Schuld T

UMI
i.o
|to in
1.1
Itt |3A
LL
I
B l
i
a
u
b
KUIt
us,
1e;
ff
Itt
HIM
8?'
11.25
iliili
1
rSS
MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS
STANDARD REFERENCE MATERIAL 1010a
(ANSI and ISO TEST CHART No. 2)
University Microfilms International

A Bell & Howell Information Company
300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
INFORMATION TO USERS
This reproduction was made from a copy of a manuscript sent to us for publication
and m icrofilm ing. W hile the most advanced technology has been used to pho
tograph and reproduce this manuscript, the quality of the reproduction is heavily
dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. Pages in any manuscript
may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify notations which
may appear on this reproduction.
1. Manuscripts may not always be complete. When it is not possible to obtain
missing pages, a note appears to indicate this.
2. When copyrighted materials are removed from the manuscript, a note ap
pears to indicate this.
3. Oversize materials (maps, drawings, and charts) are photographed by sec
tioning the original, beginning at the upper left hand comer and continu
ing from left to right in equal sections w ith small overlaps. Each oversize
page is also film ed as one exposure and is available, for an additional
charge, as a standard 35mm slide or in black and white paper format. *
4. Most photographs reproduce acceptably on positive microfilm or micro
fiche but lack clarity on xerographic copies made from the microfilm. For
an additional charge, all photographs are available in black and w hite
standard 35mm slide format.*
For more information about black and white slides or enlarged paper reproductions,
please contact the Dissertations Customer Services Department
UMI
Dissertation
Information S ervice
University Microfilms Internationa!

A Bell & Howell Information Company
300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
8629540
S c h u ld t, B a rb a ra Ann
COMPARING DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM STRUCTURE TO DECISION

MAKING EFFECTIVENESS: A FIELD EXPERIMENT iN THE NEBRASKA
STATE PATROLS INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES DIVISION
The University of Nebraska - Lincoln
University
Microfilms
International
Ph.D.
1986
300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106
Copyright 1987
by
Schuldt, Barbara Ann
All Rights Reserved
PLEASE NOTE:
In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy.
Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark V
1.
Glossy photographs or pages_____
2.
Colored illustrations, paper or print_______
3.
Photographs with dark background_____
Illustrations are poor copy_______
5.
Pages with black marks, not original copy
6.
Print shows through as there is text on both sides of p a g e _______
7.
Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages
8.
Print exceeds margin requirements______
9.
Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine_______
>/
10.
Computer printout pages with indistinct print_______
11.
Page(s)____________lacking when material received, and not available from school or

author.
12.
Page(s)____________s~em to be missing in numbering only as text follows.
13.
Two pages num bered
14.
Curling and wrinkled pages______
15.
Dissertation contains pages with print at a slant, filmed as received_________
16.
Other__________________________________________________________________________
. Text follows.
University
Microfilms
International
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

MAKING EFFECTIVENESS:
A FIELD EXPERIMENT IN THE NEBRASKA
by
Barbara A. Schuldt
A DISSERTATION
Presented to the Faculty of

The Graduate College in the University of Nebraska
In Partial Fulfillment of Requirements
For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Major:
Interdepartmental Area of
Business (Management)
Under the Supervision of Professor Kenneth E. Kendall
Lincoln* Nebraska
December, 1986
TITLE
Comparing Decision Support System Structure To Decision

Making Effectiveness:
A Field Experiment in the Nebraska
State Patrols Investigative Services Division
T i'ir
Barbara A. Schuldt
APPROVED
DATE
Kenneth E. Kendall
August 22, 1986
Marc J. Schniederjans
August 22, 1986
William D. Torrence
August 22, 1986
Morris H. Schneider
August 22. 1986
SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE
GRADUATE COLLEGE
o tiA B
sscsa
300
UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA
' a m
1987
BARBARA ANN SCHULDT

Aii Rignis Reserved


Barbara A. Schuldt* Ph.D.
University of Nebraska*
Advisor:
1986
Kenneth E. Kendall
The problem this study addressed was the comparison

between a decentralized organizational structure and the
decision support system (DSS) structure - decentralized o
centralized.
The comparison involved an assessment of th
decision makers effectiveness under each structure and

the decision makers opinion concerning the benefits
derived from the system.
The objectives of the field experiment were (1) to
evaluate the concept that an organization with a
decentralized organizational structure would prefer a
decentralized DSS*
(2) to assess the use of a centralized
DSS with distributed reporting as an interim techniques

until a decentralized computer system can be implemented,
and (3) to develop the foundation for an Investigative
Services Division Human Resource Allocation Model.
The results of this study contributed to the
understanding of a D S S s function within an organization.
First*
it did not demonstrate that a decentra 1ized
organization prefers a decentralized information system.

Second, a centralized DSS can improve the organizational
effectiveness by generating distributed reports in a

decentralized organizational environment.
Third, the
reliability and validity of the questionnaire was

evaluated.
research.
This will improve the measure for future DSS

Fourth, to develop the effectiveness measure
for evaluation of procedural changes in a criminal

investigation division.
And fifth, the results of this
study will assist in the Nebraska State Patrols

continuing project to improve the effectiveness of the
organization.
These results are the foundation for future
research questions and the provision of valid tools to

measure the changes from the implementation of a decision
support system.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank the many individuals who have

had a meaningful
impact on my graduate work and the
completion of this study.
My sincere thanks to each of
you.
Tc Professor Kenneth Kendal1, my advisor,
I wish to
thank him for his perspective and confidence that I would

complete this project.
And for providing the opportunity
that allowed me to investigate this challenging field.

To my committee members, thank you.
Professor Marc
Schniederjans for his support and expertise.
Professor
Morris Schneider for his insights on the small number of

participants.
Professor William Torrence for providing
knowledge and experience to aid in the completion of this

study.
To the officers and staff of the Nebraska State
Patrol.
I would like to recognize those individuals, who
provided enlightenment into the investigative function and

the Nebraska State Patrol.
To Col. Tagg and Lt. Col.
Buist for authorizing the study.
A special thanks
to Maj. Niemann and Capt. Burnett for generating the

centralized system.
To Lts, Ball, Dowling, Gallardo,
Gates, Reece and Rogers for answering numerous questions

and evaluating multiple revisions of the forms.
To Sgts.
Avary, Blausey, Elliott, Griess, Hastreiter, Hatcliff,

Parish, Renner, Schlachter, Snyder, Wagner, and Williams
for being the participants of the study.
To Inv. Abshier
for his guidance into the world of investigations and

sharing his case tracking form.
To all the investigators
who listened? asked challenging questions? and corrected

my misconceptions about the activities of an investigator.
To Fred Oltgen for assistance with the data printouts.
Moreover? to the clerical staff for directing my questions
and handouts.
To my friends who remembered to ask how things are
going and offering their special kind of support.
special thanks to Amy? Barbara? Batoul? David? Judy?

Kathy? Mary? Nancy and Pat.
To the staff of the Interlibrary Loan Office for
finding the obscure references that assisted in the
development of this experiment.
Last but not least I thank my family . . .
parents? Bob and Millie?
To my
who provided emotional and
financial support throughout this program.
To my
brothers? sister? sister-in-law and nephew who had very

little idea what my dissertation was about? but reminded
me that there was more to life than a dissertation.
To my
aunt Marj for advice and guidance throughout my life.
T ABLE QF C ONT ENT S

page
Table of Contents
List of Figures
vi
List of Tables
vii
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1
Context of the Problem
1.2
The Purpose of the Study
1.3
Background of the Study
1.3.1
Nebraska State Patrol
1.3.2
The Human Resource Allocation Model
1.3.3
Centralization versus Decentralization 19
1.4
Chapter 2
Overview of the Remaining Chapters

Literature Review
2.1
Overview of the Chapter
2.2
Alternative Approaches to Human

Resource Allocations
2.2.1
Nebraska State Patrols Approaches
2.2.3
Traditional Human Resource

Allocation Approaches
2.2.4
23
23
25
25
28
29
Management Information Systems

Approach
2.2.6
20
Management Science Human

Resource Models
2.2.5
16
Decision Support Systems Approach
30
31
ii
page
2.3
Case Prioritization
34
2.4
Criminal Investigation Process
46
2.5
Case Progression Form
50
2.6
Investigative Effectiveness
57
2.7
Centralization/Decentralization
Organizational Structure
2.8
2.9
Decision Support Systems Structure

2.8.1
Centralized Decision Support Systems
2.8.2
Decentralized Decision Support
61
63
63
Systems
67
hypotheses and Rationale
70
Chapter 3 Methods and Design Section
76
3.1
Problem Statement
76
3.2
Decision Support System Design
77
3.3
Performance Measures
S3
3.3.1
Generalized Performance Measures
3.3.2
Design of the Case Progression

System Questionnaire
3.3.3
83
85
Design of the Investigator

Effectiveness Measure
90
3.4
Research Strategy
71
3.5
Participants
75
3.6
The Experiment
75
3.7
Independent Variables
77
iii
page
3.8
Dependent Variables
99
3.9
Procedures
99
Chapter 4
4.1
4.2
Analysis of the Results
102
Overview of the Field Experiment
102
4.1.1
Description of the Experiment
102
4.1.2
Statistical Analysis
108
4.1.3
109
Questionnaire Hypothesis Analysis
112
4.2.1
Availability of the Information
112
4.2.2
Accuracy of the Information
117
4.2.3
Assistance in Problem Identification
4.2.4
Usefulness of the Information
4.3
Effectiveness Measure Hypothesis Analysis
4.4
Researchers Observations and Participants

Comments and Recommendations
4.5
Chapter 5
120
121
122
131
4.4.1
Prioritization Forms
131
4.4.2
Case Progression System
133
4.4.3
Case progression System Questionnaire 135
4.4.4
136
4.4.5
General Comments
138
Summary of the Results

Conclusions and Implications of
139
the Study
143
5.1
Meeting the Research Objectives
143
5.2
Research Contributions
145
5.3
Recommendations
i48
iv
page
5.4
Future Research
151
5.5
Summary
159
References
161
Interviews
177
Appendix A
Nebraska State Patrol Organization

Chart:
Appendix B
September 1981
178
Nebraska State Patrol Organization

Chart:
July 1985
180
Appendix C
Proactive Prioritization Form
182
Appendix D
Reactive Prioritization Form
184
Appendix E
Froactive Investigation Process
186
Appendix F
Reactive Investigation Process
188
Appendix G
Investigative Activities
190
Appendix H
Abshiers Troop C s Cases Form
193
Appendix I Orange County Florida Sheriffs

Department Case Tracking Report
195
Appendix J
Investigator Case Progression Report
197
Appendix K
Exception Report
200
Appendix L
Investigator Effectiveness Evaluation

Measure
Appendix M
Case Progression System Questionnaire
Appendix N
Rochester Police Department Crime

Investigation Report
Appendix 0
Nebraska State Patrol Weekly Report
202
204
207
209
page
Appendix
P Nebraska State Patrol Administrative

Data Form
212
Appendix
Q Map of Nebraska Troop Areas
214
Appendix
R Monthly Reports to the Troop Areas
216
Appendix
S Revised Prioritization Forms:
Appendix
Proactive and Reactive
218
T Revised Effectiveness Measure
221
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
page
2.1
SRI Burglary Decision Model
36
2.2
Robbery Investigation Decision Model
41
2.3
Priority Rating Factors In Multnomah County
42
2.4
44
2.5
Reactive Prioritization Form
45
2.6
Proactive Investigation Process
51
2.7
Reactive Investigation Process
52
2.8
Abshiers Troop C s Cases Form
54
2.9
Orange County Sheriffs Department Case

Tracking Report Output
56
2.10 Investigative Effectiveness Measure
60
3.1
Flow Diagram of the Case Progression
78
3.2
Exception Report
79
3.3
Case Progression Report
81
3.4
86
5.1
Foundation Research for the Investigative

Services Division Allocation Model
146
5.2
Investigative Services Division Allocation Model
154
5.3
Personnel Skills Inventory
157
v ii
LIST OF TABLES
page
4.
Hypotheses and the Results
4 .2
Analysis of the Questionnaire Responses
4.3
Evaluation of the Multiple Comparisons for HI:

110
114
115
4.4
Prioritization Item Analysis
119
4.5
Analysis of the Effectiveness Measure
183
4.6
Evaluation of the Multiple Comparisons for the

Post-System Effectiveness Measure
4.7
Effectiveness Measures Means
186
187

Chapter 1
1.1
INTRODUCTION
Context of the Problem
This study will consider the affects of varying the

location of the case progression decision support system
(DSS).
It is hypothesized that in a decentralized
organization, the DSS should be decentralized to take

advantage of the environmental conditions that promoted
decentralization.
An additional focus of this study is
the use of a centralized DSS as an interim technique until

a decentralized DSS can be implemented.
The third purpose
of the DSS is to assist the NSP in collecting data for an

annual Investigative Services human resource allocation
and providing the Investigative Services sergeants with a
decision making tool.
The study is an important topic because it builds on
the intuitive logic behind the focus of the research - the
match between organizational structure and DSS structure.
A
literature search failed to show an experiment that
compared a centralized DSS to a decentralized DSS in a

decentralized organization;
The information currently
available is from opinions* case studies and surveys of

"successful" organizations (Davis and Wetherbe,
Dor and Segev,
Chervany,
Carlson,
19S2, Fuerst and Cheney,
1980, Robery,
1981, Rockart,
1979, Ein-
1982, Olson and

1979, Sprague and
1982, pp. 66-67, and Zmud, 1984).
In non-profit, service organizations funding for

additional computer equipment is difficult to justify.
The use of existing equipment to centrally generate
information or reports that combine quantitative data with
qualitative objectives for decentralized distribution
could be an interim technique.
This technique will
improve the effectiveness of the decision maker. . Although

the DSS was generated by upper management, its use was on
a first line management level.
The case progression DSS
was used as an operational or tactical decision making

tool for the Investigative Services sergeants.
The case progression DSS was designed to collect the
data concerning the time investigators spend on each
activity during an investigation.
Also,
it was used as a
time management tool to assist the sergeants in making

i11-structured decisions about case assignments,
terminations of the investigation, and other miscellaneous
decisions.
An additional plus for the case progression
DSS is its use during quarterly case reviews.
According
to policy? in January? April? July and October all active

cases are reviewed.
This is in accordance with the
standards for accreditation.

This study has several benefits? as described above?
and will provide a foundation for additional research in
the area of decentralized versus centralized DSS.
The
optimal goal is to have an ideal match between the system

and the organizational structure.
There are no
organizations that are completely decentralized or

centralized? so the DSS structure needs to be flexible
enough to fit on the continuum between decentralization
and centralization.
The interim technique demonstrated
the necessary flexibility for the DSS to fit the

organizational structure.
1.2
The Purpose of the Study
As presented in the previous section? this study has

three arguments.
One? the centralized DSS can be used as
an interim technique to improve decision making

effectiveness.
Two? the decision making effectiveness
will improve with a decentralized DSS in a decentralized

organization.
And three? the building of a database for
the NSP and the use of the case progression tool will
assist the Investigative Services sergeants in their
decision making casks.
Todays organizations are moving from centralized

computing facilities to decentralized user controlled
computing facilities.
The concepts of information
centers, knowledgeable users, and the reduction in

computer size and cost have facilitated this move
(Federico, Brun, McCalla, 1980, and Hammond,
1982).
But
many organizations, especially non-profit service

organizations, can not financially afford to purchase the
required equipment, develop appropriate software and train
their personnel as is necessary, to implement an
information center or decentralize computing facilities.
The problem facing those organizations is one of current
needs versus delayed computer expenditures.
The technique
utilized was an interim technique that will benefit from

centralized computer facilities in a decentralized
organizational environment.
This concept provides
centrally generated decision making reports that were

decentrally distributed.
Service organizations, especially public funded
organizations, are in a financially tight economic
environment.
They are required by their sources of funds
to justify additional resource expenditures, such as the

purchase of computer hardware and/or software.
This has
forced non-profit organizations to-become cost conscious.

In order to maintain or expand the organization they must
demonstrate the efficiency and effectiveness of the
resources currently used.
This technique allowed the
organization to use their present equipment to improve the

organizations effectiveness.
In addition it allowed a decentralized organization
to utilize centralized computer hardware, while receiving
benefits from an information system that matches a
decentralized organizational structure.
According to
Robey (1976) a firm that has chosen to centralize or

decentralized to meet its internal and external
environmental constraints will choose "information
technology" to match that structure.
The centralized
system with distributed reporting would allow the

decentralized organization to benefit from their current
information technology.
A major reason to switch to a decentralized computing
service involves the decision makers past unmet needs for
information to aid in the decision making process.
The
information center is one concept that gives knowledgeable

end users access to computing facilities and resources.
The complexities of todays environment requires timely,
usable, accurate information for the decision maker.
Unfortunately, decision makers have not been able to get
the desired information in a usable form and/or at the
appropriate time from traditional computer facilities.
Another reason for the move to decentralize computing
services, mirrors a move in organizations to push decision
making* planning* and control to the lowest possible level

(Federico* et al., 1980).
As with data processing
departments and management information systems (MIS)* the

structure of the organization should be reflected in the
structure of the department and/or system (Synnott and
Gruber*
1981).
According to Ein-Dor and Segev (1982)* the
degree of MIS centralization is positively related to the

degree of organizational centralization, and the less
centralized the organization the greater the integration
of the MIS function.
This has not been feasible in the
past, primarily due to the cost and size of computing

systems.
The reduced cost of computers has provided the
stimulus to decentralize computing facilities (Synnott and

Gruber,
1981).
Now, computing technology is able to
mirror the structure of the organization.

A decision support system (DSS) has been defined by
designers, users and software companies in slightly
different terms depending on the focus of the product they
are promoting.
According to Keen and Scott-Morton (1978)
a DSS is a tool, computerized or manual, that aids in the

decision making process.
This is a very broad definition
that encompasses many software packages and systems.

Building on the tool idea, a DSS can be defined as an aid
to the decision maker that allows the incorporation of
quantitative data with qualitative evaluations.
A DSS works best in the semi-structured problem

solving environment.
Management information systems (MIS)
have traditionally handled the routine or structured

problem situations.
The ability to incorporate
complicated internal data with complex, often subjective

evaluations of the external environment enhances the
decision makers decision making process.
The goal of
enhancement or restructuring is the improvement of the

effectiveness of the decision makers decision.
According to Vierck (1981) the goal of a DSS is
effectiveness, which is making sure the decision maker is
working on the right problem(s).
Thus effectiveness in a
real world situation becomes a subjective judgment by the

decision maker as to the quality, timeliness and accuracy
of the semi-structured decision.
Effectiveness in
investigations is the ability of the investigator or

investigative units to meet the organizational goals which
usually require that they take a case through to an
appropriate conclusion (closure) which leads to a
reduction of crime (Deladurantey and Sullivan,
1980).
The organizational structure of the Nebraska State

Patrols Investigative Services Division is decentralized
in form.
Their structure is relatively decentralized
since the investigators act as independent agents

servicing the public in units that are close to the
users, whx1e at the same time, strategic planning*
establishment of policies, the database for case and

intelligence reports and accounting are centralized at the
State Headquarters in Lincoln, Nebraska.
In designing a DSS for an organization, the
organizational structure must be considered.
the decision,
The type of
location of the decision maker, and the goal
of the decision indicate the ideal placement of the DSS.

The DSS should be in close proximity to the decision maker
in order to facilitate the decision making process, but
hardware/software constraints can effect the
organizations ability to achieve this goal.
In a
decentralized organization, decision makers can be aided

by centrally generated, directly distributed performance
reports (Kendall,
19S0).
A field experiment was run
to compare the effectiveness of a centralized decision

support system with a decentralized decision support
system in a decentralized organization.
1.3
Background
1.3.1
of the Study
Nebraska State Patrol
The mandated organizational mission of the Nebraska

State Patrol
(NSP) states that it is to "be used primarily
for the enforcement of the traffic and motor vehicle laws

within the State"
<Pevi_sed Statues of Nebraska 60-43^).
Bat in 19A1, the legislature expanded the NS P s authority

by establishing the Criminal Identification and
Investigation Division (Legislative Bill IE).
Law
enforcement agencies commonly refer to this division as

the CID.
This division, now called the Investigative
Services Division,
investigators.
includes the criminal and drug
The C I D s main purpose is to investigate
the crimes listed under Nebraska Statutes.
The current
administration has defined the investigation of targeted

complex, quality cases to facilitate the reduction of
crime as the primary objective of the Investigative
Services Division (Niemann,
19B5).
It is felt that this
will improve the effectiveness of this division.

