• How did your agency evaluate the need for the implementation of an Early Warning System, (EWS)?

Our past police chief, Harold Hurtt was a member of a focus group regarding the Los Angeles Police Department’s, (LAPD) consent decree. The consent decree mandated by the federal court, between the Department of Justice, (DOJ) and the LAPD stipulated the development and implementation of an EWS to track data to help identify possible problematic behaviors exhibited by LAPD Officers. The Phoenix EWS, formally known as the Personnel Assessment System, (PAS) was designed as a proactive tool to enhance employee success while also providing a risk management tool for the Department. An additional objective was to create a system tailored to the needs of our Department while meeting or exceeding standards mandated by Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, (CALEA), and the DOJ for early warning systems in other agencies across the nation.

We further determined that using the term Early Warning System is out of date and gave the project a negative tone so we do not use EWS, rather the more descriptive term, Early Identification and Intervention System, (EIIS).

Our current Phoenix Police Chief, Jack F. Harris, is a strong supporter of EIIS and was originally tasked with the creation of PAS as the assistant chief of the Professional Standards Bureau.

• What other management systems are available to your agency apart from the PAS?

None.

• What are the goals for the PAS system?

The primary goals of PAS are to assist with employee success, to reduce liability and risk exposure to the Department, and to insure supervisory accountability.

PAS is instrumental in employee success by the utilization of a positive approach, and increasing communication with supervisors and their employees. PAS is able to assist in the identification of problematic behaviors early so changes can be made prior to discipline being the only correction option.

PAS helps to reduce liability and risk exposure to the Department by helping identify patterns of problematic behaviors and alerts the administrative team early to reduce costly trends and practices.

PAS also uses an extensive administrative case management system to insure supervisory accountability to the program as well as post intervention monitoring.

• How does PAS accomplish its goals?

PAS is used as a tool to help identify problematic behaviors and employees in possible need of intervention. We then use established non-disciplinary intervention options to assist the employee in being successful.

• Does your Human Resources area equivalent have a role in the PAS? What is the role?

The Human Resources Unit (HRU) has a limited function within PAS. They are used to help facilitate those intervention needs associated with, but not limited to peer support and critical incident stress management.

• What role does your Commander (precinct), middle manager and supervisor have in relation to PAS?

The Commanders main role is to insure they hold supervisors accountable for completing intervention reviews within the prescribed time limits, 21 days. Supervisors and management will insure identified employees get needed intervention and assistance prior to a person failing. This may prevent the employee from becoming the subject of an administrative investigation and possible disciplinary action up to and including termination.

• What role does the affected officer have in relation to PAS? Do they see or are they provided with a copy of the information generated with regard to their conduct/performance? Do they have a right of reply?

PAS is a completely transparent system and employees have access to their own PAS information (read only) whenever they wish to view it. This includes access to a threshold icon which allows personnel to see exactly where they stand in relationship to the established thresholds. This offers the employee the opportunity to conduct a self intervention prior to PAS identifying them. Once an employee is identified, his/her supervisor will sit down and talk with them to determine if there are any underlying issues that may be causing the behavior. The employee becomes part of the intervention/problem solving process and is encouraged to help the supervisor determine the best intervention option for the situation .

• How do you delineate between when to apply risk management strategies or the formal disciplinary process?

PAS is an early intervention system designed to identify possible problematic behaviors early so changes can be made prior to discipline being the only correction option. Once an employee has violated a Departmental policy a PAS intervention review stops and an administrative investigation begins. PAS intervention options can also be used in conjunction with the administrative investigation since discipline may not be the total answer. There may also be a training need or other non-disciplinary option.

• What data do you collect for the PAS system?

The data areas collected for the PAS system includes the following:

• Assignment History
• Discipline
• Employee use of force
• Firearms Qualification data
• Suspect use of force
• All O.T. worked and % paid & held
• All Citizens, Supervisory & PSB Employee requested notes
• Complaints
• Police Accidents
• Refer to Driving Analysis
• Interrogations
• Significant event radio codes from CAD
• Industrial Injuries
• Use of Force ratios
• Industrial Exposures
• Departmental Reports
• Training Records
• Employee summary report
• Leave time history & balances
• PAS contact information
• Police Shootings
• Employee photo
• Work Hour Summary
• Threshold summary report
• Arrests
• Employee Assistance options
• Discretionary Arrest codes
• Peer support
• Citations Traffic & Criminal
• Critical Incident Stress Team
• Pursuits
• Chaplains
• Internal Audits
• Mental Health Professionals
• Off Duty Work Data
• 24/7 Crisis Lines
• Commendations, Awards & Letters of Appreciation

• Is PAS centralized or decentralized or both? Why? What are the benefits? What are the challenges for your approach?

