HomeMy WebLinkAboutContract 26523 CITY
CRE
CONTRACT NO Y�
STATE OF TEXAS §
KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS:
COUNTY OF TARRANT §
CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTING SERVICES
This contract is made by and between the City of Fort Worth, Texas, a municipal
corporation situated in Tarrant and Denton Counties, Texas, hereinafter called "City",
acting herein by and through Libby Watson, its duly authorized Assistant City Manager
and Justex Systems, Inc., acting herein by and through, Larry Hoover, its duly authorized
President, hereinafter called "Consultant".
1.
Scope of Services
Consultant agrees to perform in accordance with the highest professional
standards the following professional management consulting services:
An evaluation and analysis of the Fort Worth Police Department, as
more specifically described in the attached Exhibit "A".
2.
Compensation; Payment Schedule
2.1 The maximum amount to be paid to Consultant for all services performed
hereunder shall be One Million Two Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars (S1,220,000),
hereinafter"Consultant's Fee", which shall include all expenses incurred by Consultant.
2.2 Payment shall be made as provided for in Attachment "A" attached hereto.
Retainage in the amount of 10% shall be withheld until submission and acceptance of the
final report to be prepared by Consultant.
2.3 Consultant shall submit monthly invoices to the City for payment of the
sums referenced in Section 2(b).
2.4 It is understood that this Contract contemplates the provision of full and
complete consulting services for this project, including any and all necessary changes or
contingencies to complete the work as outlined in Section 1, "Scope of Services", for the
fee described in Section 2.a.
a01111 HOPP
wl"110) U RK
3.
Term
Unless terminated pursuant to paragraph 4, this Contract shall be completed on or
before December 31, 2001.
4.
Termination
4.1 The City may terminate this Contract for its convenience by notice in
writing to Consultant. Upon receipt of such notice, Consultant shall immediately
discontinue all services and work and the placing of all orders or the entering into
contracts for all supplies, assistance, facilities and materials in connection with the
performance of this Contract and shall proceed to cancel promptly all existing contracts
insofar as they are chargeable to this Contract. If the City terminates this Contract under
this Section 4.1, the City shall pay Consultant for services actually performed in
accordance herewith prior to such termination, less such payments as have been
previously made, in accordance with a final statement submitted by Consultant
documenting the performance of such work.
4.2 The City may terminate this agreement for cause in the event Consultant
fails to perform in accord with the requirements contained herein. In such event City
shall give Consultant written notice of Consultant's failure to perform, giving Consultant
seven (7) calendar days to come into compliance with the contract requirements. If
Consultant fails to come into compliance with this contract, City shall notify Consultant
in writing and this contract shall be terminated as of the date of such notification. In such
event, Consultant shall not be entitled to any additional compensation
4.3 The work to be performed under this agreement shall be accomplished in
two phases as more particularly shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto for all purposes.
Consultant acknowledges that City has appropriated sufficient funds to compensate
Consultant for all services in Phase I. During September 2001, the City Council of the
City of Fort Worth may be asked to appropriate sufficient funds to compensate Consultant
for Phase II work; however, in the event no funds or insufficient funds are appropriated
and budgeted by City in September 2001 for any payments due hereunder, City will notify
Consultant of such occurrence and this Contract shall terminate on September 30, 2001
without penalty or expense to City of any kind whatsoever, except as to the portions of the
payments herein agreed upon for which funds shall have been appropriated and budgeted.
Consultant acknowledges and agrees that it shall not proceed with any work to be
accomplished in Phase II without prior written authorization from City and, in the event,
any Phase II work is performed without such authorization, Consultant agrees that it shall
not be entitled to any compensation for such Phase II work.
4.4 Upon termination of this Contract for any reason, Consultant shall provide
the City with copies of all completed or partially completed documents prepared under
this contract.
5.
Indemnification and Release
5.1 Consultant shall indemnify and hold the City and its officers, agents and
employees harmless for any loss, damage, liability or expense for damage to property and
injuries, including death, to any person, including but not limited to officers, agents or
employees of Consultant or subcontractors, which may arise out of any negligent act,
error or omission in the performance of Consultant's professional services. Consultant
shall defend at its own expense any suits or other proceedings brought against the City,
its officers, agents and employees, or any of them, resulting from such negligent act, error
or omission; and shall pay all expenses and satisfy all judgments which may be incurred
by or rendered against them or any of them in connection therewith resulting from such
negligent act, error or omission.
5.2 In addition to the indemnification requirement above, Consultant releases Fort
Worth from any liability for injury or property damage incurred during this contract,
unless such injury or property damage was the result of intentional conduct committed by
an employee of the City. Consultant shall not permit any employee, officer, and agents
of the Consultant or any employees, officers or agents of any subcontractor to perform
any activity under this contract without first executing a release containing such
provisions.
Q5FFKC--QAL LIEND
Ra NXIMi Ful
6.
Insurance
Consultant shall carry insurance in the following types and amounts for the
duration of this agreement, and furnish certificates of insurance along with copies of
policy declaration pages and policy endorsements as evidence thereof.
6.1 Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability coverage with limits consistent
with statutory benefits outlined in the Texas Workers' Compensation Act (Art. 8308-1.01
et seq. Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat.) and minimum policy limits for Employers Liability of
$100,000 bodily injury per accident, $500,000 bodily injury disease policy limit and
$100,000 per disease per employee.
6.2 Commercial General Liability with a combined single limit of $250,000 per
occurrence for bodily injury and property damage and a minimum annual aggregate of
$500,000 for coverage A & B including products/completed operations, where
appropriate.
6.3 Business Automobile Liability Insurance for all owned, non-owned and hired
vehicles as follows:
$500,000 Bodily Injury per person, each accident
$1,000,000 Bodily Injury each accident
$100,000 Property Damage
or
$1,000,000 Combined Single Limit
6.4 General Requirements for Insurance
6.4.1 Consultant shall be responsible for deductibles and self-insured retentions,
if any, stated in policies. All deductibles or self-insured retentions shall be disclosed on
the certificates of insurance required above.
6.4.2 All insurance, other than workers compensation, shall be written on an
occurrence basis.
6.4.3 If insurance policies are not written for amounts specified above,
Consultant shall carry Umbrella or Excess Liability Insurance for any differences in
amounts specified. If Excess Liability Insurance is provided, it shall follow the form of
the primary coverage.
6.4.4 Consultant shall not commence work under this Agreement until it has
obtained the required insurance and until the Contract Manager has reviewed such
insurance. Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work until
required insurance has been obtained and approved. Approval of insurance by the City
shall not relieve or decrease the liability of the Consultant.
6.4.5 Insurance shall be written by companies licensed to do business in the
State of Texas at the time the policy is issued and shall be written by companies with a
rating of A- or better in the current A.M. Best Key Rating Guide or have reasonable
equivalent financial strength and solvency.
6.4.6 The City of Fort Worth shall be an additional insured as their interests
may appear on the Commercial General Liability, and Business Automobile Liability.
6.4.7 Consultant shall produce endorsements to each affected policy to
effectuate the following:
6.4.7.1 The City of Fort Worth is named as an additional insured on all
policies (except Workers' Compensation) with a mailing address of Attn.:
Purchasing Manager, Purchasing Division, 1000 Throckmorton, Fort Worth,
Texas 76102. ��,,�
q�� OW
6.7.4.2 The insurance company is obligated to notify Purchasing Manager,
Purchasing Division, 1000 Throckmorton, Fort Worth, Texas 76102, of any non-
renewal, cancellations or material changes an any policy at least forty-five (45)
days prior to change or cancellation.
6.7.4.3 That the "other" insurance clause shall not apply to the City where
the City of Fort Worth is an additional insured shown on the policy. It is intended
that policies required in this Agreement, covering both the City and Consultant
shall be considered primary coverage as applicable.
6.7.4.4 The City shall be entitled, upon request and without expense, to
receive copies of policies and endorsements thereto and may make any reasonable
requests for deletion or revision or modification of particular policy terms,
conditions, limitations, or exclusions except where policy provisions are
established by law or regulations binding upon either of the parties hereto or the
underwriter on any such policies.
6.7.4.5 Consultant shall not cause any insurance to be canceled nor permit
any insurance to lapse during the term of this Agreement or as required in this
Agreement.
6.7.4.6 The City reserves the right to review the insurance requirements of
this section during the effective period of the Agreement and to make reasonable
adjustments to insurance coverage and their limits when deemed necessary and
prudent by the City based upon changes in statutory law, court decision or the
claims history of the industry as well as of the Consultant.
6.7.4.7A11 certificates shall include a clause to the effect that the policy
shall not be reduced, restricted or limited until thirty (30) days after the City has
received written notice.
OFPCIad WORD
,,. .
6.7.4.8 Consultant shall provide owner thirty (30) days written notice of
erosion of the aggregate limit below the per occurrence limits outlined above.
6.4.8 Actual losses not covered by insurance as required by this Agreement shall be
paid by Consultant
7.
Independent Contractor
Consultant shall perform all work and services hereunder as an independent
contractor and not as an officer, agent or employee of the City. Consultant shall have
exclusive control of, and the exclusive right to control, the details of the work performed
hereunder and all persons performing same and shall be solely responsible for the acts
and omissions of its officers, agents, employees and subcontractors. Nothing herein shall
be construed as creating a partnership or joint venture between the City and the
Consultant, its officers, agents, employees and subcontractors; and the doctrine of
respondeat superior shall have no application as between the City and the Consultant.
8.
Disclosure of Conflicts
Consultant warrants to the City that it has made full disclosure in writing of any
existing or potential conflicts of interest related to the services to be performed
hereunder. Consultant further warrants that it will make prompt disclosure in writing of
any conflicts of interest that develop subsequent to the signing of this Contract.
9.
Right to Audit
9.1 Consultant agrees that the City shall, until the expiration of three (3) years
after final payment under this Contract, have access to and the right to examine any
directly pertinent books, documents, papers and records of the Consultant involving
transactions relating to this Contract. Consultant agrees that the City shall have access
during normal working hours to all necessary Consultant facilities and shall be provided
adequate and appropriate workspace in order to conduct audits in compliance with the
provisions of this section. The City shall give Consultant reIad v w �� t a of
intended audits. CRY R'C" 1 Fly
a VIS V�[17IfH�p �' Fly
9.2 Consultant further agrees to include in all its subcontractor agreements
hereunder a provision to the effect that the subcontractor agrees that the City shall, until
the expiration of three (3) years after final payment under the subcontract, have access to
and the right to examine any directly pertinent books, documents, papers and records of
such subcontractor involving transactions to the subcontract, and further that City shall
have access during normal working hours to all subcontractor facilities and shall be
provided adequate and appropriate work space in order to conduct audits in compliance
with the provisions of this paragraph. City shall give subcontractor reasonable advance
notice of intended audits.
10.
Prohibition of Assignment
Neither party hereto shall assign, sublet or transfer its interest herein without the
prior written consent of the other party, and any attempted assignment, sublease or
transfer of all or any part hereof without such prior written consent shall be void.
11.
M/WBE Goals; Nondiscrimination.