The structure of the CID is a decentralized, matrix
structure.
The current strength of the CID is forty-two
investigators reporting to twelve sergeants, who report to

six troop area lieutenants (NSP Personnel Records, March
16, 1986).
The sergeants and lieutenants are referred to
as investigators and do, when needed, function as

working investigators.
The lieutenants report to their
troop area captain and to the Investigative Services major

and staff captain at State Headquarters (Lincoln,
Nebraska).
It is the dual responsibility and authority
for each troop area investigative unit that identifies the

matrix structure of the CID.
Appendix A illustrates the
previous centralized organizational structure of the CID.
10
Prior to July 1985, the CID was an independent division

reporting to a special services captain.
There was an
eastern and a western CID lieutenant managing the

investigative units.
Appendix B represents the present
matrix structure of the CID.
The CID major and captain
are familiar with investigations and the major cases being

investigated throughout the state.
It is this expertise
that allowed them to generate the centralized case

progression report.
The CID for all practical purposes is a decentralized
division since the troop area investigators are stationed
close to the users (criminals and/or victims) and the
operational control and decisions are dispersed to the
troop area CID lieutenants (Mintzberg,
1979).
This study
will utilize the CID of the NSP, because of the

decentralized characteristics of the investigative units
and the matrix structure that provides support to the
troop area investigative units.
The investigators job is to professionally
investigate illegal criminal and drug activity, by
efficiently and effectively using the limited available
resources.
Unlike the uniformed patrol division, the
Investigative Services sergeants make many i11-structured

decisions daily to facilitate investigative activities.
These decisions include new case assignments,
concentration of human resources to investigate a specific
11
case* termination of a case investigation obtaining

additional investigators and other resources from outside
the troop area, and other relevant case progression
decisions.
Providing the sergeants with a decision making
aid (the case progression decision support system and

exception reports) and the location of the aid will be the
concept addressed in the field experiment.
In order for the CID to meet their divisional mission
- to reduce crime by targeting complex quality cases - the
sergeants must make decisions concerning limited resources
and conflicting objectives.
There are eleven relevant
objectives concerning operational decisions to be made by

the sergeants.
1.
Operate within the Legislative appropriated

resources.
It is essential for the CID to
maximize the utilization of very limited

personnel, money and equipment allotted this
division of the NSP, a state agency.
2.
Initiate proportionately more proactive

investigations.
Traditionally the CID was
reactive oriented, especially in the criminal

division.
Proactive investigations can increase
the effectiveness of the CID by identifying and

apprehending the loose-knit criminal
organization rather than an individual.
Proactive investigations can solve multiple
12
crimes and crimes that are interrelated but

previously not classified as such.
For example
the theft ring that uses or sells dope.

Proactive investigations can improve the quality
of the defendants which leads to better
conviction rates with stiffer sentences.
This
can be a deterrent factor to other criminals.

Proactive investigations can involve additional
agencies so the resource burden on the NSP is
minimized.
Reactive investigations are defined
as the investigator responding to a viewed or

reported crime or allegation, by providing
assistance to other law enforcement agencies, or
professionally conducting the investigation to
its closure.
Proactive investigations are
defined as the investigator using reactive

information to target a crime, person, or
location.
The investigator then takes
professional investigative action prior to

the next illegal occurrence to prevent or
measurably reduce the occurrence of the crime,
by the quality apprehension of the
perpetrator(s ) (Lieutenants meeting,
3.
Minimize the travel time-.
1986).
This is non
productive investigative time.
This was
critical for reactive cases but is not as
13
critical in proactive case investigations.

Proactive cases allow the investigator to plan
in advance when and where a crime could take
place.
In proactive narcotic cases the time may
only be one half an hour( but as the two year

rotational program progresses the uniformed
officer will have the necessary training
to backup the narcotics investigator at a given
location.
The two year rotational program
transfers uniformed officers into an

investigative unit for a two years.
Also> there
is a three month rotational program to acquaint

the uniformed officers with investigative
procedures.
4.
Satisfy all calls for service within a

reasonable time frame.
Due to the changes
taking place with the Uniformed Criminal

Investigation (UCI) program and the emphasis on
proactive investigations, this is not a high
priority item of the current administration.
With the UCI program the trooper responds to
calls for service and begins the investigation,
rather than securing the area until an
investigator arrives.
It is up to the troopers
discretion to decide whether they can complete

the investigation or require the assistance of
investigative services.
5.
Expedite the investigation of crimes that

society has given a high priority.
For example*
a serial murder or a large quantity cocaine

dealer.
Expediting requires additional
investigators concentrating their efforts on one

case.
6.
Provide investigative services in rural areas

that do not maintain their own enforcement
office.
The investigators assist law
enforcement agencies with specialized piece work

and/or total investigative responsibilities.
The NSP provides the only drug investigators
west of Grand Island* Nebraska and north of
maha* Nebraska.
7.
Increase the efficiency - minimizing the total

cost of investigations - of each troop area.
8.
Expand the CI D s function within the state to

include white collar crime investigations,
organized crime and other types of cases the
State Attorney General stresses.
9.
Maximize the C I D s effectiveness.
This can be
done by looking at solvability factors and the

information processing.
Solvability factors
15
determine those cases that have a high

probability of being solved.
This allows the
investigators to develop higher quality

investigations that lead to an arrest,
prosecution and conviction of a quality
defendant.
Information processing refers to the
elements of the crime that the investigator

pieces together to solve the case.
The elements
of the crime are determined by the statutes

governing the illegal activity.
10.
Improve the quality of investigations.
Quality
investigations involve correct legal procedures

with concise documentation developed against
higher quality defendants.
Higher quality
defendants are those identified as being part of

the upper levels of the organized criminal
activity or the perpetrator that places a severe
burden on the average taxpayer (Dowling,
11.
Move the NSP towards accreditat ion.
1986).
The
Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement

Agencies,
Inc. has published a standards manual
that guides the NSP towards meeting the

accreditation criteria.
One standard the NSP is
striving to attain is a case management system.

All active cases are being reviewed on a
quarterly uaiis to snsurs up-
f 1 10 s -
16
It is the sergeants responsibility to maximize the

efficiency and effectiveness of the investigators within
the given constraints.
Improving the Investigative
Services Divisions effectiveness is the thrust of the

case progression DSS used in this study.
1.3.2
The Human Resource Allocation Model
The purpose of the study was twofold.
One, to
evaluate the concepts of DSS structure in an organization

to determine the best DSS structure for that
organizational structure.
And two, to assist the NSP in
the development of an Investigative Services human

resource allocation model.
It was in the pursuit of the
second purpose that the case progression DSS was

developed.
In assessing the allocation model, the definition of
investigator effectiveness was an essential issue to
developing the model.
Investigator effectiveness is
defined as the degree to which the departmental goals or

objectives are successfully achieved.
This implies the
ability to measure the investigators effectiveness.

Section 2.6 will discuss the various issues, problems and
recommended solutions to defining and measuring
investigative effectiveness.
17
The concept of case screening was presented as a way

to improve investigative effectiveness.
If the goal of
investigations is case clearance) then working on cases

with a higher probability of solution improves the
investigators effectiveness.
Previous case screening
methods involved a specific type of case, for example

burglary or robbery.
After the preliminary investigation
the case was terminated due to lack of evidence and/or

leads, or the case was continued because their was a good
chance to find the perpetrator.
This improved the case
closure rate.
The NSP investigators were uncomfortable with just
using solvability factors to screen cases.
The
prioritization forms were developed (Appendices C and D)

to incorporate solvability factors with public and/or NSP
concern for the case or crime and the effects this crime
had on the public as a whole.
The prioritization of cases
doesnt suggest that only an "A" - the extraordinary case will be investigated but it is used as a tool to aid
the sergeants and investigators to improve the use of
their time.
It is implied from previous measurements that the
investigative effectiveness be determined by the clearance
(closure) rate.
This doesnt judge how cases are closed
or the value of the solved cases.
The other commonly used
S'f'fsc v ivsnsss miwbSU 7s/nsn * is tfts chsriQ in cirirns
18
The problem with using crime rates is the inconsistency of

the reported data.
As with other service organizations
developing a meaningful effectiveness measure is essential

but difficult to attain.
Given the problems with investigative effectiveness
measurement and solvability factors, this study recommends
the use of the prioritization forms and a case progression
DSS to support the management of the investigators time.
The case progression was developed by evaluating the
investigation process (Appendices E and F) which developed
from the investigative activities (Appendix G).
This
provided the input for the case progression steps.
In
addition the case progression incorporated concepts from a

form developed by Investigator Abshier (Appendix H) and a
case tracking system (Hardee,
1981 CAppendix II).
The
case progression DSS will build a database that can

provide time estimates for the various activities during a
specific offense investigated.
No two cases are the same in investigations, but
there are similar elements.
Rather than assume the
average homicide will take 165 investigative hours

(Schlachter,
1985), it would be preferred to estimate the
average or a range of time to complete each activity of

the homicide investigation.
This allows the researcher or
the administration to break down the homicide

investigation into different classifications of homicides
19
- smoking gun, suspect identified, victim unidentified,

etc. - and the approximate time it will take for each
classification of homicide investigation.
This will
increase the accuracy of the time estimates for

investigative human resource planning.
1.3.3
Centralization versus Decentralization
Many researchers have commented on the affects of

computerization on the organizations structure.
Will
computerization centralize various functions within the

organization or not?
Whisler
(1970) felt that
organizations would use the computer technology to

centralize the decision making and reverse the trend
towards decentralization (pp.
11-12).
Burlingame (1961)
anticipated that computerization would provide timely and

relevant information that would facilitate decentralized
decision making.
Hofer (1970), Hunt and Newell
(1971)
suggested that the relationship between computer

technology and the organizational structure is unclear and
barely a weak relationship.
This study will examine the link between the DS S s
structure and the organizational structure.
The
environmental conditions that contribute to an

organization centralizing or decentralizing its structure
are not directly affected by the availability of variable
20
size, cost and performance computer technology.
The link
is not computer technology dictating organizational

structure as presented earlier but organizational
structure giving forth the computer structure.
1.4
Overview of the Remaining Chapters
Chapter two will review the relevant literature to

this study.
This chapter reviews the research on human
resource allocation models, prioritization or solvability

variables in case screening,
the case progression form,
police effectiveness measures and the centralization

versus decentralization issue in organizationa1 structure
as well as DSS structure.
Finally, this chapter will
present the hypotheses and rationale to support the

research questions.
The hypotheses are related to the
accuracy and availability of information, the usefulness

of the system, the systems aid in problem identification
and the improved effectiveness of the investigative unit.
Chapter three will define the design and methodology
of the study.
The study had the Investigative Services
sergeants generate a case progression report using a DSS

or utilizing the information from the case progression
report.
The independent variable is the organizational
location of the DSS.
The centralized DSS was generated by
the Investigative Services administration at State
Headquarters <Lincoln>.
The decentralized DSS was
generated at the troop area headquarters.

place for three months.
The DSS was in
At the end of the three months
two unrelated measures were used to support the

hypotheses.
The first measure was the difference in the
sergeants investigative units effectiveness.
The second
measure was a users system satisfaction questionnaire.

The questionnaire evaluated the availability and accuracy
of the information? the usefulness of the system and the
systems assistance in identifying problems.
An analysis of the effectiveness measure and the
questionnaire is discussed in chapter four.
Basically?
the results showed that the different groups decentralized? centralized and control - only perceived a
difference in the availability of the information.
Information refers to the data necessary for input into
the system and the information generated by the system.
No significant difference between the groups was found for
the accuracy of the information? usefulness of the system
and assistance in problem identification.
The results of
the effectiveness measure showed no difference in the

centralized? decentralized? and control groups before the
implementation of the case progression system (the study)?
but a significant difference in the groups during the
study.
The results support the use of a centralized
22
decision support system generated report distributed

decentrally as a feasible technique for the Nebraska
State Patro1.
The final chapter draws conclusions from the study,
makes recommendations and suggests implications about the
research.
A part of chapter five will be suggestions for
future research in the areas of centralized versus

decentra 1ized systems) organizational structure compared
to the structure of the DSS, expansion of the case
progression or tracking system to improve investigative
effectiveness, and the design of an annual Investigative
Services Human Resource Allocation Model.
S3
Chapter 2
2.1
LITERATURE REVIEW
The origin of the study is in the analysis of a human

resource allocation model for the Investigative Services
Division.
The first step was to evaluate alternative
approaches to allocating investigators of law enforcement

agencies.
During this research phase the identification
of two ways of investigating - proactively and reactively

- facilitated the development of the case prioritization
tools (Appendices C and D).
This tool allowed the
supervisors and investigators to rank their cases.

The investigative process is different for a
proactive versus a reactive case* but there are similar
elements that an investigator must pass through in order
for a case to go to trial.
Appendices E and F describe
the proactive and reactive investigative process.
From
the common activities in the proactive and reactive

investigative process a case tracking or case progression
system was designed.
The proactive and reactive
prioritization form and the case progression report

provide the sergeants with an operational decision making
tool.
It is the tools goal to improve the effectiveness
of the investigators and establish a database for the

Investigative Services allocation model.
2A
The definition and measure of investigative

effectiveness was a critical issue of this study.
It was
desirable to tie the effectiveness measure to something

other than inaccurate crime reports.
The effectiveness of
investigators was a quantifiable variable of the decision

support system (DoS) and is important in measuring changes
in the effectiveness of the decision maker.
The Nebraska State Patrol
organization.
(NSP) is a decentralized
The location of the DSS logically would be
with the decentralized decision makers - the sergeants and

the lieutenants.
This rationalization has never been
tested other than with case studies and surveys of

"successful" companies) so this provided the opportunity
to take a decentralized organization and test the best
location of the DSS.
It is hypothesized that the decentralized DSS will be
preferable in the decentralized organization.
An
additional aspect of this study is the use of a

centralized DSS as an interim technique until a
decentralized DSS is available.
The hypotheses presented
allow the study of these concepts.
25
2.2
Alternative Approaches to Human

Resource Allocations
2.2.1
Nebraska State Patrols Approach
In evaluating how best to help the decision maker

allocate investigators, several approaches are feasible.
The approach currently used by the NSP is a subjective
judgment of the expected criminal activity, then the
allocation of criminal and drug investigators to specific
Nebraska cities.
The decision making process is
characterized by tradition.
The troop area lieutenants
get together and propose a plan for the administration.

The administration then decides the feasibility of the
plan, but the NSP, like other bureaucratic organizations,
is resistant to change.
Based on past criminal activity and population
statistics, the majority of the investigators should be
stationed in the eastern one third of the state (Burnett,
19S5).
In the western part of the state,
investigators
have been justified as a resource to local law enforcement

agencies.
The rationale pertains to the concept that the
taxpayers in the western part of the state deserve the

same protection as taxpayers in the eastern part of the
state.
When asked to assist the local sheriff or town
p o 1iceperson, the investigator will do piece work on the
26
case.
Piece work can include latent fingerprint analysis,
interviewing, evidence collection, and other activities

pertaining to the investigation.
The investigators in the
western part of the state have two major concerns:
travel
time and qualified assistance when needed (Streeter,

1985).
If you look at a map with the location of
investigators pinpointed you would notice most of the
investigators are stationed along Interstate Highway 80
(1-80).
Crimes do occur north and south of 1-80.
This
makes travel time and intelligence gathering important.

The administration and the investigators feel that this
allocation process could be greatly improved by looking at
independent variables affecting the efficiency and
effectiveness of the investigators.
The independent
variables include the skill level of the investigators,

emphasizing their specialized training, historical data on
local agencies requests for assistance, non-economically
motivated crime trends, travel time to respond to a call
in different geographic locations, population densities,
the dynamic environment, the availability for proactive
case development, and subjective judgments of the
uniqueness of each troop area.
27
2.2.2
Law Enforcement Agencies Approaches
Very little work has been done to determine the best

allocation for investigative services.
The work done has
been on the allocation of patrol persons/vehicles to

maximize their effectiveness and productivity.
Maffeo
(1982) developed a formula for the determination of the

number of patrol officers.
This formula requires the user
to know the number of expected calls for service,
the
hours required to handle each case, the percent of the

patrol officers time devoted to handling calls, and the
availability factor of the officer.
This equation then
determines the number of patrol officers needed to handle

the expected number of calls, but does not geographically
allocate the officers.
Wilson (1977) and Leonard and More
(1982) allocate patrol officers in a similar way.
They go
on to mention how important the investigative function is

in a law enforcement agency but do not mention how to
allocate this department of the organization.
McEwen and Larson (197*0 use a queueing model to
improve police dispatching and patrol allocation in
Rotterdam.
This model has been extended to other cities
in the Netherlands.
This model strictly evaluated the
allocation of officers for patrolling a city.
Kwak and
Leavitt (198*0 used the hypercube queueing model to

allocate patrol police for the St. Louis County Police
28
Department (Missouri).
This model does deal with the
allocation of patrol officers over a larger geographic

area but doesnt address the problem of the semi
structured investigative function within a law enforcement
agency.
Schlachter
(1985) sent a questionnaire to other state
law enforcement agencies seeking to ascertain the current

techniques used in allocating investigators.
What the
the study determined was that there was considerable

interest by the administration of other law enforcement
agencies in having a formula or computerized program that
facilitates the allocation of investigators.
Unfortunately neither the questionnaire nor a literature
search turned up a manual or computerized system for the
allocation of the investigative services division within
any law enforcement agency.
2.2.3
Traditional Human Resource

Allocation Approaches
The basis for traditional manpower allocation

approaches relates to the forecasting and planning of the
human resource.
The field of human resource planning has
borrowed techniques from management science to provide the

administration with appropriate techniques to assess the
human resource needs of the organization.
The other
29
aspect of this problem is to geographically distribute the

human resource element of the organization to maximize the
sales or service to customers by the organization.
The traditional approaches include computer
simulation models (Weber, 1971), linear programming
(Charnesj Cooper* Niehaus, and Stedry,
1969), Markov
models (Blakely, 1970), GERT (graphical evaluation review

techniques) models (Bonham, Clayton, and Moore,
developed evaluation methods (Walker,
1974).
1975), and
Of these
techniques, no model appeared to incorporate the semi

structured nature of the problem of allocating
investigators for a law enforcement agency.
One of these
techniques could be used to forecast the attrition/

promotion rate of the NSP investigators.
2.2.4
Management Science Human

Resource Models
Another approach would be to develop a management

science model that determines the optimal investigator
allocations.
A management science model would be
appropriate if you were able to quantify the subjective

evaluations.
Lee, Franz and Wynne (1979), Stever and
Wallace (197B), and Taylor, Moore,Clayton, Davis, and

Rakes (1985) developed a goal programming model to
allocate uniformed patrol persons by geographic location.
30
The parameters of this model were assumed constant.
There
was no consideration for the dynamics of the environment

and possible changes in the N S P s policies.
Most management science models tend to be inflexible
in adapting to dynamic environmental influences.
Additionally, management science models lack the ability
to integrate data from a database into the model or to
integrate model to model communications (Minch and Burns,
1983).
This creates a problem in this decision
environment.
The decision requires the integration of
data and the evaluation of subjective material to maximize

the effectiveness of the investigators.
2.2.5
Management Information Systems

Approach
Promoters of management information systems (MIS)

believe that a MIS can fulfill the information
requirements to aid in management decision making.
A MIS
provides the organization with the ability to "Collect,

update, maintain and process data; provide scheduled and
demanded reports; respond to queries; and support
structured decision making"
(Watson and Hill, 1983).
is important to note that a MIS is-designed to handle
It
31
structured, operational problems.
The MIS is based on the
use of standard operating procedures, decision rules, and

information flows to improve efficiency.
The MIS has had an indirect,
if any effect on the
decision making process of managers (Keen and ScottMorton, 1978).
The investigator allocation decision is a
semi-structured problem primarily due to the dynamic,

subjective nature of the organizations objectives and
case assessments.
An MIS would not be as effective since
the decision makers information requirements are

continually changing and the decision makers have not
identified what information would aid the decision making
process of allocation and performance evaluation (Watson
and Hill, 1983).
2.2.6
Decision Support Systems Approach
The first recorded DSS used in this area is the GeoData Analysis and Display System (GADS) by Carlson and
Sutton (1974).
The GADS was used in a police agency to
restructure their assigned zones of officer

responsibility" (pp. 3).
The problem was unstructured due
to qualitative goals with many feasible alternatives.
The
emphasis of this study was to test. GADS with nonprogrammer users rather than the development of a workable
t\ r-1<-*
D
3
D
jt
J
U
I
_ _
{JU
i iLC
*|
ui
I il c i
4-
,-tv*.,
anuwoviuu^.
32
The decision support system (DSS) can facilitate the

decision making process by incorporating the subjective
evaluations with qualitative data.
This approach would
allow the decision maker to integrate data from a database

with a model to aid in the allocation process.
In the NSP
case progression DSS, investigators and sergeants input

would be used to build a database to collect the relevant
data concerning case status and time estimates for various
investigative activities.
Investigative activities are
those tasks within the case progression that should have

clear, unambiguous definitions.
status points are unclear.
At the present time, the
It was the subjective
evaluation of the decision maker that determined a change

in the cases status points.
At any time throughout the
case investigation, the cases priority can be reassessed

and the case progression can be reviewed with the
supervisor.
The DSS would generate a progress report for the
investigators and sergeants.
See appendix J for a sample
of the case progression report.
The case progression
report documents some of the identifiable status points,

such as plan development time, interviews or background
information time, surveillance time, arrest procedure
time, prosecutor conference time and supervisor review
time.
Section 2.5 reviews the case progression reports
33
development.
A discussion of the problems with this form
appears in chapter four.
The information from this model
will be stored in the database to aid in an annual

Investigative Services Division Human Resource Allocation.
The report is not to suggest that this is the only order
for case progression rather that each case will go
through these steps at some point in the case.
See
appendices E and F for the case progressions of proactive

and reactive investigations.
The investigation processes
do not imply that each case goes from step 1 to step 2 to

step 3 etc.) but that each case will go through each step
at some point within the case progression.
The reactive
and proactive investigation processes were derived from

the literature (Chaiken, Greenwood) and Petersilia)
Dowling)
ReppettO)
1979> Kenney and More)
1979> Kuykendall)
1978) Schlachter5 1985> and Wilson)
1976,
1982)
1978) and
the investigators of the NSP.