The administrative function within PAS is centralized in the Professional Standards Bureau. PAS could be considered decentralized in the fact that it is a gateway system and it capture’s information that is stored in host databases throughout the department. The system is programmed in Visual Basic which requires less manpower to maintain therefore is a more cost effective approach to data collection. In addition, by utilizing information that has previously been captured, there are fewer inaccuracies. The Department’s Computer Services Bureau has been a stakeholder in PAS from the beginning with the design and implementation of the program. We found it to be extremely beneficial to have them actively involved in the design of the program as they were a critical component to our team approach to the creation of PAS. As a result of their involvement there were no specific computer based challenges in the development of PAS. It is also a tool for individual supervisors to view any employees’ data anytime. There are no secrets in this system.

• What is the regularity of the reporting?

The Phoenix Police Department has approximately 4,000 professional civilian and sworn employees. PAS automatically reviews all employees on a daily basis. If an employee crosses a threshold, PAS case managers are electronically notified daily.

• In the application of PAS, how is information about officers communicated throughout your agency? How are thresholds, decisions and actions documented and managed?

A case management component has been incorporated in the PAS system. If an employee crosses a threshold, PAS case managers are electronically notified each day when they sign into PAS. Case managers initially analyze the data identifying trends and false positives. After reviewing each case, PAS case managers electronically send those cases needing intervention reviews to the employee’s chain of command. The employee’s supervisor conducts the intervention review by completing a series of drop down menus and types notes in a note section. This is then electronically sent to the employee’s second level supervisor who completes the same process and forwards the intervention review back to the PAS case manager. The system is paperless for supervisors.

• Do you have objectives and / or relative measures for your PAS system?

The Phoenix Police Department subscribes to CALEA mandates, so the PAS administrative team is required to perform system evaluations on an annual basis. However, in order to provide more thorough feedback to the PAS oversight board, system evaluations are conducted on a quarterly basis. The PAS system is a new system within our Department, and it is expected that the objective and relative measures will become more defined as the system matures.

• Does PAS use discipline as an intervention option?

No, unlike other EIIS systems, PAS is a non-disciplinary tool for correction and success. If an identified PAS issue is determined to be disciplinary in nature and requires an investigation, the issue will become administrative and will be removed from PAS.

• What elements do you place thresholds on to identify employees?

• How were your thresholds determined? What are your research references?

We researched how other agencies developed their thresholds before determining thresholds for PAS. To avoid mistakes, research was conducted and is continually being performed to redefine the thresholds. Most law enforcement jurisdictions will find that elements used for threshold identifications are culturally driven and unique to each agency. However, there are some elements that have thresholds that are commonplace among several agencies (e.g. complaints & use of force issues). These elements are common as the DOJ frequently mandates police agencies with consent decrees to track these issues. Although they are common to several agencies, the thresholds are weighted differently depending on the severity of the problem and the special needs of an agency.

Research references that have been used for the development of PAS include: Dr. Samuel Walker University of Nebraska (subject matter expert on early intervention programs), US Department of Justice Regional Community Policing Institute RCPI, Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), Tampa Police Department and Pittsburg Police Department.

• What thresholds do you have and how are PAS thresholds measured?

To best serve the interest of the officers of the Phoenix Police Department, we have established thresholds on the following elements:

• Discretionary arrest - 2 or more count for those bookings where the only charge is considered discretionary and 35% for bookings with multiple charges and at least one of the charges is considered discretionary. The arrest violations we focus on are the following:
• Aggravated Assault Police Officer
• Escape
• Resisting Arrest
• False Information Police Officer
• Opposing Police
• Failure to provide Identification
• Failure to stop
• Use of Force - 15% for use of force vs. arrests and 20% for use of force vs. contacts. Contacts include all arrests, citations and field contacts.
• Sustained Complaints - 2 in a three month period or 3 for the year.
• At fault accidents - 2 in a three month period or 3 for the year
• Out of policy pursuits - 2 in a three month period or 3 for the year
• Non Compliant inspections - 2 in a three month period or 3 for the year. Each of these indicators is also weighted with a point value which when added together has a threshold of 5 points in three months and 7 points during a year. Each indicator carries a weight of 2 points except non compliant inspections which is assigned 1 point. Only incidents that occur within the last 365 days are calculated into the threshold measurement. As you can see we have both short and long term thresholds. All data within the system automatically purges after five years.

Also, any employee involved in a deadly use of force or police action that takes a life will automatically be referred in the PAS.

In the best interest of serving our employees, we have adjusted our thresholds according to different assignments on our department. To minimize the number of “false positives” we receive, we have assigned different thresholds to our Special Assignments Unit (SWAT), our K-9 unit and our motor officers. We utilized the same references as above when researching this for PAS.

• How many sworn and non-sworn employees does the Phoenix Police Department currently employee?

As of November 2004 the Phoenix Police Department employed a total of 3928 employees; this includes 2838 sworn employees and 1090 non-sworn employees.

• What are the intervention options for an employee in need?

• Who is responsible for managing identified employees?

The PAS project has an administrative team. The team is comprised of one lieutenant, one sergeant and two detectives. While each member of the team is responsible for the operation of the program, the two detectives are the case managers who work in conjunction with the identified employee’s supervisor/s to facilitate the completion of the PAS intervention review and determine if any intervention options are necessary.

