaluated frequently to ensure the course material is being absorbed effectively and at expected rates. Course design is critical. Every course must have performance objectives. Performance objectives specify what course participants are expected to learn and provide a basis for evaluating participant achievement, as well as the content of a course itself. There must be a lesson plan for each course, consisting of performance objectives, an outline of course content, required sequence of presentation, recommended instructional techniques, references, instructor and student work materials, and evaluation materials. Most courses should provide material geared to job tasks. This requires that job analysis precede course design. These criteria should be used to select courses provided by outside providers, as well as to guide development of courses.
Large Police Departments should have a full-time Training Unit. The Unit should identify training needs of every member of the Department; ensure that training needs of every member of the Department are met expeditiously; plan, develop, present, and/or arrange for presentation of training courses; select Instructors; schedule training courses and attendance of personnel; ensure that personnel attend courses; evaluate courses and Instructors; and maintain training files. Small Departments should have a Training Coordinator.
Responsibilities; authority; functions and duties of Training Units; training goals; policies and procedures; and the training obligations of Department personnel should be covered in a written directive. The directive should also declare a Department’s commitment to the highest level of education and training attainable.
Current conditions in the Ross Township Police Department:
There is no Police Officer Job Description in the Policy Manual. The Department educational requirement is silent for the position of Police Officer in the Policy Manual. The Chief indicates a High School Diploma is required, but it is unwritten along with requiring MPOETC certification. The national average educational requirement is 13.5 years across the police profession.
The Ross Township Civil Service Regulations, Section 3.5 states that every applicant for Police Officer 56.
shall possess a diploma from an accredited high school or graduate equivalency diploma and an associate degree or a minimum of sixty (60) credit hours with a grade average of “C” or better from an institution of higher learning.
There are no written requirements on the Sergeant, Lieutenant or Chief’s job descriptions. There is no mention of Act 120 Municipal Police Officer certification, but they are required. All Officers attend the MPOETC mandatory In-Service Training and attempt to attend training when available and assigned.
The selection and retention of Field Training Officers was mentioned as a potential problem area. Specific examples were discussed, however, the validity of the concern is in question but should be reviewed by the Chief. In addition to the information above, if accurate, it could be a vicarious liability issue for the Township.
Finding:
The Department’s Education and Training requirements appear to not be in compliance with professional police standards.
Recommendations:
To strengthen the training function, the Department should consider the following actions:
Utilize the full range of training areas as described above.
All newly promoted Sergeants should attend First-Line Supervisory Training like Penn State’s POSIT and POLEX multi-week programs. One (1) or two (2) day sessions are good, however limited in their ability to deal with the myriad of topics and issues necessary.
Any of the management members that have a considerable amount of time remaining prior to retirement should be assigned to attend training at The FBI National Academy, Southern Police Institute and/or Northwestern Police and Command School.
Assign the Chief, Lieutenants and Sergeants (if available) to attend Calibre Press Online Training Division’s course “Finding the Leader in You” scheduled April 21, 2021. This is a six (6) hour class via Webex. If the April class is unavailable, schedule the next upcoming one. This course offers tools to embrace values that include, trust, empowerment and recognition of the individual as the most valuable resource they have.
The Public Safety Committee, Manager and Chief of Police should conduct periodic meetings to ensure that all officials understand and meet their respective responsibilities regarding Police Service. This will also improve transparency and lead to improved clarity regarding rights and obligations of all persons involved in managing and operating the Ross Township Police Department.
VIII: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
I: CURRENT ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING
Maintain the Department in accordance with the above Principles of Organization................Page 4.
II MANPOWER AND SERVICES
Calculate the “Assignment/Availability figures on page five (5) with RTPD actual numbers, then along with recommendation two (2), recalculate the formula to determine the Personnel needs. Page 7.
Review the Incident Report policy and procedure to insure the Department is capturing all “incident” crime and service related incidents and completing Incident reports on all crime and service activity as this is the main justification for manpower, then recalculate the formula...... Page 8.
Selection techniques for the Detective position, both written and oral, should be reviewed and consider Officers concerns. Policy should then be reduced to writing, placed in the Police Department Manual with references to the Civil Service Commission Manual. Page 11.
Consider a rotating “temporary assignment” of Patrol Officers to this Unit on a six month or one year time period. This will strengthen the Investigations Unit as well as provide valuable experience for the Patrol Officer as he returns to patrol. It may also provide the Officer with experience that will help him determine whether or not he wants to become a Detective. At the same time, it provides management the opportunity to evaluate the Officers potential as a Detective and strengthen the Officer’s report writing skills. Page 11.