Part of the data collection aspect of the DSS is to
provide supervisors and investigators with their case
progression assessment.
In order to effectively assess
the investigators case progression and effectiveness

preliminary work needs to be accomplished to ready the
organization for the DSS.
The first step was to establish
guidelines for proactive and reactive case progressions.
3^
The case progression is the investigators flow chart that

shows the steps from initiation to termination of the
c ase .
The guidelines should include a flow chart of the
steps (see Appendices E and F), with unambiguous check or
status points to reevaluate the prioritization and/or
progression of the case.
A measurement needs to be
established to assess the effectiveness of the

investigators.
See appendix L for an example.
This
effectiveness measure includes an assessment of the case

priority.
The effectiveness measure is discussed in
section 2.6.
The prioritization of cases included an
evaluation of the solvability factors, departmental and/or

societal mandates.
to prioritize cases.
Appendices C and D are the forms used

The development of the case
prioritization forms is discussed in the next section.
2.3
Case Prioritization
The concept of case prioritization is not new.
The
NSP took the case screening idea and expanded it into a

case prioritization.
To better understand the rationale
behind the case prioritization concept, an examination of

existing case screening models and- the progressive
development of the case prioritization model will be
presented.
Case screening can be defined as "a mechanism
35
that will facilitate making a decision concerning the

continuation of an investigation based upon the existence
of sufficient solvability factors obtained at the initial
investigation"
(Cawley, Wasserman, Miron, Mannello,
Araujo, and Huffman,
1977).
The goal of case screening is
to determine those cases that should be suspended

immediately after the initial investigation.
The investigators have been informally screening
their cases for a long time.
It is part of human nature
when you have more work to do than you can reasonably

accomplish, to put the activities in some kind of order.
The most common way for the officer to sort their cases is
to classify them into those worth pursuing and those to be
shelved.
The case screening concept makes it uniform
across the state as to those cases that should be

continued or suspended.
The investigators decision can
then be justified to the administration.

Case screening has several benefits.
One, it
provides the police supervisor realistic rather than

inflated data concerning workloads.
This can be used to
evaluate the need for additional investigators or an

excess of investigators in a given area.
Two, along these
same lines the wasted time and energy of the investigators

is minimized.
The study by Eck (1979) using the Stanford
Research Institute (SRI) Burglary Decision Model
(Figure
S.i), found the use of a "statistically weighted
36
Figure 2.1
SRI Burglary Decision Model
Information Element
Weighti^ng Factor
Estimated time lapse between crime and

the initial investigation:
Less than 1 hour
1 to 12 hours
12 to 24 hours
More than 24 hours
5
1
0.3
0
Witnesss report of offense
On-view report of offense
Usable fingerprints
Suspect information developed

description or name
Vehicle description
0.1
Other
0_
Total Score:
INSTRUCTIONS
(1)
Circle the weighting factor for each information

element that is present in the incident report.
(2)
Add the circled factors.
(3)
If the sum is less than or equal to 10, suspend the

case; otherwise, follow up the case.
Source:
Greenberg, Bernard, Oliver S. Yu and Karen I.

Lang ; Enhancement of the InvestIgatlye Func tIon
Volume 1^1 Burql_ary Investigative Checklist and
Handbook; National Technical Information Service;
Springfield, VA.; 1973.
37
information model <1) can save a great deal of

investigative time) and (2) will allow police managers to
identify the kinds of trade-offs associated with daily
case assignment (resource allocation) decisions"
(pp.^9).
This helps improve the productivity of the investigators.

Three5 it is a decision making checklist and a
motivational tool for the officer doing the preliminary
investigation.
And four) it improves the morale because
the investigators can spend their time on quality cases

rather than unsolvable> time consuming dead-end cases.
Case Screening relies on solvability factors.
Solvability factors are the information elements about the
crime which have been shown in the past to be important in
determining the probability of solving the case.
These
factors are evaluated during the preliminary

investigation) then a decision is made to terminate
or pursue the case investigation.
The supervisor will
be able to determine if the case warrants additional

investigation and the use of limited resources.
There are two major approaches to the development of
a case screening model - weighted and unweighted.
The
unweighted approach has two basic methods of determining

the solvability factors - use of the police manager
or use of a task-force of knowledgeable personnel to develop the case screening model.
The Rochester Police
38
Department Crime Investigation Report (Appendix N) is an

example of an unweighted case screening approach.
Rochester Police Department used a tasU force and then
field-tested the experimental solvability factors.
It was determined that the preliminary investigating
officer needed to answer the following questions:
1.
Was there a witness to the crime?
2.
Can a suspect
be named?
3.
Can a suspect
be located?
A.
Can a suspect
be described?
5.
Can a suspect
be identified?
6.
Can the suspect vehicle be identified?
7.
Is the stolen property traceable?
8.
Is there a significant M. 0. present?
9.
Is there significant physical evidence present?
10. Has an evidence technician been called?
Is the
evidence technicians report positive?

11. Is there a significant reason to believe that the
crime may be solved with a reasonable amount of
investigative effort?
12. Was there a definite limited opportunity for
anyone except the suspect to commit the crime?
(Block and Bell,
1976).
The Rochester Police Department
Crime Investigation Report is used to cue the preliminary

investigating officer, so the essential
collected if obtainable.
information is
The Rochester Pol ice Department
39
managers retained flexibility to continue with the

investigation of a forecasted unsolvable case, in order to
acknowledge public demand or other special circumstances.
This points out that this is a tool not a hard and fast
rule.
Other law enforcement agencies evaluated cases to
determine the solvability factors.
The successful case
screening programs are continually updated by a task force

evaluating those cases that were solved.
It was noted
that the most important and common solvability factor is

the naming of the suspect (Cawley, et al., 1977).
A weighted case screening approach can be derived
either statistically or nonstatistically.
An example of a
statistically derived case screening model is the research

done by Greenberg, Yu, and Lang (1973) with the Oakland
Police Department (California).
The authors developed a
checklist to be used by the preliminary investigating

officer in investigating burglaries.
They then examined
past cases to statistically derive a set of weighted

variables.
The set of weighted variables forecasted case
results with a high degree of certainty.

for an example of this model.
in his study.
See figure 2.1
This is the model Eck used
It should be noted in this model that the
investigators judgement is very limited.
^0
The same group of researchers then developed the

Robbery Investigation Decision Model in 1975 (Figure 2.2).
In both models the information from the victim or witness
had the highest solvability rating.
In the robbery model,
vehicle information ranked second in terms of contributing

to the closing of the case by an arrest.
A nonstatistical1y derived case screening model is
that of Multnomah County, Oregon.
A task force attempted
to list cases by their priority (Figure 2.3).
The
officers consider the seriousness of the crime, the

suspect information, the need for action and departmental
concerns.
This system is perceived as a flexible tool for
the investigator to identify the case priorities following

the preliminary investigation.
Using these examples the NSP developed a case
prioritization form.
The case screening approach was too
cumbersome, whereas the prioritization of cases provided a

management tool that would increase the investigators
effectiveness by identifing higher quality cases.
Since
the NSP works all classifications of crimes, they would

need to develop a case screening model for each crime
category similar to the past examples.
Unlike major
police departments with specialized investigative squads,

the NSP investigator must be able.to work all type of
cases and work multiple cases at a given time.
The case
41
Figure 2.2
Robbery Investigation Decision Model
IoLO!.i.oQ Element
Suspect named
Suspect known
Suspect previously seen
Evidence technician used
Places suspect frequently named
Physical evidence
Each item matched
Vehicle registration
Query information available
Vehicle stolen
Useful information returned
Vehicle registered to suspect
Offender movement description
On foot
Vehicle (not car)
Car
Car color given
Car description given
Car license given
Weapon used
We^ght i_nq Factor

10*
10*
10*
10
10*
6.1
1.5
3.0
4.5
6.0
0
0.6
1.2
1.8
2.4
3.0
1.6
*These values as calculated actually exceed the threshold

of 10. The values provided here are conceptually simpler
and make no difference in the classification of groups.
INSTRUCTIONS
(1)
Circle the weighting factor for each information

element that is present in the incident report.
(2)
Add the circled factors.
(3)
If the sum is less than or equal to 10, suspend the

case; otherwise* follow up the case.
(4)
Weighting factors do not accumulate; i.e.* if both

the auto license and color are given* the total is
3.0, not 4.8.
Source:
Greenberg, Bernard, Oliver S. Yu and Karen I.

Lang; "Felony Investigation Decision Model An
Analysis of Investigative Elements of
Information"; Final Report, Stanford Research
Institute, Menlo Park, CA.; 1975.
42
Figure 2.3
Priority Rating Factors in

Multnomah County
A.
Gravity of Offense
a.
b.
c.
d.
B.
Felony = A points
Misdemeanor = 3 points
Victimless crime = 2 points
Violations/status offense = 1 point
Probab i.1 i_ty of Sol_ut i_on

Whether there are:
a.
b.
c.
d.
Suspects
Witnesses
Physical evidence
Undeveloped leads
(Score one point for each factor present.)
Urgency for Act i_on

a.
b.
c.
d.
Danger to others = 4 points

Immediate action required = 3 points
Impact on victim = 2 points
Pattern/frequency of crime = 1 point
Supervisory Judgment
a. Department policy
b.Totality of circumstances
c. Investigators caseload
(Total possible:
A points)
Scori,ng and Application of Priority System:

Priority
A
B
C
D
Source:
Points
16-22
10-16
4-10
Less than 4
Regort Investigative Process W i t h i m
1-5 days
15 days
30 days
Suspended (form letter to victim)
"Team Policing:
Management of Criminal
Investigation"; Police Chief; September?
1976,
A3
screening approach would require an integration of the

various models to assist the supervisor in resource
allocations.
The prioritization forms incorporated
criminal and drug cases into one tool.
The prioritization
forms were developed using a nonstatistical1y weighted

approach.
A task force of investigators gave their input
concerning the items and the ordinal rank of the factors.

Figures 2.A and 2.5 are the revised form used for this
study.
Given the difference between the investigators
approach to a reactive or a proactive case, two
prioritization f o r m s were developed.
The use of the two
forms is demonstrated by the following decision making

process upon the receipt of information concerning illegal
activity.
When the information comes to the NSP the
person receiving the information must decide if the case

is reactive or proactive.
A reactive case is determined
when an investigator and/or trooper could be immediately

dispatched to the scene of the alleged crime or where the
complaint was taken (sheriffs office, police department or
county attorney).
When an officer will be dispatched is
determined by the availability of an officer, urgency for

action and the type of crime.
A proactive case is
determined when an investigator mufet do additional work verify or corroborate the information, develop and
informant, put together intelligence information) etc. -
Figure S.4
PROACTIVE CASE PRIORITIZATION
CASE HUMBER ----------------
S e l e c t the h i g h e s t p r i o r i t y a n s w e r for each a r e a .

Plaoe
c o r r e s p o n d i n g l e t t e r in th e b l a n k to the l eft o f e a c h
question.
larget e( the cite
A. Organicatioo
A. tndividuil
t. location
I. B t h t r / U n t n o m
Cases affect the 'averaye tarpayer* due to:

A. lhe danqer to others/self Idruo dealers spiling
to oinersr dooestic disturbance gtoupsl
A. Ceotienal outrage (violent crises)
C. lhe frequency/pattern of criae and the financial
lapact an insurance ratesr latest etc. (auto
thgft rtnq;, conspiracy drug casei)
A. Crises that tacitly decos undesirable
Iqiablinji non-addictive drugs)
lattlligtnct I n t o n a t i o n Sourct
A. Ntbratka State fatral
I. Infsraant
C. Cttiirn cppolaint
A. li e Enforctatnt Agtncy
Case Progression
A. There is additional pertinent inforaation
A. lhe cast it getting It's stated goals <target
and/or tioel
C. Ihere are undeveloped leads and/or inforaation
sources
A. There is no nay lo proceed at this point
Accuracy tf Inter ait ton Seurce

A. Pail reliability if iierct It good
I. P u t reliability el leerct It lair
C. He i n t o n a t i o n
D. P u t reliability of fierce it poor
Availability for Additional Agenciet I n n l v t a e n t
A. latl force 13 or lore agenciet nith a
designated leader to eanage the case)
I. Federal agency/aqertcies
C. Nebraska State Patrol only
S. Police Oepartaenttil and/or Sheriffs' Office
lype of Drug
A. locaine/Opiuo derivativesrhelhasphetaoines.
Hallucinogens
A. Other Oepresssnts or Stiaulants
C. ftarijuana
0. Other/ Not applicable
Additional Resources can be Obtained

A. Ilecessary aor.ey, eanpoaer i tiee and equipment
' are available
A. Only three of the above are available
I. Only tno of the above are availabl:
0. Only one of the above is available
lhe Quantity of Drug Involved

liar i juana
Greater than
ten pounds
Greater than
2 lo 9 pounds
less than
tuo pounds
Not applicable
Public/Nebraska State Patrol Reaction to the Case

A. lhe public and NSP have eipressed concern about
the target and will be very pleased nith the
erpected results.
A. the public and/or NSr util be very pleaspd nith
the erperted results of the case.
C. lhe public and/or IISP will be satisfied nith the
erpected results of the case.
A. lhe public and/or NSP nil! have little reaction
to the erpected results of the case.
Itpe
A.
A.
C.
D.
Add the total number of each letter.

priority line for the total points.
of
of.
of
of
A's
B 1s
C's
D s
=
=
=
=
Total
O th e r D rugs
one ounce
one g ra s
one g ra o
Value of the Irareahle Property

A. Case involves trareahlp prrprrty nf value
greater than finul)
A. Case involves traceable property of value tjli
to l i r a
C. Case involves traceable property of value less
than 4300
D. Not applicable
Action Needs to be Initiated or Continued

A. tlathin St hours
R. tfithin 72 hour s
C. Hi thin IbB hours
1. Ihcre is no tioe constraint
Humber
Number
Humber
Humber
the
of Crisinal Inon-drugl Activity

Serious criacs against person
Serious crioes again-l properly
less serious criaes/Victioless non-drug crioes
Other/Not applicable
Check
the co rre sponding
Priority A
() 1 plus pts)
Priority B
< 3 5 - 0 pts)
Priority C
(25-3*1 Pts)
Priority D
(0-2A pts)
(The reduced forms original size is 8.5 by ii inches.)
^3
F i g u r e 2 .5
R e a c t i v e P r i o r i t i z a t i o n Fo r m
REACTIVE CASE P R IO R IT IZ A T IO N
S e le c t th e h ig h e s t p r i o r i t y
c o r r e s p o n d in g l e t t e r in th e
q u e s tio n .
CASE NUMBER
P la c e
answ er fo r each a r e a .
b la n k to th e l e f t o f e a c h
Referral Source
A. Victiu/Deceased tody found
I . La Enforcement Agency
C. Infornant/Crite Steppers
D. C itlttn Conpliint/Dther
Folloa-up leads
A. There are aitnesses lo the crine
B. Case has a distinguishing N.O.
C. There are undeveloped leads (ether than
aiinessesl
There Is no aay to proceed at this point
g.
Accuracy of Inforoition froo Referral Source

A. Past re lia b ility of source is good
R. Past re lia b ility of source is fair
C. No tnfornation
S. Past re lia b ility of source Is poor
Type
A.
R.
C.
D.
lapse of tine betaeen the Crine and the Initial

Investigation
A. less than one hour
B. One hour to sir hours
C. Sir hours to Eh hours
D. Greater than Eh hours
of Crine
Serious crine against person
Serious crine against property
less serious crine
Victinless crine
Public/Nebraska State Patrol reaction to the case

A. The connunity is appalled.
B. The case involves a sensitive or unusual place
or person (religious building or public edifice
child* elderly or handicapped!
C. There Is significant coeaunity reaction
little to no reaction to the case
Urgency for Action

A. Danger to others
R. Inaediate action required
C. Inpact on victia
D. Pattern/frequency of crine
Agency/Agencies Currently Involved

A. Tact force 13 or ere agencies nith a
designated leader to eanaqe the case)
B. Nebraska State Falrol only
C. Federal agency/agencies
D. Police D e p a r t n e n U s ) and/or Sh e r i f f s Office
Suspectls) Inforaation
A. Suspecttsl is tare) naaed
B. Suspectls) vehicle is (are) identified
C. Suspectls) is (are) described but not naaed
0. No suspect infornatinn
Additional Resources can be PhtainFd

A. Honey* aanppuer* line and eguipeent are
available if necessary or applicable
B. Only three of the abrve are available
C. Only tuo of the above are available
0. Only one of the above are available
Evidence
A. Case involves traceable property
R. Case has proainent physical evidence
C. latent fingerprints are the only evidence
D. Insignificant evidence is identified
Add t h e t o t a l
p r io r ity
lin e
num ber o f ea ch l e t t e r ,
fo r th e t o t a l p o in t s .
Check
th e
c o r r e s p o n d in g
P r i or i ty
N um ber o f
Num ber o f
Num ber o f
N um ber o f
As
Bs
Cs
Da
th e
=
=
=
*
<38-Ci'
P r to r i ty
A
pts)
B
pts )
P r io r i ty C
< 1 9 -p 'a p t s
Pr i o r 1t y
<0-18 pts)
(85-31
T o ta l
(The reduced forms original size is 8.5 by 11 inches.)
before proceeding to the scene of the alleged illegal

activity.
The next decision concerns who should receive
the information -an investigator or a trooper.
The
investigator should get proactive case information and

exceptional reactive case information such as suspicious
death investigations, or hostage/terrorists threats.
The trooper should get all other reactive case
information.
After the preliminary investigation the
appropriate prioritization form should be completed with

the Administrative Data Form (Appendix P).
The supervisor
then has the flexibility to decide if the investigation

should continue, who should continue the investigation,
the required personnel needed to continue the
investigation and when the cases progression should be
reviewed and reevaluated.
The N S P s prioritization forms are in their field
testing phase.
Upon completion of the study, the forms
need to be revised.
An item frequency analysis can be
completed to determine if each item is prioritizing the

cases.
The task force can then reevaluate the forms using
successful A, B, C, and D cases for assistance.
2.^
Criminal
Investigation Process
It is important to understand the steps in

-j
j- ;
u u L U i i i c i i u i i itj
^ ____ ir
oiler
m i
ui
_______ j _ ;
m o v i u i i
^ .c
i i x c y o i
ui
-v i
iiiuiioi
j_ . .
o u
u x v i u y
hi
to develop a prosecutable case.
For example Greenberg, Yu
and Lang (1973) set up a list of activities for the

investigating officer to do at the scene of a burglary.
These activities and the role of the investigator have
changed over time.
This section will develop the
investigation procedures by presenting a brief history of

investigations and the role of the investigator.
Early in Americas history, a large formalized police
agency was not needed due to the small, rural communities.
These communities had very strong social mores and anti
social behavior was controlled without the need for a law
enforcement or criminal
the police.
justice system.
The public was
Out of this grew the need for an appointed
few to protect the community during the night.
As the
population grew, the complexity of life increased.
This
led to the development of specialized work groups

including the group now responsible for the enforcement of
the laws, the protection of property and the perservance
of peace (Farris, 1982).
The early law enforcement
officers primary job was the prevention of crime.
This
was accomplished by patrolling the areas where the

criminal element congregated.
As society continued to
grow in population and complexity, the law enforcement

officers job changed from preventing crime to solving the
reported crimes.
So, by the end of the nineteenth
century, the detectives where working on individual cases.
<48
The emphasis of investigations changed and so did the

investigative process.
The investigators made their cases
by having the necessary evidence to prosecute the

perpetrator.
Some significant events related to the changes in the
investigators role and the investigation process include
the appointment of Allen Pinkerton as Chicagos first
detective in 1849.
His contribution was to separate the
investigative function from the patrol function.