11.1 In accord with City of Fort Worth Ordinance No. 11923, as amended by City
of Fort Worth Ordinance No. 13471, the City has goals for the participation of minority and
woman business enterprises in City contracts. Consultant acknowledges the M/WBE goal
established for this contract and its commitment to meet that goal. Any misrepresentation of
facts (other than a negligent misrepresentation) and/or the commission of fraud by the
Consultant may result in the termination of this agreement and debarment from participating
in City contracts for a period of time of not less than three(3) years.
11.2 As a condition of this Contract, Consultant covenants that it will take all
necessary actions to insure that, in connection with any work under this Contract,
Consultant, its associates and subcontractors, will not discriminate in the treatment or
employment of any individual or groups of individuals on the grounds of race, color,
religion, national origin, age, sex or physical handicap unrelated to job performance,
either directly, indirectly or through contractual or other arrangements.
MLI V611 LEND
C11N
12.
Choice of Law; Venue
12.1 This contract shall be construed in accordance with the internal law of the
State of Texas.
12.2 Should any action, whether real or asserted, at law or in equity, arise out
of the terms of this Contract, venue for said action shall be exclusively in the District
Court in Tarrant County, Texas.
EXECUTED on this, the 23rd day of January, 2001.
C
IFORT WORTH
13
City Sec� a50
LibbyWatson
Assistant City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
Assistant City Attorney
Justex Systems, Inc/
ZBy:nted
COntract Authorization 6-
qq-01
,D1 Title:f i .
Date
XD
CNi;7 K("(�'; ERQV
rz wj)Cnq II o
City of Fort Worth, Texas
4tsmyor And council communication
DATE REFERENCE NUMBER LOG NAME PAGE
1/9/01 **C-18422 02POLICE 1 of 2
SUBJECT AWARD OF CONTRACT TO JUSTEX SYSTEMS, INC. FOR A STUDY OF THE
POLICE DEPARTMENT
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Justex
Systems, Inc. for the performance of all professional services and expenses necessary to conduct a
comprehensive management review of the Fort Worth Police Department (FWPD) in the amount of
$610,000 for FY2000-2001 and $610,000 for FY2001-2002 (contingent upon approval by the Crime
Control and Prevention District Board and the City Council appropriating the necessary funds).
DISCUSSION:
In 1995, the citizens of Fort Worth voted for a half-cent increase in sales tax to be used toward the
creation of a Crime Control and Prevention District (CCPD). According to state law, the CCPD was
authorized for five years beginning October 1, 1995. Revenue from the tax was to be used to employ
additional police officers, purchase replacement and new police vehicles, increase security at schools,
and expand other crime fighting programs.
As renewal of the CCPD approached, the City Council expressed a desire to evaluate the impact of
these additional funds and for a comprehensive review of the FWPD. It is expected that this objective
look at operations will provide information needed by the City and FWPD to ensure the most effective
means of service delivery while maintaining a community-policing stance.
On May 6, 2000, in a new election, voters approved a second five-year term of the CCPD. In the first
year CCPD budget (FY2000-2001), $610,000 was approved and appropriated for a program
evaluation/resource analysis of the FWPD. An additional $610,000 is proposed for the second year
(FY2001-2002) yet is contingent upon CCPD and City Council approval in the next budget cycle.
On June 20, 2000, a proposed study outline and timeline for this project was presented to the City
Council, and direction was given to proceed with the process of securing an external consultant to carry
out the study.
On June 22, 2000, a Request for Qualification (RFQ) was issued, mailed to 27 firms, and advertised
publicly. There were five responses to the RFQ. Four of the respondents earned an evaluation score
that deemed them qualified to conduct the study.
Subsequently, on August 3, 2000, a Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued to the four respondents
and advertised publicly. On September 14, 2000, four proposals were received in response to the RFP.
Of the four, two proposers were asked to make an oral presentation to the evaluation committee. After
extensive analysis, Justex Systems, Inc. has been selected as the preferred proposer to conduct the
FWPD study by the evaluation committee.
Justex Systems, Inc. is in compliance with the City's M/WBE Ordinance by committing to 15% M/WBE
participation over the life of the project.
City of Fort Worth, Texas
"ayor and CouncilCommunicAtan
DATE REFERENCE NUMBER LOG NAME PAGE
1/9/01 **C-1$422 02POLICE 2 of 2
SUBJECT AWARD OF CONTRACT TO JUSTEX SYSTEMS, INC. FOR A STUDY OF THE
POLICE DEPARTMENT
FISCAL INFORMATION/CERTIFICATION:
The Finance Director certifies that funds are available in the current operating budget, as appropriated,
of the CCPD. Continuation of this project into FY2001-2002 is contingent upon approval of the CCPD
Board and the City Council appropriating funds to complete the project.
CB:k
Submitted for City Manager's FUND ACCOUNT CENTER AMOUNT CITY SECRETARY
Office by: (to) 1
Charles Boswell 8511 CITY O
Originating Department Head: COUNCIL
Paul Sweitzer 8507 (from) JAN 9 2MI
GR79 539120 0352100 $610,000.00 A,,6Additional Information Contact: �+i..r
City of�W�orth�'l��e
April Hilliard 6225
CITY SECRETARY
CONTRACT NO.
Proposal
in response to the request for an
Analysis
Of The
Fort Worth Police Department
Submitted
September 2000
I
By
Justex Systems, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVESUMMARY................................................................................................. 1
PART ONE: ORGANIZATION........................................................................................4
PART TWO: SYSTEM CONCEPT AND SOLUTION....................................................5
The Core Commitment: National Eminence..........................................................5
Relationship with the Fort Worth Police Department.............................................7
Deployment by Analysis: A Multi-level Approach to Field Operations................8
Project Requirements for Success......................................................................... 12
Figure: Project Requirements for Success.......................................................... 12a
PART THREE: PROGRAM............................................................................................14
Figure: Program Methodological Framework.................................................... 14a
Phase One: Initial Assessment...........:................................................................. 15
Phase Two: Environmental Analysis ................................................................... 19
Figure: Systems Overview.................................................................................20a
Phase Three: Interim Observations......................................................................22
Figure: Systems Analysis Overview..................................................................27a
Phase Four: Evaluation of Operations..................................................................28
Phase Five: Comprehensive Evaluation and Analysis.........................................31
Figure: Timeline................................................................................................. 31a
PART FOUR: PROJECT MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE...........................................32
Figure: Organizational Structure of the Project Team.......................................32a
PART FIVE: PRIOR EXPERIENCE..............................................................................34
Qualifications of Justex Systems as a Corporate Entity........................................36
Figure: Products of Justex Systems. Inc.............................................................37a
PARTSIX: PERSONNEL...............................................................................................38
Qualifications of the Team as a Whole.................................................................42
Figure: Team Experience in International Police Management Programs.........43a
Figure: A Sampling of Evaluation or Management Reviews by the Team........43b
Figure: Books Authored by Project Team..........................................................44a
PART SEVEN: AUTHORIZED NEGOTIATOR...........................................................48
PART EIGHT: COST PROPOSAL.................................................................................49
BudgetDetail.........................................................................................................50
PART NINE: FINAL REPORT.......................................................................................53
Figure: Deliverable to Team Matrix...................................................................53a
PART TEN: MINORITY WOMEN OWNED BUSINESS PARTICIPATION.............55
APPENDICES...................................................................................................................56
Appendix A: Sample Organizational Overview Instrument.................................57
Appendix B: Organizational Climate Instrument.................................................58
Appendix C: External Comparison......................................................................59
Appendix D: Data Elements To Be Collected......................................................60
Appendix E: Sample Website ..............................................................................61
AppendixF: Vitae................................................................................................62
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Fort Worth Police Department (FWPD) is already an excellent agency. Its
innovative citizen outreach programs are regarded as exemplary of the way community
policing should be accomplished. Given its status, the FWPD should seek more than a
straightforward, traditional patrol allocation review from this analysis endeavor. It
should seek assistance in achieving the rare and envied status of national eminence. Our
approach is designed to achieve that end. It is characterized by the following distinctive
elements:
A Long Term Relationship. Sophisticated development of this kind requires not only
the internal will of the agency, but also a sustained effort supported by police scholars
who have witnessed and participated in similar development efforts. It has been found
that the most effective relationship between researchers and practitioners are those. of
long duration. Mutual trust becomes a key to asking sensitive questions and searching
for answers without concern that the needs of either practitioners or knowledge-builders
are compromised by careless or self-seeking behaviors. This project team is vitally
interested in sustaining a long and productive working relationship with the Fort Worth
Police Department and its communities.
Patrol Is the Core of This Analysis. Field Operations does not operate in a vacuum,
and achieving National Eminence cannot be achieved by patrol alone. Given the
dimension of the funding, and the goals of the analysis, all elements of the FWPD
administration and operations are included in the research review. Nevertheless, we
understand that patrol (field operations) is the core of the proposed review and will see
that it stays at the core.
Deployment By Analysis. Our approach to patrol allocation will be Deployment by
Analysis. A deployment by analysis strategic approach transcends traditional patrol
deployment models. Traditional models are necessary, and subsumed in this approach,
but are not sufficient. We are intimately familiar with and have employed models like
the Northwestern Traffic Institute program, those used by the Police Executive Research
Forum, and the various "canned" computer models. But a traditional "cookbook"
approach borrowed from 25 previously completed agency reviews is inappropriate here.
Our employment of Deployment By Analysis to patrol allocation, in contrast to
traditional approaches, illustrates our commitment to putting Fort Worth at the cutting
edge of the integration of emergent technology and strategy in policing. It integrates
policing research, community policing philosophy, emergent technologies, and general
management practices. Its goal is to constantly and rapidly "re-deploy" patrol in
response to emerging crime patterns and trends.
Knowledge of the City and Police Department. Justex Systems and the Project Team
have experience in dealing with the enormous number of contingencies that must be
considered to successfully complete a project of this dimension within the cost and time
constraints. Additionally, Justex Systems and the Project Team have had prior
experience in working with management of the Fort Worth Police Department. Fort
■
2
Worth police managers have been enrolled in numerous administrative development
programs that we have conducted under the auspices of Sam Houston State University,
the University of North Texas and the Southwestern Law Enforcement Institute.
Working relationships already exist and will contribute measurably to the trust necessary
for this type of evaluative effort to succeed.
Proximity. The proximity of the principal researchers to the City of Fort Worth is also
salient. The principal researchers are based at Sam Houston State University, the
Southwestern Law Enforcement Institute, and the University of North Texas. We are not
some distant research team that will occasionally "drop-in" to conduct the research. As
such, the principal stakeholders in Fort Worth will always be able to contact and reach
the principal members of the research team. Because the budget is not consumed by
extensive travel expense, the City and the FWPD will get more from its investment.
More importantly, the research team will not be a remote consulting agency without a
long-term interest in the results—we are here in Texas and will have to live with the
recommendations and quality of the evaluation. We will not be flying away.
An Outstanding Police Scholar On-site Full Time. Our approach includes the full time
assignment of Dr. Victor Strecher to the project, on-site for the year in Fort Worth. Dr.