Conduct a workload time study to determine the adequacy of retaining another full-time civilian to function as an “Administrative Assistant to/for the Chief of Police and assist staff in the Records Section when needed. For certain, a civilian position would be more cost-effective and efficient than having sworn Police Officers perform these duties and functions. Page 12.
Develop and establish Policy on Records in accordance with the Municipal Records Manual approved on July 16, 1995 and in accordance with Act 428 of 1968, each individual act of disposition shall be approved by resolution of the governing body of the Municipality (Ross Township Commissioners). Page 12.
Create, publish and deliver to the Public Safety Committee and Manager a “Department Monthly and Annual Report” of relevant crime and personnel activity, special projects, etc. throughout a given month and year. The Report should include any formal discipline (without employee information) regarding the nature of the infraction, finding (founded/unfounded) and the action taken. Page 12.
Begin an immediate review and revision of the entire Manual of Policies Rules and Regulations. This includes a review and revision of the Manual of Directives/Additions. Make changes and additions as required and described above and throughout this study/report. Page 15.
Update the Mission Statement through considerable research, thought and input from Department members. In addition, create a list of Core Values for members of the Department. In addition to inclusion in the Manual, place copies of the Mission Statement in a conspicuous place in the Police Department for all sworn members to view and memorize. Periodically question members to repeat the Mission Statement during friendly conversations to assist in creating an esprit de corps. Make certain management including the Chief memorize them and are able to recite them as well. Page 15.
Create a “Hard Paper Copy” Manual, with an Indices section of the Manual of Policies Rules and Regulations. Policy/Procedures Manuals, alphabetized, with page numbers for easier referencing of Information. Retain a hard copy of the Manual(s) in the Patrol room. Page 15.
Involve command and supervisory employees whose Units will be working within the policy guidelines to be involved in policy development. Page 15.
Routinely inspect policy and procedure to update and to insure completeness, accuracy, and training for Department members. Page 15.
Update all Job Descriptions and include the “Essential Functions” of the position. Page 15.
Prepare a Job Description for the position of Police Officer to include the Essential Functions of the position. (See Appendix A) Page 15.
Consider contact and work with Mr. Jim Adams, Accreditation Manager, to receive assistance necessary to achieve Accreditation by the Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association. Page 15.
There are 127 Police Agencies that have been accredited across the Commonwealth by the Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association according to Mr. Adams, Accreditation Manager of the Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association. Currently, there are eight (8) Agencies in Allegheny County that are accredited. They are Findlay Township, Baldwin Borough, Allegheny County Sherriff, Point Park University Police, Pittsburgh Police, Allegheny County Police, Duquesne University Police and CMU University Police.
Research, develop and institute a Special Order/Procedure on Report Writing to include Incident/Offense/Supplemental/ Report Correction and other reports to be required within the RTDRMS Page 16.
Reactivate the deleted Performance Evaluation Policy for “all” sworn RTPD employees. Page 16.
Create an Open Book Examination of approximately 10 questions on various General or Special Orders and policies adopted by the Department. Officers can access these testing areas during work hours from the Manual available to them in the Patrol Room. Copies of these examinations should be placed in the Officer’s Training File, Training Section. This will document knowledge of the specific areas pertaining to their performance Page 16.
The “General Rules of Conduct”, Title III, Chapter 1 require immediate attention. Consider building the Code around the items listed on page 16:. Page 16.
See Appendix B, Code of Conduct for complete description of Codes
III: TOOLS FOR EVALUATING DEPARTMENT EFFECTIVENESS IN FIELD PERATIONS
Research, evaluate and consider the causal factors impacting the accident enforcement index. Continue strategies impacting the improving overall index number led by the great efforts of four (4) specific Officers. Page 18.
Research and determine what, if anything in addition to the introduction of the Van Meter Performance Evaluation System might have caused the drop-off in percentages of citations issued/vehicles stopped during the years 2018 and 2019. Page 21.
Once the PSP Bureau of Research comes online, make comparisons with Allegheny County average clearance rates to determine whether or not Ross Township Clearance Rate compares with the county average. If Ross clearances are below County average, initiate action plans to bring RTPD up to or near average Page 22.
Include statistical information on crimes being investigated (followed up by Officers/Detectives) on the monthly and annual reports. Page 24.
Study the factors impacting the reporting of Part I and Part II crimes occurring in Ross Township; Develop policies, procedures, assignments, training, etc. that can be implemented to improve the capturing and reporting of crime Page 25.
Compare clearance rates with average county clearances once PSP Bureau of Research & Development comes on line and implement improvement of Ross clearance rates that more closely mirror county averages if warranted. Page 25.