New York City created twenty detective positions.
1865, the U.S. Secret Service was organized.
In 1857,
In
The
investigation of deaths was instituted in Boston in 1878.

This was the first effort to use pathological
investigation for violent crimes.
Francis Galton
developed the foundations of a fingerprint classification

system in 1892.
Also in 1982, Hans Gross wrote a treatise
on CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION that stressed the importance of

reconstructing the crime scene for investigative purposes.
In 1901, Dr. Karl Landsteiner discovered the blood
groupings that are a key factor in identification.
The
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was originated in

1905, as the Bureau of Investigation.
The forerunner of
the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Federal

Bureau of Narcotics got its start in 1930.
Developments
in criminalistics and forensic science contributed to the

move to train and educate professional investigators with
specific skills.
These events marked key changes in the
investigators role and the investigative process.
The
investigative process has become a scientific approach to

the identification and apprehension of the perpetrator of
an illegal activity.
The most commonly known investigative units are the
FBI and the DEA.
Traditionally, the FBI has been a
reactive organization.
crime.
They responded to a reported
The DEA has had a proactive strategy due to the
nature of the drug transactions.

division and a drug division.
The NSP has a criminal
The criminal division,
like
the FBI, has been reactive in strategy and the drug

division has followed the strategy of the DEA - to be
proactive.
As with the FBI and most criminal
investigative
divisions, the N S P s criminal division is becoming more

proactive.
It is no longer the best policy to go after
the individual when the criminal organizations hold the

greatest threats to the public.
This is not necessarily
"organized crime" but it is a loose-knit organization that

perpetuates illegal activity.
In both the reactive - event oriented - and the
proactive - target oriented - the focus of the
investigation is on the elements of the crime that must be
documented for the legal system.
This, together with the
reasons for investigating crime establish the
50
investigation process.
The four basic reasons for
investigating a crime are;

the offender*
(1) the future deterrence of
(2) the deterrence of others*
(3) community
safety, and (4) the protection of the innocent (Dowling,

1979).
ft list of the investigative activities (Appendix
G) was determined from the focus and goals of

investigations.
The investigative activities led to the conception of
the investigation process.
Figures 2.6 and 2.7 break the
activities into the process of proactive and reactive

investigations.
The investigation process may be on
several steps at the same time or they will skip around

but each case should go through all the steps.
The
investigation process led to the development of the case

progression form.
2.5
Case Progression Form
This study recommends the use of the prioritization

forms and a case progression DSS generated report to
assist the supervisors in making decisions about case
investigations.
concept.
The need to track cases is not a new
The investigators have been doing this in an
informal manner.
actively working.
They keep track of the cases they are

This involves knowing what has been
51
F i g ur e 2.6
1.
Proactive
I n v e st i ga ti o n P r o c e s s
Initial investigation (investigators initiative)

a.
b.
Proactive/reactive work leading to a case

Developing informant information and/or an
intelligence base
2.
To target a crime, person or location
3.
Develop an investigative plan

a.
b.
c.
d.
Analyze the case, available information and

potential information sources
Identify specific informants
Determine the case priority
Define the steps to be taken to best approach the
crime
A.
Review with supervisor (s ) and other investigators
5.
Investigation of the target

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Surveillance
Informants
Undercover/overcover operations
Phone tolls
Wire taps
6.
Review to assess completion of the case goal(s)
7.
Prepare and obtain warrants

a.
b.
Search
Arrest
8.
Arrest and process the prisoner
9.
Evidence to and from the lab
10.
Confer with the prosecutor
11.
Appear in court
12.
Assist in the prosecution
13.
1A.
Deposition and review of the case

Disposal of the evidence
52
F i gu r e 2.7
2.
I n ve s tig at io n Pr oc es s
Notification of a crime
Initial Investigation
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
3.
Reactive
Plan of action before going to the crime scene

Going to the incident
Actions at the scene
1. Securing the area
2.
Initial interviews
3. Evidence gathering
A. Looking at the area
Return from the incident
Evidence to the lab
Notify the appropriate persons
Completing and submitting report and additional
forms if necessary

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Analyze the case and available information

Assess the potential information sources
Determine which investigative steps are of the
highest priority
crime
Evidence from the lab
A.
Review with supervisor(s ) and other investigators
5.
Gather additional information [contacts!

a.
b.
c.
7.
8
Interview the victim? witnesses? and potential

witnesses
Conduct a records search
Discuss case with specialists? uniformed officers
and/or other agencies
Ascertain the location of a suspect

9.
Appear in court
10.
11 .
53
done on the case and what can be done to further the

investigation of the case.
The problems arise when a case
is not actively worked for some time, when it is an

important case, when too much time is allocated to an
unsolvable case, or when the investigator needs additional
personnel to help solve the case.
The investigators
worked this problem out between themselves or if

additional investigators were needed, for example to run a
wiretap, then the troop area lieutenant would call other
troop areas to borrow personnel.
There is no standard as
to the priority of the cases or who should give up the

personnel.
The large number of cases an investigator can be
working at a given time prompted the development of
Investigator Abshiers Troop C s Cases form (Figure 2.8).
Abshier used the form for assistance in determining where
he was at in his assigned or initiated cases.
Assigned
cases are those given to the investigator to pursue

by the sergeant.
These tend to be reactive in nature.
Informants may be assigned to an investigator, which

should lead to cases.
Initiated cases are
investigators develop on their own.
These
those the
cases come from
intelligence information or the development of informants

and they are usually proactive.
Investigator Abshier is a
drug investigator so most of his cases are
proactive.
drug division is required by law to record
the final
The
54
F i g u r e 2.8
A b s h i e r s Troop C s C a s e s For m
I
:i/
:!
*i.i
:.i
O
<
w
o
c
i
/
t
M
j.
a u
t
a
r:
U
l
.c
JaO
.
::i
^
ibQ
L:
f
lCt
1
QThUt
M3
oS q
-
ii
n
t>l19
c*
ri
-t
a
.
f
i.
i
i
.
-i
3
i
t
i
<C
MXO
W
t
41
M
U
1_J
o.
o
o
-c
r
c
c
jo
jeI
i*
.t
t.K
.
u
n
c:
ui
'i
:
a
a
- L
ai
UJ*-r
L
) l
;i
mOli
*
i;
U
_J
l<
it
|
<
M
:.
c
i
r
t.o
QJ
l.lI
n i-
nd
I
UI
3
O
X.
Ul
UJ
<41
*
l4j
3
i
11ivcrstigatur fiusriier (original form is 8.5 x 14)
55
disposition of a case.
be finalized.
It may take years for the case to
Without a reminder the investigators forget
to record the final disposition of their cases.

The case progression was developed by evaluating the
investigative activities (Appendix G) to determine the
investigation processes (Appendices E and F) which
provided the input for the case progression steps.
In
addition, the case progression incorporated concepts from

Abshiers form and a case tracking system (Hardee,
1981).
The case tracking system was used by the Orange County

Sheriffs Department (Florida).
The tracking system was
a tool to improve the productivity and measure the

effectiveness of investigators.
output report.
Figure 2.9 shows the
The benefits derived from this system
include the supervisors ability to monitor the activities

and caseloads of the detectives, to review cases to insure
the prompt submission of reports, to assess the status of
a case, and to improve communications with citizens who
call and ask the status of a case.
It was noted that this
system did require additional training of personnel,
lack
of availability of manual records, and the problem of data

integrity.
It is interesting to note that the Orange
County Sheriffs Department began this project with a case

screening system in 1977.
The case progression DSS is designed to
c
o .r*nôw
au
ni+I v
' e-#
4
'W
*
^ r? i
W
W
W
as a
w
Ii
L i n n
m
a
ni i
ouw
uv
^ ^
assist the
^
1 i ^ ^
w
use =
>
oi iu
c voauo va
ui o
Figure 2.9
Orange County Sheriffs Department

Case Tracking Report Output
Input
Cat* Number:
Section:
Oetactlve:
Date-Aislgned
Initials:
Assign/Screen:
Offense Code:
Evidence Retained:
Multiple Case:
Value of Rcvd Prop:
S.O.-Dlsposltlon-Code-1:
Trans. Code
Date:
Victim:
Last:
First:
Code-2:
Number Arrested:
CT.-Olsposftlon-Code:
S.A.-Acceptance:
Date:
Date:
Multiple Case:
Lesser-Offense-Code:
S.A.-Code:
HRS-lnvestlgatlon:
Output
*
Source:
Unfounded
Filed for prosecution
Arrests
Property recovered
_
--------
----
Section
Section
Section
Section
S etlm n
Section
Section
Section
%
%
f
"b
%
.
_ _
___
__ _
b ____
% _ _
I I I I I
Detective:
Cases assigned
Cases screened
Cleared by arrest
Exceptionally cleared
Unfounded
Filed (or prosecution
Arrests
Property recovered
Accepted for prosecution as charged
Accepted as lesser ollense
Convictions as charged
Convictions as lesser oflense
Plea as charged
Plea to lesser oflense
Acquitted
Dismissed
Cases lost = negative assessment
Cases lost = neutral assessment
Hours overtime paid
5.
6.
7.
B.
1111I
Per
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
1B.
19.
----
Section:
1. Assigned
2. Screened
3. Cleared by arrest
4. Exceptionally cleared
Hardee* Joanne* "Measuring Productivity in a

Criminal Investigative Unit"; The Pol_i.ce Chi_ef
March 1981.
57
about the activities of the investigators.
In addition)
the case progression DSS will build a database that can

provide time estimates for the various activities to
complete an investigation for a specific offense.
2.6
Investigative Effectiveness
The goal of a decision support system (DSS) is to
improve the effectiveness of the decision maker (Keen and

Scott-Morton,
1978) pp. 1).
They define effectiveness as
the identification of what should be done and ensuring

that the chosen criterion is the relevant one.
The
emphasis of the case progression is to improve the

effectiveness of the sergeants of the Nebraska State
Patrol (NSP).
In improving the effectiveness of the
sergeants the investigative unit should improve their

effectiveness.
The next step is to define what encompasses the
investigative units effectiveness.
Drawing from the
literature on police effectiveness) Needle (1981) defines

effectiveness as "the degree to which departmental
objective (or goals) are achieved successfully".
Butler
(1984) stresses that effectiveness cannot be measured

unless you use a performance measure and the two concepts
are the same.
The next problem then becomes identifying
the objectives of investigations.
An objective is a
58
detailed and precise statement of the outcome a division

is to achieve.
An objective should specify the results in
a measurable structure and time frame.
The commonly
listed goals for investigative divisions are to deter and

prevent crime, uncovering the occurrence of crimes,
identifying and apprehending criminal offenders)
recovering stolen property, supporting the prosecution of
arrested offenders, and maintaining public confidence in
the police (Greenwood, Chaiken and Petersilia,
1977).
The
problem with these goals is a method to measure their

achievement.
Traditional methods of measuring these goals
are to use the clearance rates, arrest rates, Uniform

Crime Reports (UCR), and number of cases worked.
Clearance rates are the number of cases closed to the
number of cases worked.
The problem with clearance
rates
are differences in definition by police administrators,

i.e. do you use; when an arrest is made, when an arrest
can be made,
if the prosecuting attorney will prosecute,
or if the case is administratively closed due to a low

probability of being solved.
inaccurate.
Arrest rates are very
The Rand study found the only 3*/. of all
arrests were the result of the skill and training of the

investigator (Chaiken, Greenwood, and Petersilia,
1976).
How do you handle multiple arrests.for one case or one

arrest solving
multiple cases?
. ~
~
..4
oi
c
p .u.4^
u
u u.
X
-U
v C
O
T
U
., ,
i_> y
u iicr i
Tk I IP
D
m e
The Uniform Crime Reports

;
-
w
_.-w
-i+
V
i= t y
I;Ii b uru u i,v
H
l>
c
*
uUu
f
*r
)
vw
59
incomplete data, duplication of reports, and differences

in classifications of crimes.
worked,
Using the number of cases
leads to the problem the DEA had when their agents
worked small nickel bag buy-busts to get the numbers.

They are not really effective in deterring drug use but
their number looked really great <Wilson,
1978).
The Investigative Services goal is to solve targeted

complex, quality cases that facilitate the reduction of
crime.
By looking at solvability factors and the
information processing, the investigators can target cases

that have a high probability of being solved.
This
allows the investigators to develop higher quality

investigations that lead to an arrest, prosecution and
conviction of a quality defendant.
Information processing
refers to the elements of the crime that the investigator

pieces together to solve the case.
Quality investigations
involve correct legal procedures with concise

documentation developed against higher quality defendants.
Higher quality defendants are those identified as being
part of the upper levels of the organized criminal
activity or the perpetrator that places a severe burden on
the average taxpayer (Dowling,
1986).
The investigator effectiveness measure (Figure 8.10)

evaluates the percentage of time the investigative unit or
the investigator spends on a proactive or reactive, A, B,
C, or D priority case.
It includes those activities that
60
Figure 2.10:
Investigator Effectiveness Measure
Time F r a m e ________ t o _________

Directions:
Note:
Badge Number
Fill in the blanks. Total the point column

for each part of the evaluation.
Questions four thru eight refer to time devoted to

activities without an NSP case file number.
<WT
means the question weighting factor)
1.
Percentage of hours worked on proactive cases having:

Xage X Wt = Igtal.
a.
An "A" prioritization rating
X 10 =______
b.
A "B" prioritization rating
X
8 = _____
c.
A "C" prioritization rating
X
6 = _____
d.
A "D" prioritization rating
X
^ = _____
2.
Percentage of hours worked on reactive cases having:

Xaqe X Wt = Iqtal_
a. An "A" prioritization rating
X 10 =______
b.
A "B" prioritization rating
X
7 = _____
c. A "C" prioritization rating
X
5 = _____
d.
X
3 = _____
y.age X
Wt = Tota_l
3.
Percentage of hours worked on

Intelligence or Investigative
Services reports
1 =______

polygraph reports with a confession
from a deceptive subject
2 =

polygraph reports without a
confession from a deceptive subject ___ X
1 =

polygraph reports with a
truthful subject
2 =

polygraph reports for an
employment examination
X 1.5=

hypnosis or ident kit reports
X 1.5=
A.
5.
6.
7.
8.
TOTAL
facilitate the investigative process but deter the

investigator from pursuing their own case investigations.
Examples of this are intelligence and investigative
services reports, polygraphs, hypnosis and ident kits.
Intelligence reports set up an intelligence database to
aid in criminal activity analysis and corroboration of
criminal activities.
Investigative service reports are
used when an investigator assists another law enforcement

agency but is not responsible for the case.
they do piece work for other agencies.
This is where
Polygraphs (lie
detector tests) are given to suspects and victims, or for

employment purposes.
Hypnosis is used to obtain
additional information from a witness.

used to draw a likeness of the suspect.
Ident kits are

Other less
frequently used activities like special assignments or

meeting time were not used in this evaluation.
Only time
that directly furthered an investigation was used in the

effectiveness measure.
The time measures are obtained
from a monthly summary of the investigators weekly time

reports.
2.7
Centralization/Decentralization Organizational
Structure
The Investigative Services Division of the NSP is

described as a decentralized unit.
nintzbsrg
(1979)
discusses three uses of the word decentralization".
Th.e
first is the dispersal of formal power down the chain of

authority.
In the NSP the troop area captains have the
responsibility for the investigative unit in their troop

area.
The second pertains to horizontal decentralization
where nonmanagers control decision processes.
The
Investigative Services major is a resource as well as a

decision maker concerning the activities of the
investigators.
And finally, decentralization can be used
to refer to the physical dispersion of services.
The
investigators are stationed throughout the state in order

to better serve their customers - victims and criminals.
Kochen and Deutsch (1980) use a decentralized
organizational structure as a technique to bring about
greater responsiveness to individuals and community needs.
The administration has spelled out guidelines for the
investigators to follow but they are responsible for the
interpretation of them by responding to their environment
and initiating cases.
It was demonstrated that patrol
decentralization resulted in improved community

relationships (Kerstetter,
1981).
Using the previously
stated definitions of a decentralized organizational

structure and the intent of the N S P s administration,
Investigative Services Division of- the NSP can be
classified as a decentralized division.
the
Centralization is the use of one decision maker or

authority figure.
The NSP does have one colonel who has
the sole responsibility for the NSP but for operational

purposes the troop area captains have the responsibility
for their officers direction, actions and results.
The NSP has centralized accounting, policy making, and
case record keeping.
This insures the standardization of
reports and procedures around the state.
E .8
Decision Support Systems Structure
S.8.1
Centralized Decision Support Systems
In order to further evaluate the centralization/

decentralization issue it is necessary to look at the
advantages and disadvantages of each structure (Buchanan
and Linowes,
1980, Burch, Strater and Grudnitski,
Davis and Qlson,
1985, and Davis,
1974).
are adapted from the MIS literature.
1983,
These advantage
Management
information system centralization is the degree to which

the data processing resources are restricted to a data
processing center.
A centralized DSS is located and used
by a centralized functional department.
The subjective
evaluations are made by one decision maker for all
6^
decision makers affected by the system-
Advantages of
centralized DSS in the NSP are:

1.
The decision makers ability to see the total

picture,
E.
The decision maker has access to time commitments

of individuals with desired skills to complete
piece work for others,
3.
The decision makers response to public pressure,
4.
Data would be generated and stored for use in
the
annual investigator geographic allocations in a

central
5-
location,
Headquarters can control data security, data

integrity and reduce data redundancy.
The decision makers ability to see the cotal picture

would be a benefit in cases that are handled by two or
more troop areas or which needed a specialized skill from
an investigator in another troop area.
Since the
investigators have been under the troop area captain,
the
investigative services lieutenants have lost some of their

knowledge pertaining to individual investigators skills
and/or location.
Along with this is the decision makers
knowledge concerning time estimates for the specialized

skills.
The decision maker can determine who has the
skill as well as approximately how long it should take

complete the piece work for the other troop area.
The
administration would be in a better position to assess
to
65
special investigator assignments keeping the effectiveness

and efficiency of the total organization as the first
prior it y .
The public pressure is usually at the state level.
The pressure can come from the Governor, Attorney General,
legislature/Senators, and the press.
The public relations
officer at state headquarters (Lincoln, Nebraska) can

respond with improved information, since the data would be
generated and stored centrally.
Having a centralized location for data storage
facilitates having one person or a small group in control,
over the data.
Data security for the NSP is very critical
due to the nature of their work.
Data integrity is
essential to ensure the accuracy and timeliness of the

data used in the investigative services allocation DSS.
Avoidance of data redundancy minimizes wasted resources in
the elimination of duplication.
A centralized DSS would be used by the administrators
to aid in the decision making process.
It has the major
benefit of looking at the organization as a whole rather

than decomposed subunits fighting for resources.
This
facilitates a centralized data collection to assist in

budgetary decisions.
The centralized system can be used
to ensure that the subunits are meeting the organizational

goal .
66
The disadvantages of a centralized DSS at the NSP

include:
1-
The time factor due to a delay between

headquarters receiving the case reports, making a
progress report and transmitting this report back
to the investigators,
2.
The investigators skepticism that headquarters

actually knows or understands what happens in the
field,
3.
The issue concerning the responsibility for the

case data,
The troop area lieutenants, supervisors and/or
the individual investigators concern for the
appropriate organizational level that the reports
are to be accessed.
The delay in feedback from a centralized DSS to the

investigators could negate the benefits of the report.
Changes in computer technology and the NSP computer
hardware and software purchases may eliminate this as a
disadvantage.
The NSP has obtained outside funding for an
on-line IBM System 36.
Prior to installation of the new
system, a reassessment of the location of the DSS needs to

be determined.
The other disadvantages are administrative decisions
that must be addressed before implementation of the system
state wide.
The investigators skepticism can be reduced
67
with work from the administration.
Open communication
channels and the administration observing the

investigative function can change this apprehension.
2.8.2
Decentralized Decision Support Systems
Decentralized MISs refers to the degree to which the

data processing resources are directly accessible to the
divisional units of the organization.
Decentralized DSSs
are used at the lowest.level for decision making.
They
can be for operational, tactical or strategic decisions.

