35.1.1 A written directive defines the agency’s performance evaluation system and includes at a minimum:

Commentary: A central personnel agency may or may not incorporate performance evaluation as part of its overall management activities . Where it does, some features of the evaluation system may not suit the needs of the law enforcement agency. Although policies and procedures may be developed by a centralized agency, it remains the responsibility of the chief executive officer to adapt and amplify those guidelines to meet the agency’s needs.

35.1.2 A written directive requires a performance evaluation of each employee be conducted and documented at least annually.

Commentary: The purposes of performance evaluation are to standardize the nature of the personnel decision-making process, ensure the public that the agency’s personnel are qualified to carry out their assigned duties, and provide job incumbents with necessary behavior modification information to allow them to maintain behaviors that are appropriate from the agency’s standpoint and to eliminate inappropriate behaviors.

(M M M M)

35.1.3 A written directive requires a written performance evaluation report on all entry-level probationary employees at least quarterly.

Commentary: A separate set of criteria is important in the rating of personnel on probation in order to determine, at the earliest point, their suitability for the current position. The principal objective of supervisors rating probationary employees is to ascertain whether they can actually perform the required functions. Performance should be closely monitored, and written evaluations should be a part of this process.

(M M M M)

35.1.4 Criteria used for performance evaluation are specific to the assignment of the employee during the rating period.

Commentary: None.

(M M M M)

35.1.5 Evaluation of the employee’s performance covers a specific period.

Commentary: Evaluation reports may be regular periodic reports or interim reports for varying reasons. The actual dates covered by the evaluation, shown on the face of the report, are required to provide a continuity of the record of performance during a specified period.

Performance of the employee prior to or following the rating period should be excluded from the rating for that period.

(M M M M)

35.1.6 A written directive requires that non-probationary employees be advised in writing whenever their performance is deemed to be unsatisfactory and that the written notification be given to them at least 90 days prior to the end of the annual rating period.

Commentary: The supervisor should be prepared to substantiate ratings at the unsatisfactory level, to advise the employee of unsatisfactory performance, and to define actions that should be taken to improve his or her performance. If unsatisfactory performance continues, this information should be included in the evaluation report at the end of the 90-day period. Some flexibility concerning the 90-day period is allowable if the spirit of the standard is observed.

(M M M M)

35.1.7 A written directive requires explanatory comments when performance ratings are unsatisfactory or outstanding.

Commentary: Raters should be prepared to substantiate ratings in the lowest or highest categories and give specific reasons for the ratings through a narrative comment.

35.1.8 A written directive requires that each performance evaluation report is reviewed and signed by the rater’s supervisor.

Commentary: None.

(M M M M)

35.1.9 A written directive requires that each employee be counseled at the conclusion of the rating period to include the following areas:

Commentary: The intent of this standard is to ensure that at least once each year, the immediate supervisor of each employee provides feedback regarding employee performance. It is critical that counseling of this type include both a review of performance over the prior rating period and, as a matter of fairness to the employee, an indication of the expectations for the upcoming reporting period. This is also an appropriate time to review the employee’s career goals within the agency. However, nothing in this standard should be interpreted as requiring that these items be completed in one single session by the same supervisor. Agencies have flexibility in complying with this standard, and may, for example, conduct career counseling activities at a separate time by specialists in this area.

(M M M M)

35.1.10 A written directive specifies that the employee will be given the opportunity to sign and make written comments to supplement the completed performance evaluation report.

Commentary: Each evaluation report on an employee’s performance should be read and understood by the employee. The signature should indicate only that the employee has read the report and should not imply agreement or disagreement with the contents. If the employee refuses to sign, the supervisor should so note and record the reason or reasons, if given.

(M M M M)

35.1.11 A written directive requires that a copy of the completed evaluation report be provided to the employee.

Commentary: None.

35.1.12 A written directive requires an appeal process for contested evaluation reports.

Commentary: None.

(M M M M)

35.1.13 A written directive requires the retention of performance evaluation reports.

Commentary: The retention schedule should be consistent with applicable legislation or civil service regulations. Where these do not exist, a period of three years is recommended.

(M M M M)

35.1.14 A written directive requires raters to be evaluated by their supervisors regarding the quality of ratings given employees.

Commentary: Supervisors should evaluate raters regarding the fairness and impartiality of ratings given, their participation in counseling rated employees, and their ability to carry out the rater’s role in the performance evaluation system. The supervisor should ensure that the raters apply ratings uniformly.

(O O O O)

35.1.15 A written directive establishes a Personnel Early Warning System to identify agency employees who may require agency intervention efforts. The system should include procedures for:

Commentary: A comprehensive Personnel Early Warning System is an essential component of good discipline in a well-managed law enforcement agency. The early indentification of potential problem employees and a menu of remedial actions can increase agency accountability and offer employees a better opportunity to meet the agency's values and mission statement.

The agency's Personnel Early Warning System should be initiated when certain types of incidents occur and there should be an evaluation of collected material. Such material may include, but not necessarily be limited to, agency performance evaluations, citizens complaints, disciplinary actions, use of force incidents, internal affairs, supervisory and employee reports such as workmen's compensation claims and traffic accidents.

The agency should not be faced with investigating an employee for a serious case of misconduct only to find there was an escalating pattern of les serious misconduct, which could have been abated through intervention. The failure of the agency to develop a comprehensive Personnel Early Warning System can lead to the erosion of public confidence in the agency's ability to investigate itself, while putting the public and agency employees in greater risk of danger.

A Personnel Early Warning System should include options and reviews available through use of force reporting (Subchapter 1.3, Use of Force), the disciplinary system (Chapter 26, Disciplinary Procedures), employee assistance program (Chapter 22, Compensation, Benefits, and Conditions of Work) and Internal Affairs (Chapter 53, Internal Affairs).

The first and second levels of supervision are crucial elements to a successful Personnel Early Warning System and should be emphasized in the agency's procedures.

(O O M M)