Strecher, the former Dean and Director of Sam Houston State University's Criminal
Justice Center, enjoys a reputation of preeminence in law enforcement. He is one of the
"founding fathers" of the academic study of policing. Dr. Strecher's career includes so
many agency relationships that they are too numerous to list. He never loses touch with
the field and its practical needs.
We Don't Read the Books on Police Management, We Write Them. The Project
Team represents the best scholarship in policing. No other team one could assemble
could surpass our publication record. The books published include the best police
administration text currently in use, and the best selling book ever published by the
Police Executive Research Forum. Indeed, the combined efforts of David Carter, Larry
Hoover, and Darrel Stephens represent a significant portion of the books published by the
Police Executive Research Forum. Every Project Team member – every one – has an
outstanding reputation for enduring contribution to the field of policing.
In Touch with the Real World of Daily Police Operations. We may be academics, but
we are in touch – not annually but daily. All of the Project Team members work with
practitioners every day of the week. The Project Team includes Darrel Stephens, a
preeminent police administrator – who has even been City Manager of St. Petersburg,
Florida. We indeed pride ourselves on the real world focus of our work.
Sensitivity to Labor Relations Issues. Justex Systems, Inc. publishes the newsletters
Police Labor Monthly and Fire Service Labor Monthly. We have worked closely with
police associations throughout the nation, including the New York City Police
Benevolent Association, the Chicago Fraternal Order of Police, the Detroit Police
Officers Association, the Milwaukee Police Association, and virtually all of the national
labor groups. In Texas, we enjoy a close working relationship with the Combined Law
3
Enforcement Associations of Texas. Last year we completed a comparative
compensation study jointly sponsored by the City of Houston and the Houston Police
Officers Union. Since then we have been asked back by Houston to complete both the
captain and lieutenant's promotion examination processes. We are sensitive to the
concerns of the Fort Worth Police Officers Association and how to address them.
Methodology: Interim Observations. National Eminence will not be achieved by
dramatic, last minute delivery of a final report. Our goal for this project dictates our
methodological approach, and that includes a developmental process that includes broad
agency input, and constant review of potential recommendations.
Methodology: Benchmarking Is A Key Element. Our methodology includes a unique
approach that combines an advisory group of successful police chiefs, employing their
cities as benchmark organizations, and assuring cultural diversity on the review team.
We are not pre-selecting this group because the City and FWPD should be intimately
involved.
Methodology: Unit Self-Assessment Is A Key Element. Those who best know how to
improve operations are frequently those responsible for performing those operations. We
intend to fully engage the personnel of the FWPD in the process of seeking means to best
use the resources available to the agency. We will do everything in our power to see that
close, long-term, productive working relationships develop.
Multiple Products. We propose more than a single summative; final report. Our
commitment to assisting the FWPD to national eminence dictates that the products of this
analysis be fluid and updateable. The products include models and assessment devices
designed for continuous use.
An Ambitious but Realistic Timeline. Our proposal anticipates a twelve-month time
frame for completion of all substantive processes. This is ambitious, but we have
assembled a broad and committed Project Team, including a full-time; on-site manager. It
is thus realistic. The City and FWPD are ready to move forward rapidly. So should the
contractor for this endeavor.
Required Assertions. Justex Systems, Inc., intends to perform all services as outlined in
RFP 00-0235. Further, if awarded the contract, Justex Systems, Inc., agrees to enter into
a contract with the City of Fort Worth under the terms and conditions as prescribed by the
above-mentioned RFP. There are no exceptions taken to the project as proposed by
Justex Systems, Inc. There are no known conflicts of interest. The following persons are
authorized to execute agreements on behalf of Justex Systems, Inc.: Larry T. Hoover,
President, and Jerry L. Dowling, Vice President. Either may be reached Monday through
Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. (CDT) at(936) 291-7981 or(800) 842-5203.
arty T. oo ,President y wling, Vice Presi
4
PART ONE: ORGANIZATION
This proposal is submitted by Justex Systems, Incorporated. Justex Systems has been
incorporated since 1981 in the State of Texas. A branch office is located in Springfield,
Illinois. This project will be managed from the principal office, widh contact information
as follows:
P.O. Box 6224
Huntsville,Texas 77342-6224
936 291-7981
936 291-0984(fax)
800-842-5203
justex@justex.com
Primary Contact
Larry T. Hoover(President)
Secondary Contact
Jerry L. Dowling(Vice-President)
The physical office is located at 1300 1 Ph Street, Suite 320,Huntsville, Texas 77340.
5
PART TWO: SYSTEM CONCEPT AND SOLUTION
The Core Commitment: National Eminence
Justex Team Approach. Historically the City of Fort Worth and the Fort Worth
Police Department (FWPD) have been recognized throughout Texas for their leadership
role in efficient government and cost-effective administration. This proposal is designed
to build on that record of achievement. In recent years the FWPD has excelled by
leading in bold management and organizational program development.
Examples of Fort Worth's innovative spirit are numerous and include its widely
reported ground-breaking Crime Control District concept, its Citizens on Patrol Program,
its alliances with faith-based communities, its neighborhood-oriented youth programs,
and its affiliation with the private sector to enhance the quality of the life for all residents.
Its reputation for progressive policing is also evidenced by the number of times the
agency's activities have been featured in publications distributed throughout Texas,
community policing publications and national media.
Thus it comes as no surprise that the FWPD is now preparing itself for another
major step forward with every expectation of becoming one of the few municipal police
agencies of national distinction. Over the years, police scholars and managers have
customarily referred to a few truly advanced departments as examples of state-of-the-art
police administration. These departments serve as exemplars of what many strive for but
few actually achieve. The Justex project team perceives the FWPD as being positioned
for advancement into this much-admired status, a department referred to as nationally
eminent, and hopes to assist the department in achieving it.
6
The Justex Vision. This proposal envisions a partnership between the
Department and the Project Team that will provide a foundation for the agency to move
to the next level. In other words, Justex Systems, Inc. and the Project Team it has
assembled for this endeavor will join with the FWPD to provide the elements necessary
to move to national eminence.
Systems and Learning Focus. This project is designed to encourage the
Department to be cognizant of its role as a learning and teaching organization. An
exemplar to clarify this concept is that the best hospitals tend to be teaching hospitals.
The Texas Health Sciences Center and M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, or the
medical centers at Stanford, Harvard, Johns Hopkins, and the University of Michigan all
play a leadership role in developing and disseminating new knowledge to both their
clients and practitioners.
In the future, the best police departments are likely to be learning organizations,
analogous to those teaching hospitals. Police agencies and teaching hospitals have
several important similarities:
• Both deal with the well-being and safety of human beings,
• Both involve tough decisions, often made in stressful situations,
• Both require a knowledge base that is being improved year by year,
• Both are dependent upon the trust of their clientele to achieve success,
• And both function largely without significant oversight.
The Justex Project Team visualizes a relationship with the Department similar to
the system dynamics in teaching hospitals. The objective will be to seek and deploy the
most advanced approaches to the needs of the practitioners and their constituent
communities. Most important, the best medical care in the United States is provided at
the kind of medical institutions cited above. When the Fort Worth Police Department
achieves national eminence as a"police learning organization," the citizens of Fort Worth
will be enjoying the highest quality of policing the profession has to offer. Such a level
of competency will assist in making Fort Worth the safest city in America.
Relationship with the Fort Worth Police Department
The Proposal Goal. This analysis is designed to initiate a process that will result
in continuous learning and dialogue between the consultants and the Department. The
recommendations will focus on processes that will provide feedback for continuous
improvement.
One of the major strengths of this proposal is the experience and knowledge that
the Justex Project Team brings to this project. Team members are intimately familiar
with problems and issues confronting the Fort Worth area due to their professional
proximity. In addition, key members of the research team represent institutions that have
long-standing and vested ties to professional law enforcement. For instance, Dr. Gary W.
Sykes is the director of the prestigious Southwestern Law Enforcement Institute in
Richardson, Texas; Dr. Robert W. Taylor is the chair of the Department of Criminal
Justice at the University of North Texas in Denton, Texas; and Dr. Larry Hoover directs
the Police Research Center at Sam Houston State University in Huntsville, Texas. These
prominent experts in law enforcement administration along with the other members of the
Team believe that the groundwork is there for a synergy rarely in place in projects of this
nature.
8
Deployment by Analysis: A Multi-level Approach to Field Operations
The centerpiece of this analysis will be on field operations (i.e., patrol). Despite
the many positive innovations in recent years, the heart of the police function still
revolves around the point of service, namely the mobile street officers. Responses to
emergencies, major crime incidents, investigations and intelligence gathering are either
inherent in the patrol function or are initiated and triggered by field operations. From
communications and the myriad support services organized in the Department, the
inescapable fact is that they focus on maintaining the level of activity called the patrol
force.
An important product of this project is to provide substantive recommendations
for improving the FWPD's deployment method for uniformed officers. The underlying
premise is that in order to most wisely use police resources (i.e., maximize efficiency)
and to accomplish departmental goals (i.e., achieve effectiveness), the department must
employ the most current, scientifically documented knowledge on police practices that
can accomplish these ends. Justex Systems will apply a contemporary model of patrol
and traffic deployment that relies on the...
(1) ...findings of a wide body of patrol-related research;
(2) ...capabilities of current and emerging technologies for analysis,
dissemination and consumption of police activity;
(3) ...most current thought on the best methods for responding to...
(1) calls of criminal victimization
(2) traffic accident trends
(3) general calls for service
9
(4) ...best deployment model to facilitate officer-initiated activity for problem
solving and crime investigation.
The concept is referred to as Deployment By Analysis (DBA). Deployment By
Analysis is the timely and effective deployment of people and resources to respond to
crime, disorder, citizen demands for service, traffic problems and traffic trends that are
detected over a relatively short time period. A deployment by analysis strategic approach
transcends traditional patrol deployment models. Traditional models are necessary, and
subsumed in this approach, but are not sufficient. This approach to patrol allocation, in
contrast to traditional approaches, illustrates our commitment to putting Fort Worth at the
cutting edge of emergent technologies and strategies in policing.
The process requires accountability at all levels of the organization, necessary
resource allocation and both immediate triage and long-term solution to problems. Thus,
important operational dynamics produced by the Project Team will include:
(1) Recommendations on information flow processes, including types of
analysis, time frames, and dissemination;
(2) An emphasis on "trend spotting" and analysis of those trends in order to
define characteristics of locales,crimes, victims, and offenders;
(3) Development of an environment for creative responses to problem trends
that can address the immediate problem as well as develop a strategy to
minimize the probability of future problems;
(4) Creation of administrative processes:
(1) That ensure organizational responsibility is assigned to problem
trends, and
10
(2) That the individual(s) responsible have the authority to expend
and/or deploy resources to manage the problem(s).