The type of decision must be targeted, then the
appropriate decision maker identified in order to assess
the proper location of the decentralized DSS.
The
advantages of a decentralized DSS in the NSP include:

1.
The end users are responsible to develop and

schedule applications,
2.
The speed and form of the decision would fit the

needs of the troop area and investigators,
3.
The troop area sergeants know the skills of the

individual investigators,
4.
The troop area sergeants have knowledge

concerning what the investigator has been doing
during the evaluated time-period.
68
As the end users are becoming sophisticated,

intelligent computer users, organizations are forced to
accept that the end user has the knowledge to be
responsible for the development and use of computer
application.
Personal computers and the concept of the
information center have made this advantage a reality.

User friendly software is the norm, rather than the
exception to todays competitive computer technology
market.
The NSP is increasing the investigators use of
computers to access information, sort and retrieve

information.
In a study concerning the criminal
justice
systems comparative availability of selected data types

(Shugoll and Dempsey,
1983) Nebraska ranked high.
Accordingly the investigators would accept a

decentralized DSS to a greater degree based on the
lieutenants and/or sergeants knowledge of the
investigators skills and activities during the time
period.
For example,
if they have been too busy on a
priority case to turn in reports on completed cases, the

lieutenants or sergeants would understand why the form is
not up to date.
The sergeant would maximize the decisions
to the benefit of the troop area but this may not benefit
the NSP on the whole.
In a decentralized DSS the timeliness of the decision
is improved.
The form of the decision more closely
represents the expectations of the decision maker, and the
69
decision maker is in a better position to evaluate the

idiosyncrasies of his unit, but there are disadvantages
as wel1.
The disadvantages of a decentralized DSS in the
NSP are:
1.
The lack of decentralized computer equipment,
2.
The potential to give inequitable case

progression evaluations based on subjective
feelings,
3.
The duplication of procedures without

integration, and
4.
The multiple data entries at multiple

locat ions.
Declining morale,
job dissatisfaction, and
performance may result from inequitable case assignments.

A major concern is the investigative standard.
if you
have one investigator doing the bare minimum and the

remaining investigators working above the standard, the
remaining investigators will drop to the level of the
first investigator
(Ball, 1986).
in productivity and morale.
This leads to a decline
By leaving the subjective
evaluations to the troop area sergeants, the case

progression assessment may be perceived as being biased.
There is a tendency to compare the-decisions made in your
troop area unfairly when compared with grapevine knowledge
about other troop areas.
70
Each troop area will be performing the same data

entry and decision making process.
If a networking system
or another technique to transfer data were used, this

problem could be minimized.
It is the duplication of
activities that decreases the efficiency of the

organization.
For the NSP, the on-line System 36 will
minimize some of the duplication of activities.

A comparison between a centralized DSS and the
decentralized DSS was evaluated from the data collected
during the field experiment.
The field experiment was
used to support the hypotheses concerning the use of a

centralized DSS on an interim basis and a decentralized
organizations preference for a decentralized DSS.
2.9
Hypotheses and Rationale
The field experiment will test hypotheses that

compare a decentralized decision support system (DSS) or a
centralized DSS within a decentralized organizational
structure.
The first hypothesis concerns the sergeants
attitude towards the availability of the information

received from the system.
HI:
There is a significant difference between the

participant groups attitude towards the
availability of the information received from
the system.
71
The sergeants are the first line of supervision for the

investigators.
They should know what information is
available concerning the investigators case progressions.

Due to the time lag and possible data input errors at the
centralized computer system in Lincoln,
it is hypothesized
that the decentralized sergeants group will perceive the

information availability at a higher level of significant
difference than the centralized sergeants.
Hypothesis one was supported from the sergeants
response to the case progression system questionnaire
(Appendix M ) .
The second hypothesis evaluates the sergeants
attitude towards the accuracy of the data going into the
system and the information from the system.
H2:
There is a significant difference between the

participant groups attitude towards the accuracy
of the information put into and received from
the system.
A key factor in improving the effectiveness of the

sergeants decision making is to mandate the data going
into the system and the information from the system be
accurate.
It is the sergeants attitude towards the
a c c u r a c y and
dependability of the information and their
ability to use the information that improves the decision

making effectiveness.
The second hypothesis will be
72
assessed from the sergeants response to the case

progression system questionnaire (Appendix M).
The third hypothesis relates to the sergeants
ability to identify problems with the case progression
DSS.
The possible problems that need identification
concern the progression towards the cases closure,

investigators that d o n t take a case to an arrest, cases
that need additional personnel, etc.
H3:
There is no significant difference between the

decentralized and the centralized sergeants
evaluation of the systems assistance in
identifying problems.
The problem identification comes from the use of the case

progression and exception reports.
The accuracy of the
information will vary but the use of the tool will be

similar regardless of the location of the DSS.
Hypothesis
three is supported by the case progression system

questionnaire (Appendix M).
The fourth hypothesis pertains to the sergeants
perception of the usefulness of the DSS information.
Due
to the sergeants limited familiarity and use of the case

progression and exception report it is hypothesized that
there will be no significant differences in their
perception of the usefulness of the generated information.
73
H^:
There is no significant difference between the

evaluation of the usefulness of the DSS
informat ion.
Due to the limited time frame the full utilization of the

DSS information is going to be restricted.
There was not
enough time for the sergeants to really get familiar with

the reports and play around with the reports to realize
their full potential.
The fourth hypothesis was analyzed
from the case progression questionnaire (Appendix li).

The fifth hypothesis concerns changes in the
effectiveness of the investigators - the major goal of the
DSS.
H5:
The investigative effectiveness measure will

show significant differences between the various
sergeant groups.
The investigative effectiveness measure (Appendix L)

evaluates the percentage of time the investigator unit
spends working on prioritized cases.
Cases are
prioritized by solvability factors and the N S P s and/or

publics reaction to the case.
H5a: The investigative effectiveness measure will
show a significant difference between the
groups.
7k
H 5 b : The investigative effectiveness measure will

show a significant difference between the
centralized and the control sergeants groups.
Like all employees; the investigators want to do a good
job.
They are in this line of work because of the
intrinsic rewards, such as the challenge of the job and

serving the public.
If management can develop performance
measures for quality investigation values, then the

investigators will try to meet those criteria.
The
uncertainty on managements part as to what the

investigators should or shouldnt- be doing only allows the
performance of the investigators to slip between the
cracks.
Under the current economic times, combined with
dynamic changes in criminal activity, the NSP can not
afford to allow the effectiveness of the investigators to
slide.
The report generated with the D S S s assistance is
a tool to aid investigators, sergeants and lieutenants to

analyze past performance and establish procedures to
improve the investigative process.
The investigative effectiveness measure (Appendix L)
includes the use of a case prioritization form
(Appendices C and D ) .
The investigative effectiveness
measure was done for each investigator, but it was the

effectiveness of the troop area drug or criminal
investigative division that was used to evaluate the
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
75
study.
The change in the sergeants investigative units
effectiveness after the system implementation was used to

support this hypothesis.
Since the prioritization of cases was not done in the
past, the experimenter used a control group.
The control
group started using the case prioritization forms the same

time as the other groups.
The investigative effectiveness
measure was derived from the investigators time sheet

summar ies.
The first and second hypothesis will demonstrate that
a decentralized organization should have a decentralized
DSS to improve the effectiveness of the decision maker.
The third* fourth* and fifth hypotheses will support the
interim use of a centralized DSS for organizations that
are essentially decentralized but lack the current
resources - time* funding, space - to implement a
decentralized DSS.
76
Chapter 3
3.1
METHODS AND DESIGN SECTION
Problem Statement
The problem is to evaluate the effectiveness of the

decision maker in a decentralized organizational
environment using a decentralized decision support system
compared to a centralized decision support system (DSS).
With the availability and quality of computer
hardware and software* an organization can select the
necessary equipment to structure the computer system to
match the organizational structure or to meet the decision
makers structural desires.
Using intuitive logic it is
reasonable to postulate that the environmental concerns

that caused the organization to centralize or decentralize
their structure would also affect the structure of the
computer system.
This concept has been addressed via
questionnaires of existing organizations* but has not been

tested in a controlled situation.
This study compared
the match between organizational structure and computer

system structure.
If an organization cannot immediately acquire the
necessary information technology to match the
organizational structure*
it is possible to improve the
utilization of the existing structure by decentrally

distributing reports.
This study determined that a
77
centralized DSS is a viable interim alternative compared

to waiting for funding to decentralize the technology.
3.2 Decision Support System Design
The case progression DSS would provide the

investigators* sergeants and lieutenants with a report
that summarized time allotted to solve a case and where
the case is in the solution process.
either centrally or decentrally.
The DSS was located
The DSS incorporated
data from the case prioritization reports (Appendices C

and D) the NSP Weekly reports (Appendix 0) and the NSP
Administrative Data form (Appendix P).
These reports were
submitted to the troop area secretary or provided from the

summaries generated at headquarters.
diagram of
the case progression DSS.
Figure 3.1 is a flow

The DSS allowed the
decision maker to flag cases or generate exception reports

(Figure 3.2) as well as the case progression report
(Appendix J ) .
Exception reports were used under the following
cond it ions:
1.
A case is inactive (no supplemental
reports) for
a user designated time period.

2.
An investigator has an excessive number of active

cases.
Assistance may be in order.
78
F i g u r e 3.1
F L O W D I A G R A M O F THE C A S E P R O G R E S S I O N
INPUTS
PROCESS
OUTPUTS
IPrioritization I
I
Form
I
I 1. Reactive I
I 2. Proactive!
I____________I
i
1-----------------------I
I I
>I
Case
I N.S.P.
I
I Progression
I Weekly
I-------------- >1
DSS
j Reports!
I Processor
I________ I
>1______
I
I
I
__________ I__
I
I
I N.S.P.
I
jAdministrativej
I
DataForm
I
I____________ _ l
I
I
Case
->j Progression
I
Report
->l
Ex c e p t i o n
Repo rts
79
Figure 3.2
EXCEPTION REPORT
EXCEPTION REPORT
Case Number
Investigator
Comments
------ i---
--- ------
---------
--------- --------------
----------------------------
---------
--------- --------------
---------------------------
BO
3.
A case warrants more investigative time than it

is receiving.
Miscellaneous factors determined by the DSS user.
The goal of the exception report was to allow the decision

maker to set changeable criteria that identifies cases or
investigators that need additional supervision.
The case progression report form was like a worksheet
that displayed investigative progress on individual cases.
Figure 3.3 is a sample.
threefold:
The goal of the report was
to give each investigator and sergeant a form
to easily update their progress on each case, to

facilitate in the quarterly case reviews and to assist in
the investigator effectiveness measure (Appendix L).
The
investigator who gets involved for long periods of time on

a trivial or unsalvable case may not realize that this
behavior is repeated and valuable time is lost.
Or the
investigator who is slow in completing paperwork will show

very little case progression thereby affecting future case
assignments.
This information assisted the sergeants
making the necessary i11-structured decisions concerning

cases and investigators time utilization.
This will
improve the accuracy of the information the administration

uses to make resource allocation decisions.
A decentralized DSS would be .generated by the troop
area sergeants.
The decentralized troop areas have access
to an IBM PC to generate the case progression and
81
Fi g u r e 3.3
CASE PROGRESSION REPORT
4J 3A
MTJft
I L v
fth-
U >9 (4.
cm c
no ii
'/)
II
ao
Note:
The two pages are reduce 6 k'A and overlapped.
82
exception reports.
The sergeants will generate the case
progression and exception reports for distribution to the

supervisors and investigators.
The two troop areas that received the centrally
generated case progression and exception reports did not
have access to a PC during the study.
The Investigative
Services Administration at State Headquarters in Lincoln,

Nebraska generated the reports.
These reports were
distributed to the troop area lieutenants for distribution

within the troop area.
The same guidelines were given to
the decentralized and centralized sergeants.

The four control troop area sergeants were briefed on
the purpose of the case progression and exception reports.
Other than the implementation of the prioritization forms
these two troop areas did not make any operational changes
related to the case progression report.
The DSS used a Lotus 1-2-3 spread sheet to set up the
case progression and exception report.
The user
determined which cases to track, how much time was spent

in each activity, and the criteria used for the exception
report.
In designing the case progression form attention
was paid to ascertain those activities common to both

criminal and drug cases, the decisions the sergeants
needed to make and the size of the- form.
possible activities were included,
If all the
the size of the form
would be unmanageable and inhibiting to the user.
The
83
case progression form was approximately eighteen inches in

length by eight inches in width.
Based on the opinions of
the lieutenants and sergeants space was allotted for the

tracking of twenty active cases.
3.3
Performance Measures
3.3.1
Generalized Performance Measures
The case progression DSS generates reports and

collects data to aid the sergeants in making decisions
concerning the status of a case and managements
(centralized or decentralized) flagged or exception
reports concerning cases that need additional follow-up.
It is the changes in the users decision making
effectiveness and their attitudes about the DSS, that will
be evaluated during the field experiment.
Sprague and Carlson (1982) discuss four divisions of
performance measures:
and product.
productivity, process, perception
The product measures assess the technical
value of the DSS.
Since the focus of this paper is on the
location of the DSS within the organization, the product

measures will not be evaluated.
The process measures
refer to the decision making process.
Until there are
clear unambiguous definitions of case investigative

activities (status points), proactive versus reactive
84
cases and case termination points, the process measures

are not constructive evaluations of the DSS.
The perception measures concern the decision makers
evaluation of the system.
This evaluation will be in the
form of a case progression system questionnaire (Appendix

M).
The questionnaire will ask the user to evaluate
changes in their understanding of the problem or their

identification of what needs to be done, the usefulness of
the DSS from their assessments of the generated reports,
and their evaluation of the availability and accuracy of
the reports.
The productivity measure refers to the value of the
decisions in terms of time, cost and results of the
decision.
The time and cost of the decisions would not
adequately evaluate the location of the DSS, since these

variables are beyond the experimenters control.
The
results of the decisions will be demonstrated by changes

in the decision makers effectiveness.
It is the goal or
major function of a DSS to improve the decision making

effectiveness. The changes in the decision makers
effectiveness will be evaluated using the investigative
effectiveness measure (Appendix L).
This tool will be
used to measure changes in effectiveness (results of the

decisions) by the location of the DSS.
85
3.3.2
Design of the Case Progression

System Questionnaire
The case progression system questionnaire (Figure

3.^f) was designed by adopting a 033 effectiveness
questionnaire developed by Burkhard (1984).
Burkhards
questions were reworded to fit the investigative

environment used for this study and to reflect the goals
of the study.
Then a group of investigators, not
responding to the questionnaire, evaluated the questions.

They assessed the questions in terms of their intent and
clarity.
The investigators put themselves in the
sergeants place to see if they could understand the

questions and the terminology used.
It is difficult in a "real world" situation to
attribute changes in effectiveness (performance) to the
system and not some other cause either internal or
external to the environment.
So the advise of Keen and
Scott-Morton (1978) to use a "smorgasbord" to evaluate the

DSS was followed.
Section 3.3.3 describes the
investigator effectiveness measure.
These two measures -
questionnaire and effectiveness measure - are independent

of each other and will be used to support the hypotheses.
The questionnaire uses attitudinal variables that
require the participant to indicate the degree of
satisfaction they find with the use of the system versus
Figure 3.*
CASE PROGRESSION SYSTEM QUESTIONNAIRE

Name
The following questions refer to your use of the case
progression system.
Circle the number that best represents
the way you feel about the question.
Do not spend a lot of
time thinking about the questions:
go with your initial
reaction.
"Information" refers to the data available from the N.S.P.
Administrative Data form, N.S.P. Weekly Time Sheet,
Proactive/Reactive Prioritization form, Investigator Case
Progression report, and Exception report.
The "decision making task" or task relates to the allocation
of manpower to maximize the case clearances.
1.
The inforaation das relevant to aaking the required

decisions.
2.
The aiount of inforaation aas sufficient for aaking the

decisions.
3. The output inforaation aas accurate.

4. The input inforaation aas accurate
5. The necessary inforaation aas available.
6.
The inforaation aas easy to use for aaking the requireo

decisions.
7. Hy decisions accoaplished ahat 1 expected thea to.

S. The leaning of the inforaation aas clear.
9. The inforaation aas understandable.
10. The aaount of tiae spent looking for the input
inforaation aas reasonable.
oa
e
7*
C
rd
O " u.
(please turn page)
with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
JZ. at
cr at
3T
87
page 8
o ' a#
e
0 l_
0 e**r
d
o*
It. The inforaation Mas precise.
12. The systea allowed the learning of inforaation.
13. The systea helped ae structure ay thoughts.
lb. The use of ay judgeaent aas at an appropriate level.
reconend this systea to ay peers.
3 b
15.
1 Mi l l
16. The systea Mas easy to use.

17. This systea
Mas
very frustrating.
18. I felt free to do other things (like strptchinqi takinq

a break, or siaply resting to collect ay thoughts) while
using this systea.
1 2
19. I frequently felt stiaulated by the task.

80. The function of the systea is not very significant or
iaportant in the broader scheae of things.
O n a scale of one to ten how valuable

N e b r a sk a State Patrol?
1
Note:
is this system
10
This form is reduced 9 V/..
01
Q
J
l.
cr>
to the
88
a perceptual measure that allows the participant to

respond with an agree or disagree (Robey,
1979).
Moreover* according to Gallagher (197*+) there are three

methods to determine the value of information;
(1) the
value measurement that varies the information while

holding everything else constant,
differences in the outcome,
then comparing the
(8) using decision rules for
predictable outcomes to compare different alternatives,

and (3) perceptions that reflect the users attitudes or
assessment of the information.
It is the third method
that was applied to the development of the case

progression system questionnaire.
The participants responded on a Likert five point
scale.
The scale goes from they 'strongly disagree to
'strongly agree with neutral being the midpoint.
This
allows the sergeants to express their feelings with a

greater latitude than a perceptual dichotomous scale
(agree/disagree) would have allowed.
In developing the questionnaire the goals of the DSS
where kept in mind.
These goals are the accuracy of the
information, the availability of the information, the

usefulness of the DSS, and the DS S s aid in identifying
the problem.
Attention was paid to the design of the
questionnaire to eliminate questions that demanded

knowledge unavailable to the sergeants or questions that
89
would be perceived to have a socially desirable answer.