• “False positive” problems: Are there employees who are identified by the PAS system who “shouldn’t” be?

All employees that cross a threshold are reviewed by the PAS administrator / case managers. The PAS system is similar to Pittsburgh PD’s early identification and intervention system in that if the system thresholds are working correctly, exceptional employees will be identified as well those employees in need of possible intervention/s. Currently we have found over 90% of those identified are outstanding employees. In each case, the employee’s immediate supervisor is considered a “validation point” for the data sent to them for review. As those validations are confirmed and sent back to the case managers from the supervisors, interventions are implemented if needed. If no intervention is needed, the data is collected to assist in redefining more appropriate threshold weighting measures, which will assist in reducing the number of “false-positives” encountered .

• What are some of the unexpected findings with PAS?

In the initial phases of the PAS project it became apparent that supervisors and fellow employee's already knew which members were having problems. We found that some supervisors were not addressing the employee’s needs and issues. Supervisors need to be more accountable regarding these issues. As a result of this knowledge we added another element to help identify employees in need. It is the ability for other employers to make direct referral to the system. PAS is no longer just a database with electronic thresholds. We now depend on the human element for employee success. The case management system will insure this occurs.

• How is the PAS system perceived by the rank and file?

The Department involved the police employees’ unions from the onset. All sworn employees were also trained on PAS, and given access to their own PAS files (read-only). The system is considered transparent as there are no secrets in the data. Training was initially met with attitudes of pessimism, but quickly turned to attitudes of optimism after the fact. In post training surveys employees expressed an overall acceptance rate of over 90%.

We found that granting this type of employee access allowed them to perform self interventions. Overall, this produces more effective compliance with Departmental policies.

More recent training of supervisors, sergeants and lieutenants, in 2004 revealed some interesting information. After a three hour block of training on PAS, communications and coaching skills, 80% of the attending supervisors responded to a survey saying they felt a system like PAS should be introduced in other jurisdictions throughout the nation.

• How is PAS received by management?

More negative responses were originally received from first and second level managers than from the employee groups. The initial thought was that this process would increase the workload with no positive end result. However, the system was designed to solicit a “paperless” response from management thereby causing a minimal increase in the workload. Furthermore, the PAS administrative team acts as support staff not only to the oversight board, but also to management and other employees of the Department to help facilitate intervention needs. This helps strengthen internal relationships, which increases the buy-in to the PAS system from management.

• How was the data collected (or not) prior to the implementation of PAS?

Data collection came from numerous pre-existing databases. The department also felt it was important to create a database to include Awards, Commendation, and Letter of Appreciation. In addition to this, minor modification of a few other databases that were already collecting information was required.

• Transparency of process: How would you assess the public awareness of your PAS process?

The Department created a PAS oversight board that meets quarterly to discuss quarterly reviews and the continued direction of the overall program. The Board is comprised of nine individuals, including a member of the community. General public awareness of this program is not a priority to the goals of EIIS. This process is a supervisory tool for employee success.

• What was the cost of implementing the EIIS (development, integration, deployment)? Were there hidden costs not planned for in the implementation process? What were they for? How long did it take to implement the EIIS?

The following funding was used to create the PAS program.

• Local Law Enforcement Block Grant =$150,000
• Phoenix City Risk Grant =$200,000
• COPS / DOJ Grant =$125,000

Most of the funding, approximately $375,000, was used for a programmer to create the gateway system software. There were no real hidden costs associated with the implementation of PAS that were not planned for. It took 3 1/2 years from the beginning phase of PAS until the system went live and started using thresholds to identify employees on January 1, 2004 .

All personnel costs were picked up by the Police department for two individuals, a sergeant and detective for most of the time taken to create the system.

• Have you had to amend or upgrade PAS since its implementation? Why?

Yes, minor adjustments have been made to PAS to make it a better system and to help work out some of the “bugs”. No major changes or upgrades have been made to the system. We are finding the need to create additional thresholds, including supervisory thresholds, but until funding is obtained, no major changes are planned.

• What value or results have been achieved through the application of PAS?

As a result of the Phoenix Police Department implementing PAS positive results have been achieved. These positive results include: reduction in loss associated with frivolous law suits, employee success, greater communication between supervisors and employees, knowledge and training which help employees to avoid future exposure risk and the strengthening of inter-departmental relationships. Our Department has already seen several employee success stories as a result of interventions based on threshold generated intervention reviews and referrals to our system. It is the belief of the PAS administrative team that future interventions will yield success in employee retention. PAS is still a new system and has been actively identifying employees for less than one year.

PLEASE CONTACT THE FOLLOWING PAS ADMINISTRAIVE TEAM MEMBERS FOR MORE INFORMATION

• LIEUTENANT Dan Olson, 1-602-440-1160
• SERGEANT Craig Northup, 1-602-440-1166