One of the current Deployment By Analysis models, and the best known, is being
applied in New York City, New Orleans and Baltimore under the term "COMPSTAT'
(COMPuterized STATistics). Adopted by a wide range of police agencies around the
nation, this model is credited as being the strategy that drastically reduced crime in New
York. Despite its name, the process is much more than performing computerized data
analysis. Its essence is to use rapidly generated and analyzed data to dynamically assign
patrol personnel as well as to enhance accountability for crime control through the chain
of command. Many police agencies throughout the U.S.—including several in Texas—
have visited New York to observe the process. Texas jurisdictions using variants of this
model include San Antonio, El Paso, Houston, Arlington, Plano, Richardson, Abilene and
Harris County. In general, the New York model is not one that can be "plugged in" to
any police agency. Instead, the value of COMPSTAT relies upon what has been learned
in each individual jurisdiction about crime control, call response, and accountability. The
deployment by analysis approach suggested by the Justex Project Team expands on this
concept to integrate consideration of:
• Police patrol research (e.g.,preventive patrol; response time; directed patrol; team
policing; differential police response; alternate patrol deployment models)
• Research on policing tactics (e.g., field interview research; investigations
practices by patrol officers; patrol vehicle staffing; officer initiated activity; use of
tactical and strategic intelligence)
• Contemporary policing philosophies (e.g., crime-specific policing; community
policing; problem solving; e-policing)
• Applications of current and emerging technologies to the practice of policing
(e.g., computerized crime analysis; networking; integrated data bases; crime
mapping; digital audio, video, and imaging; wireless communications for voice
and data)
11
• Integration of contemporary trends and practices (e.g., continuous quality
improvement; development of a knowledge center; development of intellectual
capital; benchmarking; customer orientation; decentralization of authority;
enhanced accountability; and corporate responsibility)
• Organizational individuality (e.g., organizational culture; community
expectations; specific needs, concerns, and demands for police service in Fort
Worth)
Relying on an assessment of quantitative data, interviews of personnel,
observations and content analysis of documents (e.g., policies, procedures, goals), the
consultant team will make recommendations for developing a FWPD Deployment by
Analysis Model (a model which embodies the characteristics described above). This
method and the proposed model will be consistent with the theme of national eminence
proposed for this project. Recommendations will focus on the following areas:
• New or refined policies and practices
• Inculcation of a new or refined policing strategy
• Development and application of new or refined technologies
• Human resource development
Deployment by Analysis represents the cutting edge of police practice. It
integrates policing research, community policing philosophy, emergent technologies, and
general management practices. Its goal is to "re-deploy" patrol in response to emerging
crime patterns and trends as rapidly as a flock of birds turning in unison while in flight–
in contrast to a lumbering battleship slowing maneuvering into position. Collectively,
members of the Project Team—as evidenced by their qualifications—have unique
knowledge and experience enabling the creation of a Deployment By Analysis Model for
Fort Worth.
12
Project Requirements for Success
The resources required to complete the evaluation study are indicative of the
importance the City of Fort Worth attaches to this project. Because of the size and high
visibility of this project as well as its influence upon the quality of police services in the
City for years to come, the performance of the endeavor will require at least the
following:
• Validity. A process that has "face validity" with the members of the Department
as well as technical and substantive soundness, i.e., the process has both the
appearance and the effect of being "on target" with regard to evaluation strategy.
It is important in this regard that the contractor be prepared to personally appear
before several police audiences during the course of the endeavor. This is a
Project Team that knows how to relate to both management and the rank and file
of a police agency. As labor relations consultants we work with police
associations throughout the United States, and plan to fully engage the Fort Worth
Police Officers Association.
• Strategy Orientation. Knowledge of state-of-the-art police practices and
perspective is extremely important. For this project it is important that the
contractor understand both police management practices and crime interdiction
strategies. Experience does not bear out the claim of consultants or evaluation
experts who minimize the importance of knowledge of police strategy. The
Project Team is on the cutting edge of community policing and crime specific
approaches to ensuring community safety. We will bring a strategy orientation
with us to the endeavor.
• Experience in Agency Analysis. It is important to not only possess expertise in
management analysis, but to understand the exigencies of such analyses in major
municipal agencies. Working with a methodology suitable for an agency the size
and diversity of the Fort Worth Police Department involves logistical
considerations that impinge upon methodology. The City of Fort Worth cannot
afford to.make this project available as a training experience for contractors who
lack experience in major municipal police jurisdictions. Justex Systems and the
Project Team have experience in dealing with the enormous number of
contingencies that must be considered to successfully complete a project of this
dimension within the cost and time constraints.
• Personal Relationship. Additionally, Justex Systems and the Project Team have
had prior experience in working with management of the Fort Worth Police
Department. Fort Worth police managers have been enrolled in numerous
administrative development programs that we have conducted under the auspices
r
f
}r
•co
O G1
1 •� E
._ > ._
O .1•+
C_ O
w UU
r
Z v
cn
_ >
r A .O W O i
0 m uif)
.� ,� O 0
cn � U.
U
W .
13 y V�
> •O
LL
4
13
of Sam Houston State University, University of North Texas, the Law
Enforcement Management Institute of Texas, and the Southwestern Law
Enforcement Institute. Further, Justex Systems has worked in prior years with the
Fort Worth Police Officers Association, and maintains close ties with its parent
state association, CLEAT.
• Proximity. The proximity of the principal researchers to the City of Fort Worth
is also a matter for consideration. The principal researchers are based at Sam
Houston State University, Huntsville, Southwestern Law Enforcement Institute,
Richardson, and the University of North Texas, Denton; not some distant research
team that will occasionally "drop-in" to conduct the research. As such, the
principal stakeholders in Fort Worth will have ready access to the principle
members of the consulting team during and after the conclusion of the project.
• Community Policing Commitment. As experienced law enforcement and
personnel professionals, Justex Systems and the Project Team understand the
commitment of the City of Fort Worth to the quality of police interaction with the
citizens of the City. Every recommendation should have at its core enhancing the
quality of that partnership.
• Continuous Improvement. An evaluation that plays to the media with
melodramatic revelations is inappropriate here. Committed police professionals
of the Fort Worth Police Department are doing their best to deliver quality service
in a cost-effective manner. This is already an outstanding police agency. Indeed,
while we suggest propelling the agency to national eminence, the Fort Worth
Police Department has not been recognized nationally to the extent it already
deserves for the outstanding work and innovation that characterize its operations.
The specific goal of the evaluation should be continuous improvement through
systemic analysis. The Team proposed is committed to that evaluative
philosophy.
Our system concept is integrated with the quality and characteristics of the
proposed project team — both are focused upon national eminence for the Fort Worth
Police Department.
4
14
PART THREE: PROGRAM
We envision five distinct phases in the
program methodological framework: initial Initial
assessment, environmental analysis, interim
-
observations, evaluation of operations, and
comprehensive evaluation and analysis. Each Environmental Analysis
phase naturally flows from the prior phase
"
depicted in the flow chart. While the tasks and
Interim Observations
procedures within the five phases are distinct,
some will occur simultaneously and overlap on
the task schedule (included at the end of this Evaluation of Operations
section). The program methodology is
constructed in such a way to provide the team ' ' ' '
And Analysis
with the crucial information and analyses we
will need to conduct a meaningful evaluation for Fort Worth. The methodological framework
is phased in such a way to allow for overlapping tasks, information gathering, and minimal
disruption to the activities of the Fort Worth Police Department. Each phase and its
associated tasks is depicted in the program methodological framework chart. Each phase and
" task is described in detail in the narrative following the chart. The key to this evaluation is
collecting information in such a way as to lead to a logical evaluation design resulting in
recommendations and information useful to the client groups. The team will provide bi-
weekly meetings with the oversight committee as well as written monthly progress reports
concerning the progress of each phase and completion of each task.
N
N C
y � C
d d N R
V
O � 2 N U C[S
cd CO W
W
3 [1
d �
s
a y CD
d ? N C N
ID m
N cC m A
M:
C d �
{J. N
� Q O
N U ,
r � N
N
� d
L
CC,,, �
` U
O 1�
Al� _
W
cCU
UL—
cz
L� Q
O
N `y
U R d
o �
a> a w uj •�
_C) W d
o„
C) t
7Y R
c L
_ ¢
o
CL
cc
o
N
Ca C
R CU O
O O R
O CO
7
czC W
L
O
L
�i N
tC
�. C
'F,C
1
N C
N � O
N -
d �
U �
O �
4
LU
I
O N
m A
ca
C
IL N Q
O
U
is
Phase One: Initial Assessment
Phase One is the assessment phase. Although the Project Team is familiar with
the Fort Worth Police Department, it is essential that we gain an intimate knowledge of
the organization and its operations. The team needs an opportunity to assess the
structure, processes, and operations of the organization as well as conduct an inquiry into
what information sources are readily available. Therefore, this phase of the analysis is
divided into two major areas: organizational overview and information analysis.
Organizational Overview. The organizational overview is designed to
familiarize the team with the organizational structure, operation, and processes of the
FWPD. The team will distribute a semi-structured, open-ended instrument to
representatives from the seven key groups that will be primarily involved in the
evaluation.
The initial meeting and discussion will be with representatives from:
• The City of Fort Worth
• Fort Worth Police Department Command staff
• Fort Worth Police Department Mid-management
• Fort Worth Police Officers Association
• Fort Worth Police Department Line officers
• Fort Worth Police Department Support Staff
• Community(including representatives from community groups,
business groups, and FWPD community units.)
The team will then meet with the representatives of each group separately to
discuss various issues pertinent to the research and evaluation components. The meetings
16
will center on issues outlined in the instrument. The purpose of these meetings is to help
the team frame the research to the unique conditions and needs of the FWPD. In
addition, this process will also frame the research goals and expectations of the client
groups involved in the evaluation. In other words, we must assess what people want and
expect from an evaluation of this magnitude. We are interested in a customized approach
to evaluating the department. From the outset, the team must gain insight into strengths,
issues, concerns, and areas for additional attention needed for an evaluation of this scope
to provide meaningful knowledge to the client groups. The knowledge gained from this
overview will tailor the instruments, research processes, and research goals used in latter
stages of the evaluation.
The questions we will pose in these meetings will be modified to some extent for
each of the client groups listed. The questions are included as an Appendix.
Typically, these initial focus-group meetings are informal mechanisms designed
to elicit information about the organization. Questions often lead to more questions, and
that is the goal. The questions listed in the Appendix are a jumping off point that will aid
in structuring the interaction to some extent. They are also designed to give the
evaluation team the crucial information it needs to proceed in a logical and systematic
fashion with the remainder of the evaluation. Conducting this step also allows us to elicit
the support of the units being evaluated to review and participate in the research.
Virtually every reference on conducting evaluation research refers to the need to
conduct preliminary analysis VELor to beginning the evaluation. Nonetheless, many
researchers either overlook or skip this crucial "first step" of the process. Typically this
is due to a reliance on a cookie-cutter evaluation method that is assumed to fit every
17
evaluation. We have no intention of cutting and pasting "Fort Worth Police Department"
into an already established document reporting a management study conducted
elsewhere. Our assumption is that every situation is different. The needs of a police
organization vary. The research method should fit the needs of the evaluation rather than
' fitting the needs of the evaluation into an established framework. As an example, the
heart of this project rests in the evaluation and subsequent development of a patrol
strategy which maximizes resources. While several models exist in the literature and in
practice (i.e. split-force models, rapid response strategies, automated allocation models,
community-based models), none may be most applicable to Fort Worth, Texas.