The participants were assured of the anonymity of their
answers, so they could express their true feelings.
Questions 2, 5, and 10 relate to the availability of
the information to the participant.
be used to support hypothesis HI.
These questions will

The following
questions will be used in support of hypothesis H 2 : 1, 3,

4, 8, and 11.
information.
Hypothesis H2 reflects the accuracy of the

Questions 6, 7, 9, 16, and 17 refer to the
usefulness of the system.

hypothesis three.
These questions support
Identifying the problem is found in
questions 12, 13, 14, 18, and 19.

used to support hypothesis four.
These question were

Questions 15, 20 and
the last question "on a scale of 1 to 10 how valuable is

this system to the N.S.P.?" is an overall attempt to
measure the general change in the participants attitudes.
Question 20 uses reverse scoring.
When the study began
the participants attitudes were very negative towards

this study helping the NSP.
This information will be used
in future research to determine if the overall

receptiveness of the participants to the human resource
allocation model has changed.
90
3.3.3
Design of the Investigator

As previously discussed in section E.6> defining the

effectiveness of the investigators is very difficult.
This is an essential part of this study.
The development
of an investigative effectiveness measure unrelated to

crime reports is critical for further studies in this
area.
Appendix L is an example of an investigator
Questions one and two reflect a weighting scheme to
emphasize the management of the investigators time.
When
the higher priority cases are identified> the

investigators should be concentrating their time on those
cases.
The prioritization of cases has the goal of
identifying the high quality cases.

Questions three to eight represent those activities
that investigators spend statistically more time on in
comparison to special assignments, but may not be directly
involved in solving their cases.
This is not to say that
these activities do not contribute towards the

investigation of cases, but they take the investigators
time away from working on their own cases.
were determined by pairwise comparisons.
The weights
Investigators
were asked which had the higher value A or B.
The
91
weighting scheme may need to be revised for future use,

upon completion of the study.
This measure is an
improvement over investigative evaluations that are

subjective in nature, related to the number of arrests, or
changes in the crime rate.
3.^
Research Strategy
There are basically four types of research

strategies:
laboratory experiments, field experiments,
field studies, and sample surveys.
There are many
advantages and disadvantages to each of these research

strategies (Stone,
and Kerlinger,
1978, Dickson, Senn, and Cervany,
1977,
1973).
The major advantages of the laboratory experiment are

the ability to have high control over confounding
variables, high potential for testing causal hypotheses,
and a high ability to manipulate independent variables.
The disadvantages of the laboratory experiment concern the
lack of a natural setting, and the generalizabi1ity of the
studys results to different populations may be limited.
The laboratory experiment was eliminated due to the
difficulty in duplicating the decision environment and the
need to artificially create "reality" for the subjects.
The strength of the confounding variables - experience,
imminent danger to others, time and legal constraints,
92
societal pressure* dedication to the job* etc. - would be

low compared to the "real-life" environment.
In a "real-
life" situation the confounding variables may be critical

in relation to the myriad of other variables acting on the
participants.
The primary advantages of the field study concern the
naturalness of the setting and the degree to which
behavior is setting-dependent.
The disadvantages of the
field study concern the inability to manipulate

independent variables, low potential for testing causal
hypotheses and very little ability to control confounding
variables.
The field study is usually performed across
several organizations to apply the results from a

laboratory experiment or a field experiment.
Further,
in
the field study loss of face or a competitive aspect may

have a greater effect on a closely knit group than it
would in an artificial setting of random subjects.
The
field study was eliminated due to the need to identify the

hypotheses in an experimental setting before they could be
tested across several organizations.
The sample survey has the advantage pertaining to the
naturalness of the setting and the applicability of the
studys results to different populations.
The
disadvantages relate to the inability to manipulate

independent variables and to control the survey since
respondents are increasingly unwilling to complete the
93
survey.
The sample survey is generally a randomized
sample across several organizations or industries.

is commonly used to generate new hypotheses.
It
The sample
survey was eliminated since it is not applicable to

theory-based hypothesis testing due to the unavoidable
biases in the data collected.
The cooperation and
completed responses may be very low from this research

strategy.
Unlike the investigators* there are minimal
incentives for subjects to participate in the study.

Due to the nature of this problem a field experiment
would be the best way to evaluate this system.
The field
experiment will allow the reports to have meaning and

thereby credibility which would be lacking in a laboratory
experiment.
The decisions being made involve a
quantitative assessment of available data and subjective

judgments as to the best course of action to solve the
problem.
It would be difficult to simulate this decision
in a laboratory.
Prior criminal justice laboratory
experiments were unable to factor in the dynamic external

environment with the complexities and irrational behavior
patterns of suspects and/or victims.
A major portion of the investigators work is to
gather intelligence and process these reports looking for
the connecting links.
This is a necessary but time
consuming process that would diminish in credibility in
94
the laboratory setting.
The field experiment was chosen
as the best methodology since the researcher will employ a

quasi-experimental design, thereby allowing casual
inferences to support the hypotheses.
The natural setting
increases the external validity of the results, and the

researcher has the ability to manipulate the independent
variable.
The field experiment allowed the researcher to
evaluate the effectiveness of the DSS.

There are potential problems or limitations of the
study with the use of a field experiment.
1.
The degree of control may be insufficient to

claim causality.
That the DSS caused a change in
performance may not be as strongly claimed as it

could be in a laboratory experiment.
S.
The precision of dependent variable measurement

may be less than in a laboratory experiment.
3.
The intentional manipulation of the organization

may cause unintentional manipulations of other
var iables.
4.
The organization may be reluctant to withhold (Or

continue on the status quo) with the control
group.
If this is such a good idea why not give
it to all?
5.
The inter-unit communication about the reports

may contaminate the objectivity of the subjects.
95
These are potential problems at NSP since they are a

closely knit group.
The experimenter will try and
minimize or prevent these problems from occurring in the

study.
The present experiment used a DSS to generate a
case progression and exception reports.
The location
within the organization -headquarters or at the troop

level - was the manipulated independent variable.
3.5
Participants
The participants were the sergeants and indirectly

the major, captain,
lieutenants and investigators of the
Investigative Services Division within the Nebraska State

Patrol
(NSP).
division.
groups.
There are twelve sergeants in this
The six troop areas will be divided into three

This project has the support of the
administration, so compliance was mandated.
The system
was designed for the Investigative Services Division,

therefore the population using this system is the twelve
investigative sergeants.
Each troop area has one drug and
one criminal sergeant.
3.6
The Experiment
The experiment divided the troop areas into three

groups.
Each group will be made up of one rural and one
96
urban troop area.
The troop areas were randomly assigned
to specific groups.
Group 1 was the control group.
They
had reports distributed as they have been in the past.

These reports are periodic summary report (Appendix R)
giving case statistics:
cases initiated supplemental
reports and cases cleared.
No progress or exception
report is currently being used, except informally by

individual investigators.
It takes approximately two to
three weeks for the reports to reach the troop area.
The
control group implemented the use of the prioritization

forms at the same time as the other two groups.
Group 1
was made up of troop area A (Omaha - urban) and E

(Scottsbluff -rural).
Appendix Q presents a map of
Nebraska divided into the six troop areas.

Group E used a decentralized DSS that the troop area
lieutenants and/or sergeants ran.
The decentra 1ized DSS
allowed the decision maker to input their subjective

evaluations concerning their troop area.
The two troop
areas had access to the necessary equipment.
They were
given training on using the equipment and the system.

The experimenter was available to answer questions and
assist in the use of the system.
Group E consisted of
troop areas H (Lincoln - urban) and B (Norfolk - rural).

The centralized group - group- 3 - had reports
centrally generated at headquarters but distributed to
lieutenants, sergeants, and investigators.
These reports
97
were distributed on a timely bases.
Major Niemann and
Captain Burnett were the administrative decision makers

that determined the subjective evaluations for the troop
areas involved in group 3.
The troop areas in group 3
were C <6rand Island - urban) and D (North Platte rural).

At the end of the three month time period a
questionnaire was sent out to evaluate the u s e r s
assessment of the system (Appendix M ) .
All active cases
as of January 1, 1986 were prioritized by the troop areas.

The prioritization was necessary to facilitate the case
progression report and investigator time management and
the evaluation of the investigators effectiveness.
The
investigators effectiveness measure was determined for a

three month time period prior to the study and a three
month time period during the study (Appendix L).
The
investigative effectiveness measure is a numeric

difference representing the changes in effectiveness for
each sergeant.
3.7
Independent Variables
Independent variables are of two types:

controllable and uncontrollable variables.
the
In this
experiment the uncontrollable variables are the decision

making methods of the sergeants and indirectly the major.
98
captain, lieutenants and investigators, ambient

conditions, social pressures and time factors.
The
uncontrollable aspect of decision making style can be

attributed to the directly acquired attributes, such as
previous training and experience (Dickson, et al., 1977).
By randomly selecting troops to be in a group this
variable should be negated.
The NSP assigns new
investigators with experienced investigators, so no troop

area is predominately inexperienced.
The requirements to
be an investigator ensure a minimum standard of training

and experience.
Promotion to sergeant is based on
experience and their assessment center score.

Ambient conditions are the external environment under
which the experiment takes place.
The external
environment does vary from the eastern one third of the

state to the western two thirds of the state.
This can be
minimized by selecting an eastern (urban) troop area with

a western (rural) troop area.
The controllable independent variable is the
organizational level or location at which the report is
generated.
The centrally generated report was processed
by the major and captain at State Headquarters (Lincoln,

Nebraska).
The decentrally generated report was prepared
by the troop area sergeants.
The reports were then
distributed to the investigators, sergeants and

lieutenants for each group.
The data from the case
99
progression and exception reports was used to

assist the sergeants in their decision making.
This
information will be used to design a database for use in

ar. annual investigative resource allocation DSS.
3.8
Dependent Variables
The dependent variables in this experiment are the

performance measures previously discussed.
Briefly they
are the users evaluation concerning the reports impact

on their understanding of the problem or identification of
what needs to be done* the usefulness of the reports* and
an evaluation as to the availability and accuracy of the
reports.
The second performance measure is an evaluation
of the change in investigator effectiveness for each troop

area sergeant.
3.9
Procedures
Upon initiation of the DSS, reports were generated

concerning the case progression and identified cases with
problems for each investigator.
The report was a
worksheet like appendix J and exception listing like

appendix K.
These reports were centrally generated then
distributed directly to the lieutenants, sergeants and the

investigators in group 3.
Group E s troop area sergeants
100
received training as to the use and maintenance of the

DSS.
They generated the reports for distribution to their
supervisors and investigators.
Group 1 received a
briefing to understand the basic concepts and their role

in the study.
This was to minimize the apprehension of
the study.
Subjective evaluation made by the decision maker
concerned what status the case was in during its
progression
if the case was proactive or reactive, and
exception criteria.
These were not clearly defined and
additional study by the NSP is needed to determine clear,

unambiguous definitions of these gray areas.
After a three month time period the sergeants were
sent a questionnaire to evaluate the reports.
The results
were tabulated and are presented in Chapter A.
The
sergeants effectiveness measure was determined by

summarizing the percentage of time their investigative
unit spent on prioritized cases or other investigative
functions under the sergeants leadership.
The following
assumptions were made:

1.
The sergeants are responsible for case

assignments, primarily reactive cases.
2.
The sergeants are responsible for the case

progression by procuring additional personnel to
assist in the case investigation or the
termination of non-progressing cases.
101
3.
The sergeants with the case officer determine the

case priority.
In order to facilitate this
process they must classify the case as proactive

or reactive.
4.
The sergeants can direct the investigators time

management towards specific cases.
The results of the effectiveness measure are evaluated in

Chapter 4-.
The follow-up included conclusions of the study?
future research areas and recommendations to the NSP to
improve the effectiveness of the DSS and the
investigators.
This discussion appears in Chapter 5.
102
Chapte r
4.1
A N A L Y S I S OF THE R E SUL TS
Overview of the Field Experiment
4.1.1
Description of the Experiment
The study was designed to evaluate the problem of the

effectiveness of the decision maker in a decentra 1ized
organizational environment using a decentralized decision
support system (DSS) compared to a centralized decision
support system.
1.
The objectives of the study were:
To evaluate the concept that an organization with

a decentralized organizational structure would
prefer a decentralized DSS,
S.
To assess the use of a centralized DSS with

decentrally distributed reporting to be used as
an interim technique until decentralized
computer systems could be obtained, and
3.
To develop the foundation for an Investigative

Services Division Allocation Model.
The DSS was designed to allow the various groups decentralized, centralized and control - to utilize the
system.
The decentralized group developed their own case
progression and exception reports.
The centralized group
received reports generated by the administration in

Lincoln, Nebraska.
The control group did not utilize
fr~
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
103
the case progression or exception reportsand K are examples of the generated reports.
employed a Lotus 1-2-3 template.
Appendices J
The DSS
The decentralized troop
areas had access to the necessary equipment - an IBM PC)

and software.
All investigators* sergeants* and
lieutenants were familiarized with the study and their

degree of participation.
The administration felt this
would minimize the resistance to the study.

The participants - users - in the study were the
twelve investigative sergeants.
Each group contained one
rural drug* one rural criminal* one urban drug and one
urban criminal sergeant.
The experience level of the
sergeants varied* but the random selection of each group

minimized this factor.
The organizational
level of the case progression DSS
was the independent variable manipulated in the

experiment.
The investigative units in each troop area
are relatively decentralized.
The placement of the DSS
was at the troop area level for the decentralized

system.
The centralized system required the forms to be
generated by the administration from State Headquarters in

Lincoln, Nebraska.
The centrally generated reports were
then distributed to the appropriate troop area

A control group was used to improve
the experimental evaluation over uncontrollable

independent variables.
Changes in the control group would
104
reflect environmental changes within the whole division.

This information was used to validate the accuracy of the
dependent measures.
The procedure required each troop area to prioritize
their cases initiated as of July 1, 1985 or any case that
was active as of January 1, 1986.
This required
additional work for each troop area but it provided the

necessary data to revise the prioritization forms.
Appendix S is a sample of the revised prioritization
forms.
The revised forms reflect the results of an item
analysis.
The
the time
decentralized group was required to record

spent on each activity or status point of an
active case during the study and subsequently input

into the system to generate the desired reports.
Copies of the reports went to the sergeants for evaluation
and distribution to their investigators.
Due to other
time commitments, the sergeants did not generate as many

reports as were generated for the centralized group.
The
centralized group received their copies of the
reports from Lincoln.
These reports were generated using
the information on file at Headquarters and the subjective

decisions from the Investigative Services divisional major
and captain.
The reports were distributed to the
centralized troop area lieutenants for dissemination to

the appropriate personnel.
1 05
A DSS is used to improve the effectiveness of the

decision maker
(Keen and Scott-Morton 197B) or to
structure the ill-structured environment of the decision

maker by specifying the necessary data* determining the
analysis needed and/or assisting in making decisions among
the alternatives (Ginzberg,
1975).
The dependent
variables analyzed in this study reflect the case

progression D S S s goal of data collection and assistance
in the determination of the analysis required to generate
the DSS which ultimately should improve
fectivenes.-.
of the investigative unit.

The investigative sergeants were asked to evaluate
the system via a questionnaire and comment sheet.
Appendix M is an example of the case progression system
questionnaire.
The researcher visited the troop areas
throughout the study and recorded observations and

comments by the participants.
Section 4.4
relevant observations and comments.
addressed the
To determine a
relevant observation and/or comment the researcher used

the following guidelines; more than one person gave
the same evaluation* or the evaluation reflected a
specific troop areas uniqueness.
The study utilized an investigative effectiveness
measure (Appendix L) to determine changes in the
investigative uni t s effectiveness.
The pre-system
measure determined the investigative units
with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
106
effectiveness score prior to the system being implemented.

This was the time frame from January to March 1986.
The
post-system measure evaluated the investigative units

effectiveness during the time frame of the study April to June 1986.
Both time frames coincided with the
Nebraska State Patrols <NSP) pay periods to ensure the

pre-system and the post- system were of equal time.
The questionnaire and the effectiveness measure were
used to assess the dependent variables.
The questionnaire
evaluated the availability, the accuracy and the

usefulness of the information and the systems assistance
in identifying problems in the investigative unit.
The
effectiveness measure evaluated the results of the

decisions by assessing the investigative u n i t s ability to
meet their goal -to reduce on-going crime by targeting the
upper levels of the loosely-formed or tightly formed
organizationa1 crime networks.
This implies working
large* complex proactive or reactive cases.
The reasons
this goal improves the effectiveness of the division

evolves from:
1.
Solving individual unrelated crimes to multiple

or interrelated crimes,
3.
Targeting individuals to organizations thereby

having higher quality defendants so the
conviction rate and severity of the sentences - a
deterrence factor -are improved, and
107
3.
Utilizing limited NSP resources to expanding the

resource capabilities from the involvement of
additional law enforcement agencies.
Interrelated crimes refers to the theft ring that operates

to buy and/or sell drugs.
The way the Investigative
Services Division is set up now it is unclear who would be

responsible for this type of case.
The use of two unrelated measures addresses the lack
of a valid and reliable scale in the management
information systems (MIS)/DSS field.
The questionnaire
had been developed and used by Burkhard (1984).
This
study will lend validity and reliability to the measure.

The lack of valid and reliable measures is a major problem
in the MIS field (Jarvenpaa* Dickson, and DeSanctis,
1985).
The investigative effectiveness measure is new to
the criminal
justice and information systems environment.
The control group was used to assess the validity and

reliability of this measure.
4.1.2
Statistical Analysis
The decision support system <DS S ) was designed far

the sergeants of the Nebraska State Patrol
(NSP).
This
experiment utilizes the population of the system rather

than a sample.
Due to this unique feature nonparametric
statistics were appropriate, since the assumptions of
108
parametric statistics were not valid.
It is a violation
of parametric statistics to assume normality or

homogeneity of variance due to the skewness of this
population.
Skewness of the population was assumed
due to the small size of the population.
In addition*
it is unlikely that the population had a normal

distribution given the close associations between the
sergeants.
The study involves three groups or treatments
containing data that was arranged from smallest to largest
within the groups - a ranking.
The non-parametric
statistical test used was the Kruskal-Wal1is test.
The
Kruskal-Wal1 is test is an extension of the Mann-Whitney

test for three or more samples.
These tests are an
extension of the Wilcoxon rank sum test for two

independent samples.
It has the same power properties
relative to the analysis of variance F test.
The
independent groups met the assumptions of the KruskalWallis test.

1.
The assumptions are (Conover> 1980):
All samples are random samples from their

respective populations.
S.
In addition to independence with each sample*

there is mutual independence among various
samples.
3.
The measurement scale is at least ordinal - the

data can be ranked from smallest to largest.
109
4.
Either the 'k population distribution functions

are identical? or some of the population tend to
yield larger values than other populations do.
The hypotheses testing is interested in the

significant differences or no significant differences in
the population means.
If the Kruskal- Wallis test is
significant then a follow-up test can be performed to

determine the multiple comparisons.
The statistical
analysis was ran using SPSSX.
4.1.3
The rest of the chapter will analyze the results from

the questionnaires and effectiveness measure.
See Table
4.1 for a summary of the hypotheses and the results of the

statistical analysis.
The data from the questionnaire
demonstrated that hypotheses two (the accuracy of the

information), three (the assistance in the identification
of problems) and four (the usefulness of the information)
tested without significance.
Hypothesis one - the
availability of the information - was supported.
The
analysis of the results will be discussed in the Section

4.a.
The fifth hypothesis - concerning the differences in
the investigative units effectiveness score - was
supported from the statistical analysis.
The pre-system
1 10
Table 4.1
HYPOTHESES AND THE RESULTS
Kruskal-Wal1 is Hypotheses Test Results
Hypotheses
Resu1ts
HI:
Availability of the information
*signif icant
H2:
Accuracy of the information
no effect
H3:
Aid in problem identification
no effect
H4:
Usefulness of the system
no effect
H5:
Pre-System effectiveness measure
no effect
Post-System effectiveness measure
*s ign if icant
Note:
Hypotheses HI, H2, H3 and H4 concerned the
different groups perception of the variables.
Hypotheses
H5 was evaluated using the effectiveness measure.
111
effectiveness measure showed no significant difference

between the three groups - decentralized} centralized} and
control} but the post-system effectiveness measure
exhibited a significant difference between the three
groups.
This analysis supported the concept relating
changes in the effectiveness scores} between the three

groups) to the affects of the case progression systems
implementation.
Section
is the researchers observations and the
participants comments and recommendations for changes in

the prioritization forms) case progression system}
effectiveness measure and the investigative allocation
study.
These observations} comments and recommendations
are used to help describe uncontrollable independent

variables of this studys environment.
A field experiment
required the researcher to be sensitive to the internal

and external environment of the organization} since it
lacked controlled setting.
^.E
Questionnaire Hypothesis Analysis
The case progression system questionnaire asked the

sergeants to express their attitudes concerning the
dependent variables of the study.
of the questionnaire.
Appendix M is a sample
The summary evaluation consisting
of questions 15} SO and the last unnumbered question will
be used to evaluate future changes in the sergeants

attitudes towards the case progression system as the
foundation for the Investigative Services Division
Allocation Model.
These questions were asked to see if
there was any differences between the groups in their

perception towards the importance of this study.
The
results showed no significant differences between the

groups.
In the future, after the sergeants work with the
prioriticat ion forms, the case progression system and

other areas of the allocation model, a post-system
questionnaire can be given to determine if their attitudes
have changed either as a group or between the groups.
4.H.1
Hypothesis one stated that there is a significant

difference between the participant groups attitude
towards the availability of the information received from
the system.
The rationale behind this hypothesis asserted
that the decentralized sergeants work with their

investigators - reviewing their activities, correcting
their paperwork and assisting in case management decisions
- so they would have first hand knowledge of investigative
activities.
This would promote a .significant difference
in the decentralized groups population means, as compared

to the centralized and the control groups.
As summarized
113
in Table 4.2
'Analysis of the Questionnaire Responses
there was a significant difference between the groups.

