PowerPoint Presentation

Assessing the quality of Clackamas County Sheriffs Office Child abuse team services using servqualLieutenant Wendi BabstPortland State University2010 EMPA Cohort

Research problemHow to identify the service expectations from the partner agencies who interact with Child Abuse Team members on a daily basis.How to measure the level at which the Child Abuse Team is currently meeting the service expectations of partner agencies.Clackamas County Child abuse teamFollow up investigation on cases involving crimes against children including but not limited to:Sexual abusePhysical abuse NeglectComputer-related crimes (Clackamas County Sheriffs Office, 2002)

Clackamas County Child abuse teamProvide training and consultation with patrol deputies and other personnelParticipate in annual Clackamas County Child Abuse and Family Violence Summit

Clackamas county Child abuse team2011 StatisticsReview of over 1,600 referrals from the Oregon Department of Human Services (Kollias, 2012)Investigation of 181 criminal cases (Kollias, 2012)Child Abuse SummitOver 600 attendeesNational and international participation

Partner agenciesPartner agency personnel who regularly interact with and rely on work product from Child Abuse Team members: Clackamas County Deputy District AttorneyOregon State/Clackamas County Medical Examiners OfficeOregon Department of Human Services Child Welfare Division - split into 2 groups by locationThe Childrens Center (medical assessment center)Literature reviewLack of any formal study of service quality for the detective division or the Child Abuse Team annual reports detail outputs only (Clackamas County Sheriffs Office, 2010)2002 performance audit of entire Sheriffs Office only examined numerical outputs and case load (Maximus, 2002)2012 telephone survey of 400 Clackamas County residents:31% were very satisfied with Clackamas Countys performance in providing public safety services38% were somewhat satisfied (DHM Research, 2012)Literature reviewService quality is a central and growing concern for U.S. businesses and government agencies (Zeithaml, Parasuraman, & Berry, 1990)Evidence-based practices in policing allow for systemic feedback which can be applied to continuous quality improvement planning (Sherman, 1998)Public agency funding opportunities often tied to evidence-based practice assessment of programs (US Department of Justice, 1999, Mears & Bacon, 2009)Literature reviewService quality based on the expectations of the customer differs from satisfaction which is based on the expectations of the provider (Parasuraman et. al, 1988; Wisniewski & Donnelly, 1996; Bland, 1997)Service gap analysis has been used by private sector service providers for many years valid and reliable (Parasuraman, et. al, 1988)Gap analysis used to measure public sector entities in UK (Bland, 1997; Donnelly, Kerr, Rimmer & Shiu, 2006)Gap analysis offers a method to identify customer priorities and service failures in order to prioritize perceived problems and take remedial action to close service gaps (Bland, 1997)SERVQUALDeveloped by Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry in 1980s and refined over the 1990s (Parasuraman et. al, 1988; Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L., 1991)Studied focus groups to identify key dimensions of service quality identified ten evaluative dimensions and consolidated into five dimensions of service quality (Zeithaml et. al, 1990)Developed customer surveys and conducted studies involving a broad range of service providers (Zeithaml et. al, 1990)

SERVQUAL customer perception toolExamines service quality through the use of a Likert scale questionnaire that measures the following dimension of service quality:Tangibles physical facilities, equipment, personnel appearance, communication materialReliability the ability toe perform the service dependably and accuratelyResponsiveness the willingness to provide the appropriate service and respond to requests for assistanceAssurance the knowledge of employees, courtesy of employees, and the ability of employee to inspire trust and confidenceEmpathy the caring, individualized attention provided to the customer (Parasuraman et. al, 1988, Zeithaml et. al, 1990, Parasuraman et. al, 1991)SERvqual customer perception toolLikert scale numerical score for 22 statements used to assess customer expectations and 22 statements used to assess perceptions for reliability:Expectation - An excellent Child Abuse Team will provide their services at the time they promise to.Perception -The Clackamas County Sheriffs Office Child Abuse Team provides its services at the time it promises to.Numerical gap score (Q) derived by subtracting the expectation score from the perception score P E = Q (Zeithaml et. al, 1990)Servqual customer perception toolSurvey respondents were also asked to assign a numerical score (number of points out of a total of 100) to 5 general statements, each representing one of the five dimensions of service qualityNumerical score identified the relative importance of each of the dimensions which was used to generate weighted service gap scores (Parasuraman, et. al, 1988; Zeithaml et. al, 1990; Parasuraman et al, 1991) Data collectionOnline survey method using the SurveyMonkey web-based questionnaire and survey software programSurvey distributed to approximately 70 respondents by email62 started the survey59 completed the survey56 final surveys were reviewed based on additional criteriaOverall perceptionStrongly AgreeNeither Agree or DisagreeStrongly DisagreeAcceptable 5.6Perception average by agencyStrongly AgreeNeither Agree or DisagreeStrongly DisagreeAcceptable 5.6Overall dimension weightsDimensions by agencyOverall service gap scoresTangibility gap by agencyReliability Gap by agencyResponsiveness gap by agencyAssurance gap by agencyEmpathy gap by agencyconclusionsOverall satisfaction level is below average for all dimensionsLargest weighted service gap in the reliability dimensionReliability is the most important feature for all partnersImportance of five features fairly consistent between disciplinesLarge disparity in scores between partner agencies

Leadership implicationsMore qualitative data is needed to further identify the areas where service quality is lacking focusing on the areas of most importance to partner agencies reliability, responsiveness and assuranceLeader needs to engage in coalition building with partner agencies and include them in setting policy for changeResults of the survey help to establish a sense of urgency to begin the process of change (Kotter, 1996)ResourcesBland, N. (1997). Measuring public expectations of policing: an evaluation of gap analysis. London, UK: Great Britain Home Office, Policing and Reducing Crime Unit.Clackamas County Sheriffs Office. (2002). Clackamas County Sheriffs Office manual of rules and regulations. Oregon City, OR: Clackamas County Printing.Clackamas County Sheriffs Office. (2010). Clackamas County Sheriffs Office Annual Crime Report 2010. Clackamas, OR: Clackamas County Sheriffs Office.

resourcesDHM Research. (2012). Clackamas County community survey report. Portland, OR: DHM Research. Donnelly, M., Kerr, N., Rimmer, R., & Shiu, E. (2006). Assessing the quality of police services using SERVQUAL.Policing,29(1), 92-105.Kollias, A. (2012). Child Abuse Team: Work Summary 2010-2011. Unpublished manuscript.Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.

resourcesMaximus. (2002, December 13). Performance audit of the sheriffs office: Clackamas County Oregon. Oakland, CA: Maximus, Inc.Mears, D. P., & Bacon, S. (2009). Improving criminal justice through better decision making: Lessons learned from the medical system. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(2), 142-154.Parasuraman, A., Berry, L., & Zeithaml, V. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12-40.Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. (1991). Refinement and reassessment of the SERVQUAL scale. Journal of Retailing, 67(4), 420-450.

resourcesSherman, L. W. (1998). Evidence-based policing. Ideas in American Policing. Washington, DC: Police Foundation.U.S. Department of Justice. (1999). Measuring what matters: Proceedings from the Policing Research Institute meetings. Washington, DC: Author.Wisniewski, M., & Donnelly, M. (1996).Measuring service quality in the public sector:the potential for SERVQUAL.Total Quality Management,7(4), 357-366.doi:10.1080/09544129650034710Zeithaml, V., Parasuraman, L., & Berry, L. (1990). Delivering quality service: Balancing customer perceptions and expectations. New York, NY: The Free Press.