Maximizing resources and having personnel available when and where crime occurs or
where services are most needed requires an individual and unique model designed
specifically for the Fort Worth Police Department.
In this manner, we will take into account the organizational philosophy and
culture of the department as well as the particular crime/service data, social and ethnic
demographics, geographic oddities, and historical precedents of the City of Fort Worth.
This team will not attempt to make the Fort Worth Police Department "fit" a specific
model, but rather use existing; information and data to develop a patrol model most suited
for the FWPD. Inherent in this statement is the idea that continuous dialogue between the
leadership of the police department and the research teams will exist. Hence, at the end
of this project the Fort Worth Police Department will have a patrol allocation model
jointly designed and implemented through this exchange of information, and not a series
of"recommendations" to be implemented by the FWPD as the consultants "leave town."
18
Information Analysis. The information analysis is a process of gathering,
collating, and reviewing the current documentation and computerized data sources the
team will need to perform the research. The areas of information analysis are described
below, however it is common to find out in this step that other sources of information (as
yet undiscovered) will be uncovered and deemed useful for the research project. We do
not want to grind the operations of the police department to a complete halt while we
conduct myriad surveys and other data compilation. Instead, it is fundamentally easier
and more efficient to assess what is already available and incorporate the information into
the evaluation. Some of the sources we anticipate using and/or collecting include:
• Fort Worth Police Department Sources
o Computerized databases/operational records/support unit records
o Policy and procedural documents
o Planning and implementation documents
o Administrative and other research studies
o Training manuals/lesson plans/in-service topics and materials
o Staff inspection and internal investigation summary data
• City of Fort Worth Sources
o Computerized databases
o Fiscal documents/costing studies
o Policies relating to FWPD
o Administrative and other research collected pertaining to police services
• State,Regional,and County Sources
o News media coverage of FWPD
19
o North Central Texas Council of Governments
o Comparative data from cities similar to Fort Worth
o Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education
(TCLEOSE) data
• National Sources
o Crime statistics and databases,census data
o Comparative data from cities similar to Fort Worth
• Academic Sources
o Prior comprehensive studies similar to the current study
o Literature relating to delivery of police services
Phase Two: Environmental Analysis
Once the team has conducted a preliminary introduction and review of the
department, the next logical step is to learn more about the environment in which the
evaluation will be conducted. The environmental analysis will consist of four tasks: a
community review, a study of intergovernmental relations, a unit self-assessment, and an
external comparison. Each component will provide crucial information for the
subsequent phases of the evaluation. The fundamental reason for conducting this phase is
the recognition that the Fort Worth Police Department is part of a larger system designed
to deal with quality of life in the City. Demands and expectations exist from customers
external to the police department including the community, the business community, and
other governmental agencies. The department is organized to provide for the demands of
these customers as well as customers that are internal to the department. Existing
resources, personnel, and external support groups support service delivery. Although
20
these groups support service delivery, they also place demands on the service itself. The
delivery of quality of life services such as rule enforcement, order maintenance, and
community service are accomplished in concert with and with review from the customer
base. These observations are depicted graphically in the following Systems Overview
Chart which reinforces the idea that the department does not exist in a vacuum. As such,
it is crucial for the evaluation to study and account for each of the customer groups
described above. The nature of the interaction between the Fort Worth Police
Department and its customers is thus a crucial part of the overall evaluation effort.
Community Review. In this step, we would collect data and potentially conduct
interviews and surveys with the Citizens on Patrol group, selected members of the
business community, and the general public. In addition, we would identify and
incorporate information from external support groups such as various community
organizations, business groups, and private support groups. The goal of this process will
be to identify the needs and expectations of these groups to provide foundational material
for the remainder of the evaluation.
Intergovernmental Relations. The first task in this step is to identify the various
customers in other governmental branches with which FWPD works on a regular basis.
In this step, we would identify and document information and linkage processes
(strengths, needs, and issues) that are common channels of communication. We would
also conduct a customer needs assessment to determine the expectations of the various
customers the FWPD serves.
Unit Self-Assessment. This is the most encompassing task of Phase Two. A
structured unit self-assessment will be conducted to determine exactly what form the
a v
a
� o
1
i
1 J ,
•
•
1
1
• o a
04
U " a C�
c W f ^a ° C; i
x
� c •f — -o x
2 w O a O W
a U x x
21
evaluative phase will take. This step will also give each of the units a stake in the
outcome of the overall evaluation. This task will provide the client groups and the
evaluators with information crucial to successful completion of the analysis. The units
have a great deal of information concerning their operations and this resource needs to be
tapped. The core research in this task is a comprehensive needs assessment of all of the
major units within the FWPD. A needs assessment analyzes needs, not wants.
Frequently, the members of a division hold different attitudes concerning the future
direction of an organization and how to get there. What a needs assessment will do is
separate the needs from the wants. In addition, any information not gathered in the initial
phase can be determined during this part of the unit-self-assessment. The needs
assessment and information gathering will be accomplished through interviews and
surveys of personnel within the department. A large part of the needs assessment will
involve assessing the organizational climate of the FWPD. The organizational climate is
assessed through an instrument that asks questions about job satisfaction, organizational
change adaptation, and organizational communication. An example of this type of
instrument used at a large criminal justice organization in Texas is included in the
Appendix. The items are parts of larger scales that will be used in subsequent analyses
and as part of a larger assessment of the organization.
External Comparison/Peer Review. The other task to be accomplished in Phase
Two is the external comparison. In order to perform the peer review and benchmarking
parts of the evaluation, the team will gather statistical and other data on comparison cities
both within Texas and elsewhere. The team will assemble a number of data sources for
comparison, many of which are mentioned in Phase One. The external comparison will
22
play a large part in the final evaluation and analysis. We completed a snapshot
comparison of Fort Worth with the 31 cities in the United States with populations
150,000 more and less than Fort Worth. It is included in an Appendix. These data are
readily available, and do not require major effort to obtain. However, we will expand this
effort, and gather more qualitative information from a short list of benchmark cities/
police departments, as described below.
Phase Three: Interim Observations
The team will document the observations gleaned from the first two phases of the
analysis. These observations will then be shared with the various client groups in the
evaluation for comment and review. The observations and associated commentary will
then become the information used to frame the remainder of the evaluation. At this point,
we will have the information necessary to make informed decisions about needed areas of
attention and analysis pertinent to the goals and expectations of the principal client
groups. Further, we will have gained unique insight into the structure, operation, and
processes of the FWPD. Such information is crucial in order to develop usable, realistic,
and feasible recommendations for FWPD and the City of Fort Worth. In addition, this
phase of the research will allow the various client groups to offer feedback on the
findings to date. Prior to moving into the final two phases of the research, the approval
and support of the various client groups will be sought out. Again, it is our intention to
involve the client groups to the greatest degree possible throughout the entire evaluation
process.
A Sampling of Operations Audit and Review Issues. The phases of the process
described to this point will include at least the following elements as part of our review.
23
For logical convenience, they are listed below in terms of major police agency
components:
1. Basic Operational Unit Issues
• Patrol Operations
• Workload analysis by car sectors and shifts
• Workload forecasting for car allocation
• Response time and capture of database
• Call classification and prioritization
• Beat integrity and cross-beat dispatches
• One- and two-officer car issues
• Backup incidence and availability
• Criminal Investigations
• Case screening,solvability analysis
• Preliminary,follow-up procedures
• Case purging
• Division of investigative work
• Management of investigations
2. Specialized Operational Unit Issues
• Degree of specialization in department
• Indicators of under-or over-specialization
• Appropriate functioning of specialized units
• Inter-relations of general/specialized units (eg. traffic,juvenile)
3. Line Support Unit Issues
• Radio communications
• Records and identification
• Data system,computer services
• Evidence collection and processing
• Forensic laboratory services
24
4. Administrative Support Unit Issues
• Human Resource Management
• Selection
• Training and education of new officers
• Assignment
• Evaluation
• In-service training and education at all ranks
• Salary administration
• Assessment for assignment and promotion
• Civilianization
• Women and minorities employed,assigned,promoted
• Planning,Decision-Making,Programming and Implementation
• Finance Management and Budgeting
5. Macro/Departmental Resource Allocation
• Allocation among major line and support functions/units
6. Intra-Unit Resource Allocation
• Allocation within line and support functions/units
7. Accountability/Integrity Assurance Systems
• Chain of command accountability and communication
• Staff inspection of personnel,equipment,facilities,policies,procedures
• Internal investigations of critical incidents
8. Service Quality Indicators
9. Policy Monitoring,Review and Development Systems
10. Procedural Monitoring,Review and Development Systems
11. Line Operational Control and Coordination Systems
12. Line Operational Integration Systems
• Patrol and investigations
• Patrol response and crisis/negotiation/special tactics interventions
• Police and fire department responses,arson investigations
25
13. Technological Support Systems
• Information systems
• Crime analysis, case-linking, pattern analysis
• Workload analysis
• In-car terminals
• In-car phones, radios
• Dangerous personsilocations warning system
14. Physical Plant: quality and maintenance
15. Automotive Equipment and Services
16. Quality and maintenance of equipment issued to officers
17. Uniforms: style, quality, utility, maintenance
18. Leadership
• Supervisory Approach
• Middle-Management Approach
• Executive Management Approach
19. Labor Relations
20. Citizen Involvement
Collection of Data Elements. Police departments generate and record an
enormous amount of data in delivering public safety services to the community. A police
department captures this data in a variety of ways and for a variety of reasons. For
example, crime data may be recorded for purposes of participation in the Federal Bureau
of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program and for crime analysis
purposes. Other data may be recorded as part of the normal workaday world of the
department. For instance, police departments keep track of the number and respective
assignments of employees. For individual data elements to produce useful information,
however, the elements must be compared and correlated to each other in some rational
manner. How departmental data is correlated is significantly dependent upon the
26
question an individual is seeking to answer. Comparing the current ratio of officers
among various divisions, e.g., patrol to investigations, provides insight relevant to
projected staffing needs. On the other hand, not all comparisons produce useful
information. Dividing average officer age into the total budget of the department
certainly produces a mathematical factor,but the factor is essentially useless.
Additionally, comparing department data to similar statistics from other law
enforcement agencies may prove useful in assessing the relative efficiency and
effectiveness of the Fort Worth Police Department. While such inter-department
comparisons should be interpreted cautiously, they do provide a snapshot of how one
department measures up against national averages or departments in similar cities of
similar size and staffing levels.
As part of this project, Justex Project Team will collect a wide range of data
elements about the city, the community, the police department, and other police
departments, both in and out of Texas. A complete list of data elements is attached as an
Appendix.
None of these data have, of course, meaning without evaluative interpretation.
Understanding context is essential. The process of a police agency operations analysis
should never move directly from data to evaluative conclusions. That is why we
emphasize the importance of an intermediate step — that we term "observations."