The Kruskal-Wal1 is 'H value was 6.7887.
The required
value for significance at the 0.05 level, degrees of

freedom = k-1 = 2, is 5.991.
The symbol k equals the
number of groups or treatments in the study.
There were
three groups in this study.

Table 4.3 'Evaluation of the Multiple Comparisons for
HI;
Availability of the Information assesses the
comparisons between group means.
The results of this
analysis demonstrated that the centralized group differed

from the decentralized and the control group.
contrary to the predicted results.
This is
Since the centralized
groups mean had a higher value than the decentralized and

the control groups means,
the concept that an
organization with a decentralized structure should have

a decentralized information system was not supported.
This data infers information about the Nebraska State
Patrol Investigative Services Division only, but it can be
the premise for additional research in other
organizations.
The justification of the results concerns the
timeliness of the generated reports.
The centralized
report was generated after the centralized computing

facility received the time summaries.
The Investigative
Services divisional major and the captain scheduled a time
114
Table 4.5
A N A L Y S I S OF T HE Q U E S T I O N N A I R E R E S P O N S E S
Kruskal-Wal1 is 'H Values Between Groups
Category
H Between Groups*
Significance
Availability of
Information
6.7887
0.0336
Accuracy of
Information
1.0755
0.5850
Aid in Problem
Identification
3.7635
0.1553
Usefulness of the
Information
0.4885
0.7834
Summary Evaluation
1.5570
0.5553
Value required for significance at the 0.05 level>

df=S, is 5.991 (Source Chi- Square Distribution,
Conover, 1980, pp. 435) The H values are corrected
for ties.
Note:
The three groups are the decentralized, the

centralized and the control groups.
115
Table 4.3
EVALUATION OF THE MULTIPLE COMPARISONS

FOR HI:
AVAILABILITY OF THE INFORMATION
Kruskal-Wal1 is Follow-up Tests for Multiple Comparisons
Groups
Comgarisons*
Results
Decentralized and
Centralized
4.75 > 3.85
significant
Decentralized and
Control
2.50 > 3.85
no effect
Centralized and
Control
7.25 > 3.85
significant
Source:
Conover*
1980* pp. 231.
116
to evaluate the information and generate the report.
The
reports were then distributed to the appropriate troop

areas.
The centralized group had many comments on the
accuracy of the information but they did have the form on

a timely and consistent basis.
generated their own reports.
The decentralized group

Given the nature of the time
constrained sergeants and the uncertainty in the

investigative units environment the generation of the
report was placed at a low priority.
This hypothesis and hypothesis two were to support
the concept of an organization with a decentralized
structure implying the use of a decentralized information
system.
Instead of the decentra 1ized- groups mean having
a higher value it was the centralized group that had a

significantly higher value.
This hypothesis supports the
use of a centrally generatedj decentrally distributed

performance report (the case progression and exception
report) as a feasible technique for the NSP.
4.2.2
Accuracy of the Information
There was no significant difference between the

groups concerning the accuracy of the information.
The
directions on the questionnaire asked the participants to

evaluation the system in terms of their participation in
the experiment.
The input data - the weekly time sheets, the

administrative data form and the prioritization farms was the same for all the troop areas.
It was stated by
several participants that the forms where inaccurate.

Estimates of the accuracy ran from 70 to 807..
It would
appear from this statement that the problems lie in all

the data.
The weekly time sheets and the administrative
data form have been utilized by the NSP since September

1982.
The concern is for the investigators lack of
detail in their reports.
If the investigator spends one
hour making ten phone calls about ten different cases> the
time will not be recorded as 0.1 of an hour on a phone
interview for the case number XXXXX, etc., but it will
most likely be recorded as one half an hour or one hour of
time to miscellaneous investigation or to the most
important case.
The participants felt the prioritization
forms were inaccurate since they relied on subjective

evaluations for most of the items.
It was unclear from
their comments if the prioritization forms or the time

reports and administrative data forms were the major
problem.
Since the prioritization forms were new there could
be many questions about the validity and reliability of
the information generated by the form.
In order to revise
the prioritization forms at the end of this study, an item
i la
analysis was used to determine those items that were not

discerning the differences in the case priorities.
See
Table 4.A for the item analysis of the proactive and

reactive prioritization items.
In the proactive form
questions 3, 5* and 8 had a bias towards the 'A priority

case.
Questions 12 and 13 refer to the criminal cases and
question 10 and 11 are for drug cases.
Note that more
proactive drug cases were worked than proactive criminal

cases, therefore the skewed results for questions 10* 11*
12* and 13.
In the reactive form* questions 1* 2* 5* 8,
and 10 had a bias towards a specific priority.
In
evaluating the prioritization questions no differences

were detected between troop areas or offense code.
The output data - case progression and exception
reports - was received by the decentralized and
centralized groups.
It was hypothesized that there would
be a significant difference between the groups.
This
difference would have been due to the decentralized group

responsibility for the accuracy of the data used in the
forms.
It was referenced by the participants that the
short time frame for the study and the lack of a key to
determine which function codes applied to the specific
status points,
led to perceived inaccuracies in the output
data.
1 19
Table 4.4
PRIORITIZATION
ITEM A NALYSIS
PROACTIVE PRIORITIZATION RESULTS
Que t_ign
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
A^S
99
89
203
56
227
7
53
142
88
93
41
40
3
11s
Sll
Dl5
184
171
64
14
25
53
40
1
154
7
52
18
52
4
14
21
195
32
149
68
90
31
1 10
11 1
5
22
1
14
0
23
4
79
127
55
- 15
78
84
225
211
REACTIVE PRIORITIZATION RESULTS
Quest ion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
01*
Us
35
128
66
12
no
41
82
13
12
13
71
107
7
26
44
2
50
13
28
15
103
16
C_ls
21s
3
26
62
78
19
2
37
25
57
2
34
14
0
5
25
28
66
27
93
75
40
38
120
This hypothesis does not support the use of a

decentralized information system in a decentralized
organization.
There is no evidence to advocate the
concept that a decentralized organization prefers a

specific information system structure.
Given the limited
sample size? and the specifications of the system
it is
not possible to draw any inferences about other

organizations from these results.
^.2.3
Assistance in Problem Identification
This hypothesis stated that there would be no

significant difference between the different groups.
The
purpose of the hypothesis was to support the use of the

centralized system as an interim technique.
statistical analysis did
The
support this hypothesis.With
respect to the limited usage and lack of total commitment

by the sergeants? the results of this hypothesis are not
surprising.
The time frame of three months did not allow
the case progression to track any of the complicated

cases.
A complicated? complex case may be worked for
years.
It is this type of case that would best utilize
the system? thereby enabling the sergeants to set goals

and track the case progression to ensure the stated goals
are being met.
121
The format of the case progression did not allow the

sergeant to easily detect patterns about a specific
investigator.
If the case progression had been an
investigator progression in relationship to the total

progression of the case* the report form might have been a
better management tool.
The work the investigator did for
other cases was not easily obtained.
If the investigator
was working on another investigators case*
it could
appear that they had very little activity during the time
period.
The participants expressed the opinion that the
case progression was deceptive due to old data, and the

lack of information to determine which investigators were
specifically involved in the case investigation.
A.2.A
Usefulness of the Information
Hypothesis four evaluated the usefulness of the

information from the system.
There was no significant
difference between the various groups.
During the
systems implementation the sergeants did not experiment

with the form to determine what information could be
derived from the form.
This system was not a high
priority for the participants, since they were faced with

real world time constraints and pressure to solve cases.
At no time during the visits to the troop areas, did the
researcher observe the sergeants using the form other than
122
to complete it and file it.
There were no comments on the
form being used for decision making purposes.
The case
progression system fell between the quarterly reviews) so

the possible use of the form to assist the sergeants
during the reviews was not observed.
It was commented by several sergeants that if there
was a computer terminal at their desk, then the form would
be helpful and up to date.
Timeliness of the information
and the time for the sergeants to evaluate and fully

utilize the form were lacking.
The sergeants appear to
spend their time fighting fires rather than determining

trends to stop problems before they start.
4.3
Effectiveness Measure Hypothesis Analysis
Table 4.5 'Analysis of the Effectiveness Measure

showed the results from the Kruskal-Wal1 is test.
From
these tests it was determined that there was no

significant difference between the groups prior to the
systems implementation, but there was a significance
difference between the groups after the implementation of
the system.
The effectiveness measure determined the percentage
of time the investigative unit under a sergeant spent on
the various categories of cases - proactive 'A, 'B, 'C,
and 'D priorities and reactive 'A, 'B 'C and 'D
123
Table A. 5
AN A L Y S I S OF THE E F F E C T I V E N E S S M E A S U R E
Kruskal-Wal1 is 'H Values Between Groups
Category
H Between Groups*
Significance
PreSystem
3.2308
0.1988
Post-System
8.3^62
0.015^
* The va-lue required for significance at the 0.05 level j

df=2 is 5.6538 (Source Quantiles of the Kruskal-Wal1is
Test Statistic for Small Sample Sizes* Conover* 1980*
pp. 453)
Note:
The groups are a pre-system measure and a post
system measure of all the participants.
Pre-System refers
to the effectiveness score for the three months prior to
the systems implementation.
Post-System is the
effectiveness score for the three months during the
systems implementation.
124
priorities.
Included in this measure were activities that
did not directly involve the investigation of an NSP case*

but contributed to the solving of other investigators
cases.
These activities included investigative services
reports* intelligence reports* polygraphs* hypnosis* and

ident kits.
The weighting scheme was determined by asking
various groups of investigators (investigators* sergeants,

and lieutenants) which activity they would place a higher
value on, a or b.
Then, they were asked how valuable this
activity is to the effectiveness of case investigations.

The groups started out the same.
By randomly
selecting an urban and a rural troop area to be in each

group, the affects of geographic location and
demographics were minimized for each group.
At the
beginning of the study, April 1, 1986* each troop area was

to use the prioritization forms.
The responsibility for
filling out the prioritization form varied by sergeant.

Some of the sergeants filled out the forms and others had
the investigators fill out the forms.
There was no
discernable pattern to this procedure.

The post-system effectiveness measure showed a
significant difference between the groups.
From this
analysis we can determine that the prioritization forms

alone were not enough to improve the effectiveness of the
investigative unit.
It required the case progression form
to assist in the determination of the status of the case
12 5
and where it should be going.
Table ^.6 'Evaluation of
the Multiple Comparisons for the Post-System Effectiveness

Measure presents the results from the follow-up multiple
comparison tests.
The centralized group had a significant
difference from the decentralized and the control groups.

The post-system effectiveness measure determined the
actual changes in effectiveness compared to the perceived
changes in effectiveness assessed by the sergeants.
Table
4.7 'Effectiveness Measures Means demonstrates a positive

change in all the groups.
The change in the control group
was slight, a difference of 2.01.
The change in the
decentralized group was 72.44 points.
The centralized
group had the most dramatic change of 153.33.

Since this measure is new it is essential to comment
on the possible limitations of its expanded use into
other law enforcement agencies.
The time frame of only
three months may be a critical aspect if it can be shown

that crimes have a cyclical trend.
If the control group
had demonstrated a similar change as the decentralized and

centralized group we could assume this to be the case, but
they did not have a change in their means.
There was
nothing going on in the troop areas that would account for

the control group remaining the same, while the other
groups increased.
126
Table 4.6
EVALUATION OF THE MULTIPLE COMPARISONS

FOR THE POST-SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS MEASURE
Kruskal-Wal1 is Follow-up Tests for Multiple Comparisons
Comgar i.sons *
Results
Decentralized and
Centralized
4.75 > 4.147
significant
Decentralized and
Control
2.50 > 4.147
no effect
Centralized and
Control
7.25 > 4.147
s ig nif icant
urgugs
*Compar ison
|&_5i|>f
(S*N - l - T V /l
1\*
(Source: C o n o v e r 1980, pp. 231)
127
Ta ble 4 .7
E F F E C T I V E N E S S M E A S U R E S ME ANS
Comparison Between the Three Groups Means and Standard

Deviation <SD) for the Effectiveness Measures
Number
of Cases
Mean
SD
Entire Population
Pre-System*
PostSystem
251.98
327.91
85.55
123.21
Decentralized Group
Pre-System
Post-System
235.05
307.49
70.37
87.45
4
4
Centralized Group
Pre-System
Post-System
307.93
461.26
112.19
66.55
4
4
Control Group
Pre-System
Post-System
212.97
214.98
45.68
48.10
4
4
12
12
*Pre-System refers to the effectiveness score for the

three months prior to the systems implementation.
PostSystem is the effectiveness score for the three months
during the systems implementation.
128
The measure lacked the ability to evaluate the

case quality and a subjective or objective measure of the
investigators non-investigation time.
An evaluation of
the value of non-investigation time to the investigative

units effectiveness needs to be assessed.
A revised
effectiveness measure is presented in appendix T.
It
should be noted that both quality and a supervisors

subjective judgement have been added to this measure.
The
implementation and use of the form has not been tested.

The effectiveness measure relies on the
prioritization forms.
If the prioritization forms were
incorrectly utilized or if there was a major problem with

the forms,
it would have shown up in the effectiveness
measure of the control group.
The effectiveness scores
were calculated from the monthly time sheet summaries for

each investigator.
Given the administrations attention to this project,
the decentralized and the centralized groups may have
exhibited the "Hawthorne effect".
This effect would
account for the improved performance in the centralized

group.
Based on troop area observations this does not
appear to be a factor.
The investigative unit is a
congenial group and the administration is not perceived as

a watchdog but as a resource.
The- investigators are
internally motivated by catching the bad guys and solving

the pieces to the puzzle, rather than by coercion.
129
It is possible that the sergeants and investigators

were competing with each other to have good numbers.
Discussions about the effectiveness measure began in
November and intensified after the brain storming session
in January.
Each troop area had a representative at the
brain storming session.
Revisions of the form were made
available to all investigators, sergeants and lieutenants.

Concern was expressed that individual results from this
study would be used by their supervisor in future
performance evaluations.
Once they were assured that this
was not true, they reassured the researcher that their

performance would not be modified by the use of the
Due to misconceptions about the study, the
administration and the researcher made as much as possible
open and available to the investigators, sergeants, and
lieutenants.
During the initial research phase of the
project the researcher visited each troop area.
Questions
asked were the following:

1.
What makes an investigator effective at his/her

job?
2.
What factors provide you with cues that a case

has the potential of being successfully solved?
3.
Why do you or should you investigate every case

that comes to the NSP? and
4.
What makes your troop area unique to the state?
130
Analysis of the answers to these questions became the

foundation to the effectiveness measure and other aspects
of the investigative allocation model.
This measurement tool did demonstrate a difference in
the groups after the implementation of the system.
It
will be a valuable tool in the future to assist in

information system research within a criminal justice
environment.
A critical problem with criminal justice
research is the need to measure results independently of

the crime rates.
Not only are the crime rates a bad
measure but they are not a true representation of the

effectiveness of a policy or system change within a law
enforcement agency.
The next section will present observations from the
researcher and comments and recommendations from the
participants.
One goal of this study was to evaluate the
use of centralized DSS versus a decentralized DSS in a

decentralized organization.
The third goal was to assist
the NSP in an investigative allocation model.
The next
section reflects the participants7 desire to improve this

study and provide a strong foundation for the next phase
in this project.
131
4.4
Researchers Observations and Participants

Comments and Recommendations
4.4.1
Prioritization Forms
Realistically, the public doesnt expect the

investigation of all crimes (Butler,
1984).
The evidence
based on financial support and legislative actions that

govern the resources and goals of our law enforcement
agencies demonstrate this statement.
In addition this
statement could be supported by asking random citizens of

the state, if they expect the Nebraska State Patrol
to investigate all crimes.
(NSP)
Their response would reflect
their past interactions with the NSP, effectiveness of

other law enforcement agencies in their area and how they
perceive the effects of crime on their immediate circle of
interest.
The prioritization form was developed to
provide the investigative units with a tool to assist them

in making the decision which cases to continue to
investigate.
The continuation of the case may require
resources being allocated or procured from other troop

areas.
The investigative units were unclear in the use of
these forms as a tool, and not the final decision or

policy rule.
It was observed that the investigative units were
unsure of the rationale and the meaning of the terms used
in the forms-
This led to inconsistencies between the
troop areas case evaluations.
"The forms are too open
ended so there is too much room for interpretation".
The
investigative unit felt the forms were inaccurate and

incomplete so they were reluctant to put much faith in the
results.
The investigator or sergeant would use their gut
feel about the case to ensure that the form and their
subjective evaluation about the case identified the same
priority.
The revised prioritization forms included the
developers rationale and meaning of the terms for each

itern.
A common belief by the investigators is reflected in
the statement "that no two cases are identical".
Each
case involves too many variables* quantifiable and

subjective to allow the prioritization forms to be a valid
measure of a cases priority.
However* no examples of
additional analysis items were offered from the

It must be stressed that this form
is just a tool, not an absolute decision making rule. In

the revised prioritization forms an item was added to
allow the sergeants or supervisors to assess this cases
merit with other active cases utilizing the same
resources.
The goal of this question was to allow input
of a subjective measure and to open communications between

the investigators and their supervisor.
This forces case
discussions, which should lead to better case development
133
and higher quality cases.
The investigators learn from
each other and will ask for opinions or guidance on

complex cases.
Common complaints concerned the addition of paperwork
with the use of the forms* the forms were time consuming,
and they were filed out then never referred to again.
The
purpose of the prioritization forms was to assist the

investigative units manager in assigning cases and
procuring additional resources for higher priority cases.
If the forms were never utilized except for the initial
prioritization, then they are just creating additional
paperwork.
The purpose of the forms must be reemphasized
to the investigative units.

accurate for all cases.
The form will not be as
There is always the exceptional
case that must be investigated even if it appears to be a

low priority case.
This is where the expertise and
judgement of the investigator and the supervisor must take

precedence.
This form must be a management tool not a
control tool.
4.4.2
Case Progression System
A case planning and development system should provide

a detailed list of what needs to be done, giving a time
line chart of the expected completion of specific
activities including updates of the progress and who
134
should receive the update.
As more data is collected the
supervisor and the investigator will have an idea of how

long the investigative activity for this type of crime
"should" take in order to compare to how long it "did"
take.
If the investigator can show why this case is
unique from the model, then this information will be used

to update the model.
At this point this information
cannot be used as an evaluation tool.
The benefits of
case planning include tying together other resources and

potential
information, having guidelines to assess the
case progression for continuation or termination,

determining the need for additional resources at a given
point in the case, and providing the supervisors with a
better idea of the status of the case.
This will assist
in the case tracking and quarterly reviews of cases.