IV: MANAGEMENT, TECHNICAL AND SUPPORT SERVICES
Develop a structure of organizational objectives. Page 28.
The structure must include objectives for the Department and for each Unit. The objectives must specify the ultimate outcomes that the Department and the sub-divisional organizational Units wish to achieve. The objectives must be measurable. Particular attention should be directed to Patrol, Investigation/Detective and Records.
Develop one or more measures of achievement for each objective in the structure Page 28.
Effectiveness measures are most important. Productivity, efficiency and workload measures are also important since they have many additional valuable managerial uses.
Responsibility for developing and implementing the system of objectives and measures should be assigned to the Department’s command staff (Lieutenants, Sergeants).
The Chief, Lieutenant and Sergeants should be trained to use the objectives and measures for the foregoing management process. Page 28.
Immediately initiate and use the above internal communication mechanisms. Page 30.
All Police members should follow the Police Manual and Directives as they perform their duties. Complaints and/or concerns should be addressed through the Chain-of-Command and grievance procedures. Page 30.
Township Commissioners (other than the Public Safety Committee) and staff that may or may not be approached by Police Officers regarding police matters/working conditions/complaints, should direct those Police Officer(s) back to their Chain-of-Command, then advise the Township Manager/Public Safety Committee who, in-turn, should advise the Chief of Police about the incident. This is not to impose on or fail to recognize normal conversation involving non-police matters and/or any officers’ right to Free Speech. Page 30.
Review the RTPD Directive Number 13-002, issued by Chief R. Bellan. This Directive “Awards and Department Recognition” states that it was to be added to the Department’s Manual of Policies, Rules and Regulations, Title II Administration, Chapter 1 Personnel Policies, to address Awards and Department Recognition. There is no such mention of this Section/Directive in the Manual. Page 30.
Establish an “Awards Review Board” consisting of one member of the Ross Township Public Safety Committee (who shall act as Chairman), the Chief of Police, one Supervisor and two Police Officers. All awards granted by the ARB should be presented with appropriate ceremony and publicity. Presentation of awards (badges) should take place at the Ross Township Municipal Headquarters at the regular scheduled meeting of the Township Commissioners. The following awards might be awarded by the Chief and added to the recipients permanent personnel file, without approval of the AWB:. Page 31.
Safe Driving Award
Life Saving Award
Good Conduct Award
Officer of the Year Award
Perfect Attendance Award
Advanced Certification Award
Service Award
Years of Service Award
Marksmanship Award
Letter of Commendation Award
Field Training Officer Award
The Awards Review Board should include and make such awards available to sworn
personnel as follows: Page 31.
Medal of Valor:
Award of Merit:
Public Safety Committees’ or Chief’s Commendation:
Award for Injury in Line of Duty:
Marksmanship Award:
Service Award:
Safe Driving Award:
Life Saving Award:
Years of Service Award:
Good Conduct Award:
Perfect Attendance Award:
Advanced Certification Award:
Officer of the Year Award:
Field Training Officer Award:
The Awards Review Board should include Awards for/to non-members of Ross
Township Police Department. The following topics could be considered: Page 31.
Meritorious Service Certificate:
Certificate of Appreciation:
Note: See Appendix 3 for an example of Policy for the aforementioned Recognition of Achievement Awards.
Command and Supervisory personnel should condemn subordinates in private and praise them in public. Page 31.
The Chief, Lieutenants and Sergeants should review the article “Improving Motivation and Productivity of Police Officers” by Chief Fortenbery, Edenton, North Carolina Police Department found online at https://leb.fbi.gov/articles/improving-motivation-and-productivity-of-police-officers. Page 32.
Take a 2″ x 2″ facial photograph, of all Officers, in uniform and civilian employees. Place them in a conspicuous location in the Police Department Lobby Page 32.
Take an 8″ x 10″ photograph of the Officer Of The Year, framed and place it in a conspicuous location in the Police Department. Replace it from year to year with the annual award recipient. Page 32.
Become familiar with and practice the “Principles of Quality Leadership”:. Page 33.
Believe in, foster and support TEAMWORK.
Be committed to the PROBLEM-SOLVING process; use it and let DATA, not emotions, drive decisions.
Seek employees’ INPUT before making key decisions.
Believe that the best way to improve the quality of work or service is to ASK and LISTEN to employees who are doing the work.
Strive to develop mutual RESPECT and TRUST among employees.
Have a CUSTOMER orientation with focus toward employees and citizens.
Manage on the BEHAVIOR of 95 percent of employees and not on the 5 percent who cause problems. Deal with the 5 percent.