Observations are non-evaluative, non judgmental. Our observations step should not be
confused with a"preliminary report." The observations phase is not a preliminary report,
because evaluation has not yet occurred. Employing an observations stage allows an
interactive, heuristic approach closely involving agency and City personnel at all levels.
27
• Justex Systems does not intend to merely "assess" the Fort Worth Police Department.
We intend to assist the agency in propelling itself to national eminence. A traditional
operations analysis, a cookbook approach borrowed from 25 previously completed
• agency reviews, is inappropriate here. This is an excellent agency. It does not need
cookbook recommendations. It needs a partnership with a highly competent research
team to propel itself to national eminence.
Review System Process. The philosophy behind the research process mirrors the
Fort Worth Police Department system process. As indicated in the chart on the following
page, the research requires inputs into the evaluation process and to obtain the desired
outputs (described below in Phase Five), the client groups and evaluators must be
intimately tied to the research. Similar to the systems process, the conversion process of
the evaluation will result in outputs that will benefit the agency and complete the
research. As noted in the chart, feedback at each phase is crucial. An evaluation without
continual feedback with the organization and client groups is useless. We want to assure
that the feedback processes incorporated into our methodological framework will be
sufficient to conduct meaningful research. Before the research can move into the
conversion process, the inputs developed in Phase One and Phase Two must pass through
the gate-keeping step of Phase Three. In addition to serving the function of a checkpoint,
Phase Three will also serve as another mechanism of input for the client groups. The
final two phases concern conducting the evaluation analysis and preparing the final report
and documentation.
y •� � •� � .� 1 L C
•� Q �.
> m
_ 1
• �I
• 1
3
C
C C
� o
L
O
28
Phase Four: Evaluation of Operations
The evaluation of operations encompasses five primary areas identified by the
research: field operations (patrol), traffic division, training division, investigations, and
support operations. During this phase, the research team will conduct the actual
evaluation analysis using the inputs developed in the earlier phases. We will incorporate
peer-review processes in all phases of the evaluation operations. It is at this point that the
majority of the data collection effort will be completed.
Structural / Process Review. An analysis of the structure and processes within
the Fort Worth Police Department will be conducted. The analysis will produce more
than just an organizational chart. One of the goals of this task is to document
communication networks as well as produce a functional organizational chart. The
products produced will be both at the macro and micro levels of the department. In other
words, the structures and processes of the organization as a whole as well as the units
within the organization will be produced. In addition, how the FWPD functions within
its environment and the processes of service delivery will be analyzed and documented.
The results of this analysis will shed light on information flow within the agency as well
as informational chokepoints and problems. The process review will shed light on the
functional interactions between units and levels of the organization.
Cost/ Benefit Analysis (Efficiency Studies) / Staffing Models. It is relatively
easy to determine the fiscal costs of many functions, however determining the efficiency
is a more complex undertaking. An analysis of the efficiency of operations within FWPD
will be produced. In addition, the team will conduct an allocation analysis to determine if
current resources are being efficiently utilized. This task will also develop information to
29
produce models for future efficiency analyses and models for predicting future staffing
needs. This task will produce information on the costs of common functions within the
agency as well as information needed for a quality analysis. The information analysis
will also produce a benchmarking study for comparisons with agencies outside Fort
Worth.
Effectiveness Analysis. The effectiveness analysis is contingent upon the
information developed in the early phases of this analysis. We prefer the term "quality
measures" to "effectiveness analysis." The definitions of success and variables used to
assess quality will be determined in conjunction with the needs analysis and common
variables for assessing police effectiveness in the current literature. Determining
effectiveness, i.e., determining quality in policing, is essentially a matter of framing the
evaluation questions in quantifiable terms. The information developed in this task will
also be used to produce the benchmarking study and the comparison with other cities.
Models will be developed for assessing effectiveness in the future as well. A goal
analysis will inevitably be part of this task.
Benchmarking Comparison. Earlier in the proposal we alluded to exceeding the
comparative analysis stipulated in the Request for Proposals and establishing a
component of the research we would characterize as a benchmarking study.
Benchmarking is, of course, a recognized element of Total Quality Management
approaches. Comparative data, standing alone, has real limitations for insight because it
lacks context. The type of comparative data we included in an Appendix certainly
provides some evaluative information. We know, for example, that compared to other
cities of like size nationally, Fort Worth has a relatively low crime rate as measured by
30
the UCR. But those rates are subject to numerous caveats. Further, such data does little
to provide guidance on how to provide quality in police services. Thus, we propose
identifying, in consultation with the Department, five to seven "benchmark" police
departments for depth comparison. The chiefs of police of those agencies would form the
Advisory Panel discussed in Section Six. Thus, data should be easier to obtain than
would otherwise be the case. The selected agencies should police jurisdictions
demographically similar, although not necessarily identical, to Fort Worth. More
important, the agencies should be philosophically similar to the Fort Worth Police
Department: committed to excellence, progressive, committed to community policing,
enjoying positive and supportive relations with their officer associations, et cetera. As
emphasized in Section Six, we do not anticipate that the Advisory Panel will participate
in the research itself and certainly not impose a particular perspective on the analysis.
However, an assessment of qualitative (as opposed to quantitative) variation would
provide insight for all participants.
Alternative Futures. To continue to be an organization dedicated to continuous
improvement, the evaluation will develop models for future growth and analysis. The
information developed in this task will be used for strategic planning, future needs, and
future issues for attention. An analysis of what events the Fort Worth Police Department
will face in the future in terms of economic growth, annexation, staffing, technology, and
demography will be developed. On the basis of agency aspirations, what does the future
hold for FWPD?
31
Phase Five: Comprehensive Evaluation and Analysis
The final phase of the evaluation will be the production of a comprehensive
evaluation product for the client groups. Several of the reports produced over the course
of the evaluation effort will be incorporated into the final analysis. The team will
develop a dedicated website for this evaluation. The website will contain updated
information on how the study is progressing and contain a mechanism for input from the
various client groups. No substantive information will be posted to the website until it is
in its final form and after it is reviewed by all of the primary client groups. Its purpose is
more of an informational mechanism for reporting progress and garnering feedback.
Sample pages from the website are included in an Appendix. The timeline for
conducting the entire analysis is depicted in the timeline chart on the following page. As
can be readily seen, there will be a multitude of overlapping tasks being conducted
throughout the course of the study.
� 52
\ \
AL -
2
, ]
\ � �
k j
| . ■ � ( � §
E
| 'M 1 \ B
\ •
' §
o j \ m
�
,CA \
� .
' fd
� ] )
■ o
§ -
' k } \
— a ;
�
/6 }2
|
32
PART FOUR: PROJECT MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE
Dr. Larry Hoover will be the Project Director. His responsibility will include
overall policy guidance and direction. Executive communication with the City and
Police Department will occur through Dr. Hoover. The full-time, on-site Project
Manager is Dr. Victor Strecher. Like Dr. Hoover, Dr. Strecher will directly participate in
research activities. However, his primary responsibility will be keeping the endeavor on
track and on schedule. Daily research communication with the Fort Worth Police
Department will be Dr. Strecher's responsibility.
Beyond this clear "administrative hierarchy" the project staff will work in teams.
On the following page is our structure in this respect. Each team member has broad
experience and expertise in a range of police agency operations. We anticipate, and
indeed will encourage, considerable "cross-over" among the major components listed.
We have not, for example, listed Dr. David Carter on the Investigations Team.
However, Dr. Carter has special expertise in Police Intelligence, and lectures
internationally on intelligence operations. To not capitalize upon that insight because of
artificial team assignments would be foolish. Further, some responsibilities will be
assigned in terms of "process" expertise instead of substantive knowledge of police
operations. For example, Dr. Tory Caeti has special skills in the employment of the
Statistical Program for Social Science (SPSS). Organization and reporting of large data
sets will thus fall to him. Numerous other illustrations could be cited. What is important
to note in terms of the project management structure is flexibility. Flexibility does not
equate to disorganization. Dr. Strecher's full-time dedication to the endeavor, with his
■
C C
O O
•� v2
AZ • '� Ala c
t. � UU •G C U3
Ca o
OH s. D " • moo ,
X03 .= 0 foo
ci
Ll U �'
� tr L7
• Cd VO2
6 1 L. •> .
r a
0 cd
� �1�1 � `�•a
,a v
c i
N
e .0
o •S c
cu
to
14 4m*
14 u
lw
eat•> �
6 4 �
F' « C
G D �3 O Q.3 •a v D � v s
'� U -ago
r
33
deep and rich administrative experience, will assure that responsibilities are always
clearly understood and coordination fully achieved.
The Team Leader for patrol (field operations) will be Dr. Larry Hoover. Patrol is
the core of this endeavor. As such, we have assigned the Project Director as the Team
Leader for this project component. This will help assure that patrol will remain at the
center of the effort, allocated whatever resources are required for full exploration of
allocation alternatives. Additionally, although we have not assigned Dr. Victor Strecher
as a team member (since he will have overall responsibility for project coordination it
would be superfluous), we clearly intend that Dr. Strecher's focus be upon patrol. He has
rich experience in this respect — from the development of the original allocation models
in the 1950's, to leading LEAA's Managing Patrol Operations training programs, to his
current instruction in both the Texas and Florida Law Enforcement Management
Institutes on current allocation methodologies.
The Team Leader for Investigations is Dr. Robert Taylor, for Traffic is Mr. Dan
Carlson, for Training is Dr. Gary Sykes, for the Advisory Committee is Dr. Victor
Strecher (as Project Manager), for Peer Review/External Comparison is Dr. Jerry
Dowling, for Community is the Director of the National Center for Community Policing
—Dr. David Carter, and for Support Operations is Dr. Robert Taylor.
34
PART FIVE: PRIOR EXPERIENCE
The City and Police Department of Fort Worth should seek a strong, credible
consulting team, capable of bringing forth a final product that will withstand scrutiny
from the standpoints of managerial excellence, professional credibility and viability of
implementation. To meet those high standards, Justex Systems has assembled a multi-
disciplined, comprehensive, and balanced evaluation team with a rich background in
police administration, management, and research in major jurisdictions. The key features
of our qualifications for the project are as follows:
• We are proposing a comprehensive, balanced evaluation team with a rich
background in all elements of police administration, management, and research in
major jurisdictions. The team includes Dr. Larry Hoover (Project Director), Dr.
Victor Strecher (Project Manager), Dr. Robert Taylor (Principal Researcher), Dr.
Tory Caeti (Principal Researcher), Professor Jerry Dowling (Principal
Researcher), Dr. Gary Sykes (Principal Researcher), Dr. David Carter (Support
Researcher), Dr. Gary Cordner (Support Researcher), Dr. Eric Fritsch (Support
Researcher), Dan Carlson (Support Researcher) and Darrel Stephens (Support
Researcher).
• The principal researchers are all from the State of Texas and understand the
exigencies of police administration and management in the state. At the same
time we have balanced the team with individuals at the cutting edge of police
management and strategy at the national level.
• This team does not read the books and journals on modern police management,
we write them. The books on police management and operations completed by
the Project Team include Police Management: Issues and Perspectives
(Hoover), Quantifying Quality in Policing (Hoover), Police Program
Evaluation (Hoover), Enduring, Surviving, and Thriving As A Law
Enforcement Executive (Dowling & Hoover), Police Administration:
Structures, Processes, and Behavior (Taylor a Edition, Prentice-Hall),
Criminal Procedure (Dowling), Criminal Investigation (Dowling), The
Environment of Law Enforcement (Strecher), Planning Community Policing
(Strecher), Managing Patrol Operations (Strecher), Improving Police
Management (Strecher), Police Administration (Cordner, a Edition,
Anderson), Police Operations:Analysis and Evaluation (Cordner), What Works
in Policing? (Cordner), Managing Police Organizations (Cordner), Managing
Police Personnel (Cordner), Planning in Criminal Justice Organizations and
Systems (Cordner), The Strategic Management of Police Departments
35
(Stephens), Local Government Police Management (Revised Edition,
Forthcoming, Stephens), The Police and the Community (Carter). The project
team has also authored countless journal articles and book chapters on police
administration and management,police operations, and police program evaluation
in the prominent criminal justice and police journals.
• The project team has extensive experience conducting research and performing
program evaluations in prominent police agencies throughout Texas and
nationally. As reviewed in greater detail in the individual r6sum6s, members of
the team have conducted comprehensive management studies, large-scale police
evaluation research projects, and numerous other research and managerial projects
in law enforcement. As such, we have a unique understanding of the complexities
and nuances involved in conducting research within a large police department.
The team doesn't just practice research, statistical methodologies, evaluation, and
administration - we teach these subjects to police managers throughout the world.
• The project manager for the endeavor will be Dr. Victor G. Strecher. Dr. Strecher
is the retired Dean of the College of Criminal Justice at Sam Houston State
University. He will dedicate his full time effort to the project while it is in
progress. Project direction will not be an intermittent or part-time endeavor,
performed during breaks in commitment calendars.
• We are bidding under the auspices of Justex Systems, an established corporation
since 1981. Justex publishes the newsletters Police Labor Monthly and Fire
Service Labor Monthly, distributed to over 2,000 subscribers nationally. Its law
enforcement promotion examination testing service is employed by over 24
jurisdictions. The firm has an established infrastructure to support project
administration. Justex has successfully completed numerous large and smaller
scale innovative police initiatives, research studies, and consultant work. At the
same time, the Team members bidding under the auspices of Justex are not
associates of a large consulting firm. Thus, the City and Police Department of
Fort Worth can be assured that these are the individuals who will complete the
work, not a second team sent in after the contract is secured.
• The project team is not simply a hastily or casually assembled conglomeration of
police academics. All the members of the team have extensive histories of
working together on numerous research and teaching activities. We have all
worked together previously and the demonstrated quality of these group
endeavors is evidenced in the numerous collaborative books, journal articles,
research evaluation studies, and training programs.
• Finally, the project team brings representation from the major academic programs
nationally in law enforcement/criminal justice. The representation of academic
appointments includes Sam Houston State University (Hoover and Dowling),
University of North Texas (Taylor, Caeti, and Fritsch), Michigan State University
(Carter), and Eastern Kentucky University (Cordner). Additionally, two of the
36
most prestigious law enforcement educational and management training
organizations in the country are represented as well—The Law Enforcement
Management Institute of Texas (Sam Houston State) and the Southwestern Law
Enforcement Institute (Sykes and Carlson). Both programs train numerous law
enforcement managers and executives in Texas, nationally, and internationally.
Qualifications of Justex Systems as a Corporate Entity
Justex Systems is at the virtual cutting edge of police strategy and personnel
administration. The corporation has completed over ten major statewide police personnel
assessment projects. Justex publishes the newsletters Police Labor Monthly and Fire
Service Labor Monthly, distributed to over 2,000 subscribers nationally. Its promotion
examination testing service is employed by over 24 jurisdictions, 15 in Texas. Our most
recent promotion testing client is the Houston Police Department. We completed the
examination for the Captain's rank last year, and are under contract for the Lieutenant's
rank. Settlement of litigation on the promotion process in Houston, which has been in
process for nearly a decade, is pending, premised upon the fairness of our approach. In
short, we understand police personnel issues. We also understand "big city" policing.
Our past work in the preparation of evaluative reports presented during labor contract
arbitration includes New York City, Chicago, the Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey, the New York Tri-borough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, Detroit, Milwaukee, and
Seattle. The environment of a major municipality is not new to us.
Justex Systems believes in working from the client's point of view. A consulting
firm serving law enforcement agencies and labor organizations, Justex was organized to
provide client-centered research, analysis, evaluation, training and consulting services. A
client-centered firm means that we begin a project by working with the client in
clarifying intended project outcomes and we stay in touch throughout the project to
37
assure that the final products are what the client had in mind. Not only do we strive to be
as responsive as possible, we prefer to involve the client in the decision-making process
along the way. Our track record in working with state and local agencies and with labor
organizations attests to a conscientious consideration of the client's point of view.
In providing training, technical assistance, information dissemination, or in
performing research and evaluation, Justex believes in concentrating on policy-relevant
issues. This means that the key decision issues receive the primary attention, that data
are conveyed in metrics easily understood by policy makers, and that the costs - both
monetary and social - of alternative decisions are clearly spelled out. Justex is dedicated
to creative and innovative thinking. The staff professionals at Justex have developed an
unusual capacity to modify and adapt established methods and procedures to new
situations.
The executive offices of Justex Systems are located just north of Houston in
Huntsville, Texas. The facilities are located in close proximity to Sam Houston State
University and within an hour of Rice University, the University of Houston, and Texas
A & M University. These universities represent fertile sources of consulting expertise in
a wide variety of disciplines and some of the finest research libraries in the country.
Nevertheless, its principals are the most important assets of the firm. They enjoy
reputations as outstanding researchers and practitioners in the criminal justice field.
Their credentials and performance are exemplary of the highest standards of professional
responsibility and productivity.
MEMO
ISO
•P
cr■
.,..,
f
e
L
A
� a
"EWA PC
0cz
38
PART SIX: PERSONNEL
The project staff identified in this proposal, Dr. Larry Hoover (Project Director),
Dr. Victor Strecher (Project Manager), Dr. Robert Taylor (Principal Researcher), Dr.
Tory Caeti (Principal Researcher), Professor Jerry Dowling (Principal Researcher), Dr.
Gary Sykes (Principal Researcher), Dr. David Carter (Support Researcher), Dr. Gary
Cordner (Support Researcher), Dr. Eric Fritsch (Support Researcher), Dan Carlson
(Support Researcher) and Darrel Stephens (Support Researcher), are uniquely qualified to
evaluate the administration, operations, and strategic approaches of the Fort Worth Police
Department. A full vita for each Project Team member is included in an appendix. A
one-paragraph summary of the qualifications of each follows:
Dr. Larry T. Hoover received his Ph.D. from Michigan State University and has
been on the criminal justice faculty at Sam Houston State University (SHSU) since 1977.
Dr. Hoover, a past president of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, is director of
the Police Research Center at SHSU. A former police officer in Lansing, Michigan and
training coordinator with the Michigan Law Enforcement Officer's Training Council, he
also served on the faculty at Michigan State University. A co-principal of Justex
Systems, publishers of Police Labor Monthly and Fire Service Labor Monthly, Dr.
Hoover has worked extensively on police personnel problems. His current research
endeavors include editing the Texas Law Enforcement Management and Administrative
Statistics monthly bulletin series, technology transfer for the Law Enforcement
Management Institute of Texas, research for SHSU's Community Policing Institute,
directing a technology transfer grant from the National Institute of Justice, and directing a
major information system development project, CRIMES, for SHSU. He is editor of the
anthologies Police Management. Issues and Perspectives, Quantifying Quality in
Policing, and Police Program Evaluation, all published by the Police Executive
Research Forum, and co-author of Enduring, Surviving, and Thriving As A Law
Enforcement Executive, in press at Charles C. Thomas Publishing.
Dr. Victor G. Strecher received his Ph.D. from Washington University, St.
Louis, and served on the faculties of Michigan State University, Arizona State University
(Director, Criminal Justice Center) and Sam Houston State University, where he was
Dean and Director of the Criminal Justice Center. A former police officer and sergeant in
the Michigan State University Police, he served as a police advisor in South Vietnam, as
Director of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Academy, and on the training team for
NIJ's Managing Patrol Operations and later Improving Police Management, presented to
2,000 police executives from every state. Chaired the Police Task Force of the Michigan
39
Commission on Criminal Justice Goals and Standards. Served on the Blue Ribbon
Commission for the Review of the Texas Criminal Justice System and the Texas
Criminal Justice Policy Council. He is author of The Environment of Law Enforcement
(Prentice-Hall) and Planning Community Policing (Waveland Press). He co-authored
Managing Patrol Operations, and Improving Police Management, source books and
manuals published by NIJ's Police Division. Dr. Strecher currently conducts Strategic
Planning case studies in the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and Texas Law
Enforcement Management Institute, and recently prepared the Strategic Planning and
Budgeting block for Tennessee's Police Command College.
Dr. Robert W. Taylor received his Ph.D. from Portland State University and is
currently Professor and Chair of the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of
North Texas. Previous to assuming this position, he was Professor of Criminal Justice
and Public Administration, and Director of the Office of Research Services at .the
University of TexasTyler. Dr. Taylor is an active member of IACP and NOBLE and
he is president-elect of the Police Section of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences.
Dr. Taylor has authored or co-authored over fifty articles, books, and manuscripts
focusing primarily on police administration and management, community policing, and
policy analysis. His articles appear in numerous journals including Defense Analysis, the
ANNALS (American Academy of Political and Social Sciences), and the Police Chief
(International Association of Chiefs of Police). Dr. Taylor is co-author of the leading
text, Police Administration: Structure, Processes, and Behavior, currently in its fifth
edition with Prentice-Hall. The text is used in over 500 universities, colleges, and police
departments throughout the United States. Dr. Taylor has an extensive background in
academic and professional criminal justice, having taught at four major universities and
serving as a sworn police officer and major crimes detective (in Portland, Oregon) for
over six years. Dr. Taylor has been a consultant to the U.S. Army; the U.S. Department of
Treasury, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center; the U.S. Department of Justice,
Federal Bureau of Investigation and Drug Enforcement Administration; the countries of
Northern Cyprus and Turkey; the Police Foundation, and numerous state and local
municipalities and private corporations. Dr. Taylor has conducted numerous
comprehensive management studies, assessment centers and evaluation projects for
police departments nationwide.