Improve SYSTEMS and examine PROCESSES before placing blame on people.
Avoid “top-down” POWER ORIENTED decision making when possible.
Encourage CREATIVITY through RISK TAKING, and be TOLERANT of honest MISTAKES.
Be a FACILITATOR and COACH. Develop an OPEN atmosphere that encourages providing and accepting FEEDBACK.
With TEAMWORK, develop with employees the agreed upon GOALS and a PLAN to achieve them.
Prior to future promotions, evaluate the current “Span of Control”. The Department Command Supervisory Personnel account for 25.58% of the Department’s total manpower. Page 33.
Purchase relevant publications and make them available and required reading for the Supervisors and Officers of the Department. Page 34.
Involve Sergeants in other areas such as the Planning Committee, Awards Committee, etc. as mentioned in other sections of this report. Page 34.
Formally establish a line and staff inspections program. Line inspections could be the responsibility of a Sergeant (perhaps the Special Programs Sergeant). Page 35.
Prepare a written directive to govern line and staff inspections. The directive should cover objectives, procedures, and criteria to identify those inspections. Inspections require a written report and follow-up procedures to ensure corrective action is taken with provisions for inspection of every organizational component at least every other year. The Records Section would be a good start. Page 35.
Arrange for all Sergeants to attend a workshop on the inspections function. Page 35.
Township Commissioners (other than the Public Safety Committee) and staff that may or may not be approached by Police Officers regarding police matters/working conditions/complaints, should direct those Police Officer(s) back to their Chain-of- Command, then advise the Township Manager/Public Safety Committee who in-turn should advise the Chief of Police about the incident. This is not to impose on or fail to recognize normal conversation involving non-police matters and/or any officers’ right to Free Speech. Page 41.
The Chief should investigate, study and attempt to resolve these issues by immediately inserting himself into the communication (emails) and other interactions causing conflict among some/many Department Sergeants, Officers and the Lieutenants. Perceived or valid workplace issues reported by some of the “Sergeants and Officers” should be closely monitored by the Chief until such time as the atmosphere/morale of the Department shows improvement. Page 41.
Affix responsibility for the Internal Affairs function in the job description of the Chief of Police or Lieutenant and/or Sergeant after a written assignment by the Chief of Police to conduct such Investigation. One Command Officer should be assigned as the Internal Affairs Officer with advanced training. Conflicts of Interest should be considered in any IA assignment. IPTM Police Internal Affairs training at the University of North Florida is one example of a week long program that provides excellent instruction in this area Page 41.
The Chief should review the Inspection of Employment Records Law, Act of November 26, 1978, P.C. 1212, No 286. The right to view discipline and performance records is among the many Employee rights guaranteed under this law. After review, the Chief should reduce the information to policy and include it in the RTPD Manual of Policies, Rules and Regulations Page 41.
The Chief should re-evaluate the amount time of suspensions he issues as several of them were reduced after review by higher authority Page 41.
Attempt to use the word “Untruthful” rather than “Lying” Page 41.
Publish a summary of the number, type and disposition of complaints against Officers in the Departments’ annual report. There should be no mention of any specific Officer’s names, but only generic information (complaint, violation, founded/unfounded and disposition) so as to not divulge personal information. Page 41.
Review the Feature Article “In the Line of Fire”, Evaluating the supervision of municipal police departments, by Christopher P. Gerber, Esq. This article appeared in the Borough News, May 2016 edition – www.boroughs.org Page 41.
Expand the responsibility for the planning function in the job description of the Chief of Police Page 43.
Develop written directives on the planning and research function. Page 43.
Prepare an agenda or inventory of planning and research needs. Special care must be taken to ensure that long-range needs are given due consideration. This could be a topic of discussion for Staff Meetings. Page 43.
Prioritize items on the agenda. This should be a joint effort of the Chief, Lieutenant, Supervisors and Officers. Page 43.
Formally adopt the inventory and the priorities on the work plan for the planning function. Page 43.
Prepare a written directive (in addition to Civil Service) that clarifies and documents the responsibilities, authority and pertinent personnel practices assigned to the Department and the Chief of Police Page 44.
Adopt and practice succession planning as discussed in the report. Page 46.
Prepare a written Policy on the Promotional Process for inclusion in the Policy Manual. Policy should include a one (1) year probationary period for Sergeant and Lieutenant, and Police Officer positions. The RTPD Manual should make reference to the Rules of the Civil Service Commission where appropriate and applicable. Page 46.
Prepare and publish job descriptions including one for Police Officer, that will meet the needs of the Department, including the Essential Functions of the Position and include them in the Policy Manual. Page 46.