Dr. Tory J. Caeti received his Ph.D. from Sam Houston State University and is
currently on the faculty at the University of North Texas in the Department of Criminal
Justice. Dr. Caeti is also the Academic Advisor and an instructor at the University of
North Texas Police Academy. Dr. Caeti has worked as a juvenile correctional officer in
Denver, Colorado, as a regional coordinator for the SHOCAP program for the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and as a researcher for the Police Research
Center at SHSU. Dr. Caeti has published numerous articles on policing, police program
evaluation and police administration in prominent journals such as Crime &
Delinquency, Law and Policy, Police Liability Review, Texas Law Enforcement
Management and Administrative Statistics Bulletin, Criminal Justice Policy Review,
and the American Journal of Criminal Law. Dr. Caeti teaches program evaluation and
policy analysis, organizational change, planning and time-management, law enforcement
40
applications in cyberspace, and crime analysis at the Management College at the
Southwestern Law Enforcement Institute. Dr. Caeti was a principal investigator with Dr.
Fritsch on the evaluation of the Victim's Compensation Fund for the Texas Attorney
General's Office and on the evaluation of the Dallas Police Department's community-
policing initiative targeting gangs. Dr. Caeti is currently conducting an organizational
change study for the Gainesville Unit of the Texas Youth Commission. In addition, Dr.
Caeti was the principal investigator of a comprehensive three-year program evaluation of
the Houston Police Department's Targeted Beat Program.
Jerry L. Dowling brings to this project the Juris Doctorate degree, and thus an
invaluable understanding of administrative law and legal precedent. His background
includes several years as an FBI agent, which included a wide array of investigation
responsibilities. He has also published a book on criminal investigation, Criminal
Investigation by Harcourt-Brace. The editor of Police Labor Monthly and Fire Service
Labor Monthly, he also possesses important insight on personnel issues. A faculty
member for over twenty years at Sam Houston State University, Professor Dowling also
teaches in the Law Enforcement Management Institute of Texas. He has directed several
major evaluation studies, including three different statewide job task analyses for the
Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education. He is co-
author of Enduring, Surviving, and Thriving As A Law Enforcement Executive, in
press at Charles C. Thomas Publishing.
David L. Carter is a professor in the School of Criminal Justice and director of
the National Center for Community Policing, both at Michigan State University. He is
formerly a research fellow with the Police Executive Research Forum. He received his
bachelor's and master's degrees in criminal justice from Central Missouri State
University, and his doctorate in criminal justice administration from Sam Houston State
University in Huntsville, Texas. He has provided community policing training and
technical assistance nationwide and has also conducted research on a wide range of
policing issues in the United States, Europe and Asia. Dr. Carter's most recent book
(with the late Louis Radelet) is The Police and Community, fifth edition, Macmillan
Publishing Co.
Gary W. Cordner is Dean of the College of Justice and Safety at Eastern
Kentucky University and director of its Regional Community Policing Institute.
Previously he taught at both Washington State University and the University of
Baltimore. He has also served as a police officer and police chief in Maryland. He
received his doctorate from Michigan State University. Dr. Cordner has co-authored
textbooks on police administration and criminal justice planning and co-edited the
volumes What Works in Policing?, Managing Police Organizations, Managing Police
Personnel, and Police Operations: Analysis and Evaluation. He edited the American
Journal of Police from 1987 to 1992, co-edited the Police Computer Review from 1992
to 1995, and now edits Police Quarterly. He is currently a consultant to Abt Associates
on several national studies and a Senior Research Fellow with the Police Executive
Research Forum. Cordner is a past-president of the Academy of Criminal Justice
41
Sciences, the country's largest association of criminal justice educators and researchers,
as well as a founder and former chair of that organization's Police Section.
Dr. Eric J. Fritsch received his Ph.D. from Sam Houston State University and is
currently on the faculty at the University of North Texas. Dr. Fritsch was a police officer
in Rockport, Texas and was also a regional coordinator for the SHOCAP program for the
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Dr. Fritsch has published
numerous articles in prominent journals such as Crime & Delinquency, Law and Policy,
Criminal Justice Policy Review, and the American Journal of Criminal Law. Dr.
Fritsch teaches program evaluation and policy analysis in the Management College at the
Southwestern Law Enforcement Institute. Dr. Fritsch has developed and researched
several managerial studies and evaluation projects including a management training
program for the Texas Youth Commission and the development of a Class C
misdemeanor processing facility for the Austin Police Department. Dr. Fritsch was the
principal investigator in a statewide evaluation of the Victim's Compensation Fund for
the Texas Attorney General's Office focusing on police officer referrals and attitudes
towards victim compensation. He was also the principal investigator of the Dallas Police
Department's community policing initiative targeting gangs with results published in the
journal Crime & Delinquency.
Dr. Gary W. Sykes received his Ph.D. from The Pennsylvania State University
and is currently vice president for Law Enforcement Education at the Southwestern Legal
Foundation and Director of the Southwestern Law Enforcement Institute, a division of
the Foundation. He also manages the Center for Law Enforcement Ethics and several
other programs in management education for police administrators. He has served on the
faculties of Berea College, the University of Wisconsin-Superior, the University of
Louisville, and has been an invited lecturer at numerous colleges, universities and
professional conferences. While teaching in Wisconsin, he became a sworn police officer
in the city of Superior and worked for a year in that capacity. Dr. Sykes has conducted
funded research projects for the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the U.S. Department of
Justice; has authored numerous articles in professional journals; has written several
chapters in police administration textbooks, has been appointed to several editorial
boards; has been elected Executive Counselor to the Police Section in the American
Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences; and has served as consultant to many law
enforcement agencies including the F.B.I., the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement
Officer Standards and Education, The Southern Police Institute and The Police
Foundation. In 1992, with the support of the Meadows Foundation of Dallas, Texas, Dr.
Sykes helped to create the Center for Law Enforcement Ethics at the Southwestern Law
Enforcement Institute, the first of its kind in the United States. He also directs seminars
and workshops on Quality Management in Law Enforcement and works with several
agencies implementing Community Policing programs. Recently Dr. Sykes was the
principal investigator in several comprehensive management and operational studies of
community policing, including the police departments in Waco and Galveston,Texas.
Daniel P. Carlson was a police officer in Poughkeepsie, New York and at the
Dutchess County, New York Sheriffs Department. In 1970 he joined the New York State
42
Police and progressed through the ranks rising to the rank of Uniform Captain. He retired
in June of 1988 as the Assistant Director of Training for the New York State Police, in
order to assume the position of Manager at North Central Texas Regional Police
Academy in Arlington, Texas. In 1992, Mr. Carlson was appointed Associate Director of
the Southwestern Law Enforcement Institute in Richardson, Texas. Mr. Carlson has a
Bachelor of Science Degree in Criminal Justice from the State University of New York
and has completed graduate studies in Public Administration at Russell Sage College. In
1985, he received the George Searle Award for Excellence in Law Enforcement Training.
He has held adjunct faculty positions at both John Jay College of Criminal Justice and
Ulster Community College in Kingston, New York and has served as an Adjunct
Instructor and Consultant with the Institute of Police Technology and Management in
Jacksonville, Florida. Mr. Carlson has extensive experience in both the development and
presentation of training programs in a wide variety of law enforcement subject areas. He
serves on the Ethics Committees of both the American Society of Law Enforcement
Trainers and the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Dan is Editor of The
Ethics Roll Call. Listening to the Inner Voice, a quarterly publication of the Center for
Law Enforcement Ethics at the Southwestern Law Enforcement Institute.
Darrel W. Stephens was appointed Charlotte (NC) Police Chief in September
1999. He was the City Administrator for the City of St. Petersburg (FL) for just over two
years after accepting the position in June 1997. He was responsible for day-today
oversight and management of all city operations and a workforce of over 3,000
employees. He also served as Police Chief in St. Petersburg Police from December 1992
to June 1997. He spent most of his career in policing, including 6.5 years as the
Executive Director of the Washington, DC-based association, the Police Executive
Research Forum (PERF). He began his career in 1968 as a police officer with the Kansas
City, Missouri, Police Department that included a 10-month visiting fellowship at the
National Institute of Justice in 1972. He became the Assistant Police Chief in Lawrence,
Kansas in 1976. In 1979 he accepted the Largo, Florida, Police Chief position. In 1983
he took the Police Chief's position in Newport News, Virginia, where that department
became nationally recognized for its work with problem oriented policing that provided
much of the foundation for community policing. He has coauthored several books and
published many articles on policing issues. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in the
Administration of Justice from the University of Missouri-Kansas City and a Master of
Science degree in Public Administration from Central Missouri State University.
Qualifications of the Team as a Whole
1) Management Evaluation
• All members of the Project Team have extensive experience in conducting
research in police organizations.
• The research team members have conducted several large-scale, prominent police
evaluation studies in large police organizations within the state of Texas (Dallas,
Houston,Waco, Galveston,just to name a few).
43
• The research team has extensive experience dealing with the nuances and
intricacies of conducting research in police organizations. The demonstrated
effectiveness of the team in doing management evaluation is evidenced by the
team's positions in the field, our publication record, and the numerous successful
studies completed in the past.
• Among the agencies for which the Project Team has completed significant
evaluation or management reviews are Houston, Texas; Mission, Texas, Lansing,
Michigan; Pontiac, Michigan; Tawas County, Michigan; Delhi Township,
Michigan; Blackmun Township, Michigan, Sault Tribe of Chippewa Indians
Tribal Police Department (Michigan); Jacksonville, Arkansas; Kent County,
Michigan; Boston, Massachusetts; St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department,
Missouri; Kansas Bureau of Investigation; Alaska State Troopers, Lexington,
Kentucky; Jefferson County, Kentucky; Baltimore County, Maryland; Easton,
Maryland; Gallatin, Tennessee; Tempe, Arizona; Gary, Indiana; San Diego,
California. Additionally, during his tenure as Executive Director of the Police
Executive Research Forum, Darrel Stephens supervised numerous administrative
reviews of major police agencies.
2) Management Training
• The team is on the cutting edge of management training in the state of Texas and
nationally.
• Members of the research team actively instruct police managers through the Law
Enforcement Management Institute of Texas, the Southwestern Law Enforcement
Institute, the Community Policing Institute at Sam Houston State, and through
several other organizations such as IACP, NOBLE, PERF, the Police Foundation,
and the FBI National Academy.
• The international police management programs for which the Team has taught
include:
Canadian Executive Leadership Course, Windsor, Ontario, Canada,
International Law Enforcement Academy (ILEA), Budapest, Hungary,
Royal Thai Police, Officers Academy, Bangkok, Thailand, United Nations
Asia and Far East Institute (UNAFEI) Executive Course, Tokyo, Japan,
British Police Staff College, Bramshill, England, Hong Kong Police Force,
Command Seminars, Hong Kong, Metropolitan Police in London, Istanbul
Turkey Police Department, Trinidad and Tobago Police Department,
Securitique Internationale in Paris,France.
• The national police management programs for which the Team has taught
include:
FBI National Academy, FBI Law Enforcement Executive Development
School (LEEDS), Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), Regional
Counter-drug Training Academy, Managers Course (a US Department of
Defense funded Center), Federally funded Regional Community Policing
Institutes (RCPT) serving: Michigan, Texas, Missouri, Kansas, Kentucky,
Nebraska, Kentucky Command Decisions Course, Ohio Police Executive
Leadership College, Massachusetts Police Leadership Institute, Florida