Put on hold, the implementation of the Van Meter Performance-Based Management System until the RTPD Manual of Policies, Rules and Regulations and Procedures Manuals are updated and the trust and morale of the Department are more conducive to moving forward. Page 51.
Research, develop and utilize a probationary sworn Officer, permanent Officer, Detective/Investigator, Supervisor, Command and civilian police employees performance evaluation system. Page 52.
Research, develop and institute via Policy and Procedure, all jobs that are to be considered as “performance measures” – i.e. (calls). Create a Daily Report for all sworn officers with blocks to account for performance tasks, mileage, equipment issued etc. Page 52.
Reevaluate the four (4) day time limit on preparing and submitting Incident Reports. Page 52.
Research, develop and institute a Special Order/Procedure on Report Writing to include Incident/Offense/Supplemental and other reports required within the RTDRMS. Page 52.
Research, develop and institute a Special Order/Procedure on a Report Correction Form or Computer Tracking Correction Mechanism to document reports that are returned for correction. Page 52.
The “General Rules of Conduct”, Title III, Chapter 1 require immediate attention. Consider building the Code around the following areas: Page 52.
Unbecoming Conduct
Immoral Conduct
Conformance to Laws
Reporting for Duty
Neglect of Duty
Fictitious Illness or Injury Reports
Sleeping on Duty
Leaving Duty Post
Meals
Unsatisfactory Performance
Employment Outside of Department
Alcoholic Beverages and Drugs in Police Installation
Possession and Use of Drugs
Use of Alcohol on Duty or in Uniform
Use of Alcohol Off Duty
Use of Tobacco
Insubordination
Conflicting or Illegal Orders
Gifts, Gratuities, Bribes or Rewards
Abuse of Position
Endorsements and Referrals
Identification
Citizen Complaints
Courtesy
Requests for Assistance
Associations
Visiting prohibited Establishments
Gambling
Public Statements and Appearances
Personal Appearances
Political Activity
Labor Activity
Dissemination of Information
Intervention
Departmental Reports
Processing Property and Evidence
Abuse of Process
Use of Department Equipment
Operating Vehicles
Carrying Firearms
Truthfulness
Use of Polygraph, Medical Examinations, Photographs, and Lineups
Financial Disclosure
Treatment of Persons in Custody
Use of Force
Use of Weapons
(See Appendix B – CONDUCT RULES)
Develop and institute Policy and Procedure on Performance Improvement. This is a process to help an employee to perform to the expected standards of the Department, rather than providing a basis for disciplinary action. (See Appendix D – Performance Improvement Plan). Page 53.
V: PERSONNEL AND TRAINING
Utilize the full range of training areas as described above Page 57.
All newly promoted Sergeants should attend First-Line Supervisory Training like Penn State’s POSIT and POLEX multi-week programs. One (1) or two (2) day sessions are good, however limited in their ability to deal with the myriad of topics and issues necessary Page 57.
Any of the management members that have a considerable amount of time remaining prior to retirement should be assigned to attend training at The FBI National Academy, Southern Police Institute and/or Northwestern Police and Command School. Page 57.
Assign the Chief, Lieutenants and Sergeants (if available) to attend Calibre Press Online Training Division’s course “Finding the Leader in You” scheduled April 21, 2021. This is a six (6) hour class via Webex. If the April class is unavailable, schedule the next upcoming one. This course offers tools to embrace values that include, trust, empowerment and recognition of the individual as the most valuable resource they have Page 57.
The Public Safety Committee, Manager and Chief of Police should conduct periodic meetings to ensure that all officials understand and meet their respective responsibilities regarding Police Service. This will also improve transparency and lead to improved clarity regarding rights and obligations of all persons involved in managing and operating the Ross Township Police Department Page 57.
©2022 Cox Media Group
/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/cmg/XCUXZC2XYZHCRGNNGKFEX6U3LQ.png)
:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/cmg/2HSLXH2XLJFE3BW67VQSEKOHKE.jpg)
:quality(70)/d1hfln2sfez66z.cloudfront.net/05-03-2024/t_3cb8d45563ad466f9cbae2e0374c6271_name_jmnursechargedindeath5pv050224_transfer_frame_299.jpeg)
:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/cmg/E6WDMILAHRBPNF33ZREGMHTF3Q.jpg)
:quality(70)/d1hfln2sfez66z.cloudfront.net/05-03-2024/t_379a6b2a10354fa5936c54c5ab31e3d9_name_jhnursechargedindeath5pp050224_frame_1744.jpeg)
:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/cmg/ZHLNOS4DWFFF7HUSJMSDOFBI5I.jpg)