The case progression system was developed to fill a
gap in the supervisors utilization of the information.
The sergeants made very little use of the TM07s (Appendix
R) - monthly time summaries - as an information source.
The information available to them was the information
freshest in their minds after talking to their
investigators.
It appeared that several investigators
carried an excessive number of active cases.
In order to
do any of these cases justice the investigator would be

required to spend extra hours just updating themselves as
135
to the status of the various cases.
Examples of the
problems include good cases that were never filed with

the prosecuting attorney until the statue of limitations
had run out, evidence that was not taken to the lab until
right before the trial - this caused the investigator to
make a special trip to the lab, or go to court without the
evidence analyzed - or workloads that were unevenly
balanced within the troop area.
The purpose of the case
progression report was to visually point out some of the

problems and to assist the sergeants with their decision
making tasks.
Several participants commented on the lack
of understanding of the case progression report and the

need to be able to read and understand the results.
With
training and better documentation the case progression can

assist the sergeants.
This tool is not flexible or timely
enough to be a daily decision making aid.
It was designed
to visually demonstrate trends in the investigators

habits and in the cases progression.
4.4.3
There were no observations concerning the

participants response to the questionnaire.
The researcher was available for clarification questions
but not for actual responses.
The participants
appeared to be confused about using their knowledge
136
about other troop areas or just their own participation

with the system in answering the questions.
The sergeants
felt there was no comparison between the time before the

systems implementation and the time after the systems
implementation.
This may explain the lack of significance
in the results for hypotheses two* three and four.
Other
comments concerned the use of terms they were unfamiliar

with such as task or information.
4.4.^
The effectiveness measure was developed with the

assistance of most of the investigators.
They would
review and suggest changes to improve the measure.

measure originally consisted of one part.
The
The revised
effectiveness measure (Appendix T) is in three parts.
The
first part calculates the investigators utilization of

time using the case prioritizations.
The weighting
factor favored proactive versus reactive cases.
The
second part calculates a value for the quality of the case

investigation.
The quality of the case investigation is
determined by the end results of the case.
Better
clarification needs to be done to establish guidelines

when a cases quality should be assessed.
In the past the
NSP required the investigator to obtain the case

disposition on all closed cases.
The case disposition is
137
the results of the case in court or within the NSP, such

as an administratively closed case.
the drug cases at this time.
This is only done for
An evaluation of the time
spent in obtaining the case dispositions versus the value

of the dispositions must be assessed to justify a change
in the policy.
The third part is a subjective evaluation
of the time the investigator is spending on noninvestigative activities.
These activities are of value
to the NSP, therefore the measure must include an

assessment of these activities.
One criticism of the effectiveness measure was the
inability to quantitatively identify and evaluate the
human variables that make each investigator unique and
successful at his/her job.
The subjective evaluation is
an attempt to structure this aspect of the investigators

job evaluation in relationship to the effectiveness of the
whole organization.
The other criticism was that the short time frame of
the study could bias the results from the effectiveness
measure.
The results of the study did not show this since
each group had essentially the same types of problems, and

possibly the same types of cases.
No troop area sergeant
appeared to have any unusual cases or excessive time to an

unexplained activity.
It should be noted that one
investigators time for one month was not included since
138
he was away to a school.
This decision was not made by
the sergeant or within his control.
From the researchers
perspective looking solely at the month time summaries)

the data appeared to be comparable throughout the state.
^.4.5
General Comments
The general comments were included as they do have

relevance to the study in under a-:anding T, attitdi of
the sergeants towards the study.
1.
The remarks included:
The study looks good on paper but the problems

are in the real world applications (reality
versus theory),
2.
The problems of working proactive cases in the

criminal division are due to lack of financial
resources,
3.
The problem of lost data is due to the inability

to draw a case number on proactive cases until an
arrest can be made, and
*+. The lack of a definite direction for the N S P s

Investigative Services Division that would assist
the investigative units in their planning.
The
NSP must determine what they want to be - a

federal versus state versus local law enforcement
agency.
13 9
As the criminals become more specialized the investigative

units may need to specialize.
One alternative suggested,
would be to merge the criminal and drug units into an

investigative team under one sergeant and two resource
(experienced)
investigators.
This team would then be
responsible Tor drug and criminal cases.

These comments and suggestions do reflect the
attitudes of the investigators and sergeants.
They are a
dedicated, personally motivated group although resistant

to change.
The uncertainty in the investigators external
environment encourages the internal NSP organizational

environment to be stable.
4.5
Summary of the Results
As shown by the experiment, the centralized decision

support system (DSS) case progression is a technique that
would improve the effectiveness of the troop area
The study showed very little
difference in the three groups attitude towards the

systems aid in improving the investigative units
effectiveness.
However, the investigative units
effectiveness measure showed significant differences in

the three groups.
It was hypothesized that the system would improve the

accuracy
and availability of the information thereby
supporting a decentralized organization utilizing a

decentralized information system.
The usefulness of the
information and its assistance in the identification of

problems was hypothesized to support the use of a
centralized system in the decentralized organization.
If
the decentralized and the centralized groups showed no

significant difference then the user would have no
preference as to the location of the system.
The only
significant difference was in the availability of the

information.
The centralized group differed significantly
from the decentralized and the control groups.
The
centralized group received an additional report that

identified the case priority with the cases progression,
without having to generate the information. The only
change in the control groups information was the use of
the prioritization form.
There wasnt a visual
representation of the case prioritization in relationship

to the case progression.
The decentralized group took the
data from their investigators and generated the form.
It
is the same information presented differently, so

they did not perceive the gain of additional
information.
Limitations in time and usage-of the case progression

form minimized possible dramatic attitude changes from the
system.
In addition, the inherent resistance to the
141
change and the opinion that the system would increase the
amount of paperwork without improving the investigators
performance curbed the participants enthusiastic use and
experimentation with the system.
Several participants
made comments to the affect that they would wait and see
if the system worked before spending scarce time utilizing
the system.
They are now beginning, after the trial
period, to see some benefits to their investigative unit

and the Nebraska State Patrol from the system.
However,
the effectiveness measure demonstrated the uniformity in

performance of the groups prior to the study and a change
in the groups after the study.
This information did help
the investigative units to allocate scarce resources by

utilizing the case progression system.
The centralized
group had a significant difference in their mean

effectiveness compared to the decentralized and
centralized groups.
The limitations of this measure are
considered in Chapter 5.
The study did not support the concept that a
decentralized organization should have a decentralized
information system.
Being given the new responsibility of
generating their own forms in the decentra 1ized system

may have contributed to the lack of support for this
concept.
The accuracy and availability of the information
throughout the troop areas appeared to be a problem.
The
1^2
proposed changes with the N S P s new computer system will

improve the dissemination of information throughout the
state.
Chapter 5 will discuss the conclusions from the
overall study
limitations of the research, suggest
alternatives to minimize the effects of the limitations

and propose future research topics that build on the
foundation laid by this study.
Given the use of a
population rather than a sample, the usual inferences to

other organizations and/or law enforcement agencies is not
valid, but this information can be used to stimulate
additional research questions.
The conclusions can be the
premise for future research in other organizations,

including other law enforcement agencies.
r."
143
Chapter 5
5.1
C O N C L U S I O N S AND
IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY
Meeting the Research Objectives
The problem this study addressed was the comparison

between the organizational structure - decentralized - and
a decision support system (DSS) structure - decentralized
or centralized.
The comparison involved an assessment of
the decision makers effectiveness under each structure

and the decision makers opinion concerning the benefits
derived from the system.
From this problem statement came two objectives to be
assessed.
The first was to evaluate the changes in the
decentralized decision makers effectiveness using a DSS

that was generated at their level versus a decentralized
decision makers effectiveness using a DSS that was
centrally generated with decentrally distributed reports.
It was hypothesized that both techniques would improve the
effectiveness of the decision maker.
If this is true
then a centrally generated DSS that produces a report to

be used by the decentralized units would be a viable
alternative for budget constrained) decentralized
organizations with existing centralized computer hardware
and software.
A key aspect of this problem is to
determine what information is needed in the decentralized

units and if that information can be centrally generated.
Another objective of this study came from the

organization that participated in the study.
State Patrol
The Nebraska
(NSP) is building an Investigative Services
Division Allocation Model.
This model will be used to
determine the quantity and location of investigators

needed in the state of Nebraska.
This study provided the
foundation for the development of the allocation model.

This study did not support the concept that a
decentralized organization should have a decentralized
computer information system.
The data analyzed from the
participants questionnaires and the investigative u nits

effectiveness measures determined no significant
difference in the means of the decentralized group and the
control group.
Possible explanations for this, as
discussed in Chapter 4, include the limited time frame three month - and the participants busy schedule.
The inability of this study to support this concept,
presents new research opportunities.
Section 5.^ will
discuss future research topics.

This study did support the use of the N S P s
centralized computer system to generate case progression
and exception reports to be distributed to the troop
areas.
This is an important conclusion of this study, in
that it provides the NSP with a technique to improve the

investigative units effectiveness.
With modifications
this concept could be used by other limited resource,
145
decentralized organizations with centralized computer

systems.
It should be noted that the system was designed
specifically for the NSP, so direct usage of this system

by other organizations is not implied.
Other
organizations must design a system to satisfy the needs of

their decentralized organizational units.
This study met the NS P s objective by providing the
organization with a foundation base for the future
research and development of the Investigative Services
Figure 5.1 is a diagram of
foundation research for the model.

forms have been revised.
The prioritization
The case progression system will
be modified upon the recommendations of this study.
5.2
Research Contributions
This study is influential in future research

concerning the organizational structure with respect to
the design of the information system.
Problems to be
researched encompass the influx of personal computers

in todays organizations as an attempt to improve decision
making effectiveness, and the use of decentralized
data processing departments to contribute to the overall
effectiveness of the organization.-
This study did not
support the decentralization of the information system but

conclusions of this magnitude can not be generalized
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
CD
3
<f)
(/)
o'
Figure 5.1
FO UN DA TI ON RESEARC H FOR THE
INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES
DIVISI ON AL LO CA TI ON MODEL
PRI OR IT I ZA TI ON FORMS
Investigator Ef fe c t i v e ne ss
Foundat ion
v
CASE PR OG R E S S I O N
! Tool for
!Quarterly
! Reviews
!
!<!
1
I
t
1
DECISION SUPPORT
1
1
!
i
i
!
Supervisory
!
! ----->! Time Management!
!
Tool
!
1
1
SYSTEM
(D S S )
*
1
1 47
throughout the field without additional study in other

organizations and continued study in the Nebraska State
Patro1.
The NSP Investigative Services Division was prepared
for the computerized allocation system.
The case
progression DSS will allow the supervisors and

investigators to assess their progress in order to improve
the investigative units effeetiveness.
This DSS was used
to initiate the collection of necessary data for the

Investigative Services Division Allocation Model.
Two different measurement forms to were used to
determine the feasibility of the centralized versus the
decentralized system.
One, the case progression
questionnaire (Appendix M) was a measure utili-ing a

previously designed questionnaire adopted for this system.
The questionnaire responses were based on the participants
opinions of the study.
The questionnaire supported the
use of a centralized DSS in a decentralized organization.

Two, the effectiveness measure (Appendix L) was designed
for this study.
The effectiveness measure did demonstrate
a change in effectiveness after the system was in place.

The limitation of the measure was the lack of a procedure
to analyze the case quality and to evaluate the importance
of non-investigative time to the organizations
ef feet iveness.
148
The limitations of this study concern the use of a

population rather than a sample.
Inferences about
organizations in general are not valid from this study.

This study does provide a basis to rethink and reformulate
future concepts to be studied in a laboratory or another
field setting.
Identification of the investigative
process and activities will aid in the design of a

laboratory experiment to analyse the interrelationships of
the variables in a controlled environment.
5.3
Recommendations
The following recommendations are based on

observations at the troop area throughout the state and
recommendations from the participants.
It is important in
a study of this nature to realize that this is just the

foundation for future research.
The realistic assessment
of the study and what aspects can be revised to improve

continuation of the system are as important as the
original study.
Part of the case progression system was the
utilization of the prioritization forms.
Prioritization
of cases was used to improve the effectiveness of the

investigators.
See section S.3 for the development and
rationale behind the forms.
The prioritization of cases,
during this study was completed one time during the
149
life of the case.
The participants expressed concern over
the lack of guidelines to determine when* who and why the

prioritization forms were to be filled out.
Once
completed* prioritization forms were very rarely referred

to* for modification or reassessment.
The
prioritization forms provide the necessary information

to commit NSP resources to continue the case
investigation.
It is essential
that cases be periodically
reviewed to determine if they are still at the same

priority level and if the case objectives are being met.
It was noticed in calculating the effectiveness
measure that the troop areas were working more priority A
cases.
It was suggested* that this is true due to the
identification of the priority A cases and the lack of

resources to commit to lower priority cases.
Good cases
of a lower priority were being shelved until the necessary

resources* primarily investigators* were freed up to
continue the case investigation.
Given the limited time frame of the study and other
commitments by the participants* the case progression form
was not utilized to its fullest.
If additional training
on the use of the case progression form and incentives to

motivate the participants to experiment with the form* the
forms utilization could be expanded.
form needs to be stressed.
The purpose of the
The forms primary purpose was
150
to collect data for the Investigative Services Division

Allocation Model.
Secondary functions of the form are to
assist the sergeants in quarterly reviews,
investigator
evaluations, and problem identification by analysing

trends.
The form was not flexible or timely enough to
provide an operational time management tool.
It is best
used as a tool to identify problems based on past trends.

The case progression form should use the proposed
revised function codes in order to channel the data into
the appropriate category without a centralized decision
maker making subjective evaluations on the time
allocations.
This would require a definition of what
activities belong in each category of the form.
The least
used columns where the evidence to and from the lab and
the hearing dates.
These columns may be more important on
the investigator level than on the supervisory level.
An
additional column for report writing needs to be added.

The forms need to be dated and modified so that the second
page is easier to follow.
Other recommended changes would include evaluating
the form in terms of the N S P s goals.
sergeants need to know?
What do the
Are the total hours spent on a
case essential compared to the hours a specific

investigator spends on the case in-relation to other cases
assigned or the activities of the other investigators?
The form could be revised to reflect an individual
151
investigators progression on a case in relationship to

the cases progression.
Additional study needs to be done
to determine which presentation of the information would

provide the sergeants with the necessary information.
A definition of the Investigative Services Division
needs to be disseminated throughout the division.
This would facilitate the investigative effectiveness
measure and help determine the evaluation of the case
progression.
Included in the goals should be an
assessment on the quality of the cases.
This will
minimize the tendency to develop cheap proactive criminal

cases instead of the desired high quality case with a high
quality defendant.
Validity of the data is critical.
edited and edited to insure valid data.
The data must be

The clear
definition of the function codes will assist in uniformity

across the state.
This must be mandated in order to have
reliable results from the data used in the Investigative

Services Division Allocation Model.
In addition the
administration must be flexible in updating the codes to

provide the decentralized units with essential
for decision making.
information
Outdated codes or forms must be
updated to ensure appropriateness of the data.
15E
F u t u r e R ese ar ch
The contributions from this study will be used to

further research in the area of centralized versus
decentralized DSSs.
The identification of the advantages
and disadvantages of a centralized or decentralized DSS

will facilitate research expanding upon this concept.
Problems to be studied include; an analysis of these
findings in other law enforcement agencies versus findings
in other non-profit, service organizations that have
different informational and decision making needs compared
to a law enforcement agency, techniques to determine
information needs in decentralized organizations that have
centralized information processing, utilization of
centralized computer resources to assist decentralized
organizational units.
Future research in the area of investigative units
utilization of information systems can be measured using
the revised investigative units effectiveness measure
(Appendix T) to determine changes in decision makers
effectiveness.
This measure allows the researcher to
determine the investigative units effectiveness without

using notoriously bad crime statistics or artificially
quantified output measures.
153
The DSS questionnaire did not demonstrate the

reliability hoped for in the preliminary work of the
study, but it does identify some of the limitations of
this questionnaire.
The next research project can build
on this information and develop a stronger measure.
The
management information systems field needs reliable,

valid measures to strengthen the development of
theoretical testing.
The definition of the steps in the case progression
will facilitate the criminal
justice field in the planning
and control of the investigative services function within

an organization.
Two problems in this area of research
are the lack of common terminology for data collection and

the inability to clearly define the goals of the
investigative services division.
criminal
Previous studies in
justice have minimized the use of a criminal
investigation services division due to the lack of

understanding and subjective nature of their function
within the law enforcement agency.
The standardization of
the investigative steps will facilitate future research

across law enforcement agencies.
The study was the beginning of the project by the NSP
to develop an Investigative Services Division Allocation
Model.
This experiment provided the foundation for the
future research to develop the Model.
Figure 5.S
'Investigative Services Division Allocation Model
Figure S.S
INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES DIVISION ALLOCATION MODEL
Investigative
Services
Sil2Sii9D
DSS
Generator
iCriminai:
!Act ivi ty!
iFgrecastj.
!Investigator:
!
Skills
!
i_Inyentgry i
! Database : :Uniqueness! '.Investigative

of
:
of each ! ! Services
iESS_IlGSSi iIrogg_AreaJ. J_
Go a s____
!
CASE PROGRESSION
Tool for !
!
Quarterly !<------------- DECISION SUPPORT
_Reviews _J_
!
!
SYSTEM (DSS)
!
_________________
!
!
Supervisory
!---- >! Time Management
!
i_______ I2i_____
!
PRIORITIZATION FORMS
Investigator Effectiveness
Fnunda t ion
155
exhibits the proposed direction of future research to

complete the model.
Various parts of the model can be
developed using a DSS to evaluate quantitative data with

subjective judgements.
The determination of expected criminal activity
is critical to the Investigative Services
This information is not
strictly quantitative data - from past criminal activity

records - but requires the decision maker to assess the
trends.
The decision maker will
input their expertise to
assess the accuracy of the criminal activity forecasted.

Past criminal activity records include arrest figures,
conviction figures, number of persons jailed and/or number
of reported crimes.
The most commonly used source is the
Uniform Crime Reports <UCR).
The beginning of the UCR
report states that the data is not designed to be used to

forecast crime trends.
The problem with this report is
the incompleteness of the results and the inconsistent

usage of the definition of the crime categories.
The
Nebraska Crime Commission assembles a similar report each

year, and like the UCR there are problems with information
accuracy.
Another problem with crime trend analysis is
the uncertainty as to the completeness of reported crimes.

Victims often do not report the crimes.
In drug cases
the victim is society, so only arrests are recorded.
156
An alternative to forecasting criminal activity

include the evaluation of the demographics of high crime
areas to determine those variables that pinpoint criminal
activity.
Possible variables include the population
density per square mile, the population density per living

unit, the number of law enforcement officers per
population, the citizens involvement in assisting law
enforcement officers, the poverty level, the unemployment
levels for various population classifications, the
nationality mix of the area, seasonal influences, etc.
(Cantor, 1985).
These variables are put into a model.
Existing models are static and do not allow for

qualitative evaluations.
The criminal activity forecast
fits the structure of a DSS - the merging of quantitative

data with subjective evaluations.
The Investigator Skills Inventory should be adopted
from the human resource planning field (Burack and Mathys,
1980).
This inventory would be used to determine the
skills needed in each troop area and the desired skills

needed for additional investigators in a specific troop
area.
Figure 5.3 is a proposed 'Investigator Skills
Inventory.
The information for this aspect of the model
can be obtained from personnel records and the

investigators themselves via a questionnaire or survey.
The format of the database for case time has been
established by the case progression system.
This
157
F i g u r e 5.3
I.
II.
PERS ON NEL SKIL LS
INVENTORY
Training
A.
On-The-Job Training
B.
Types of Cases Initiated and Worked
C.
Level of Experience
toCompletion
Educat ion
A.
Special Schools (to learnspecific skills)
B.
Seneral Courses (personalinterests

related courses)
and
career
III. Specialized Skills and Interests

(such as explosive
demolition, negotiator, polygraph, hypnosis, crime
van, interrogation, crime scene, ident kit, latent
fingerprints, accounting evidence room handling,
c o m p u t e r s w i r e taps, electronics, gambling, etc.)
IV.
V.
VI.
Management Skills
A.
Leadership
B.
People Skills
C.
Assessment Center Evaluation
Career Goals
A.
Management
B.
Technical Expertise
C.
Other
Miscellaneous Contributions to the Organization
158
information will be used in the future to determine an

average range for each investigative activity required to
investigate a specific type of crime.
This system will
need to classify crimes by an offense code that refers to

a scenario for that type of crime.
Uniqueness of each troop area, like the criminal
activity forecast, requires the merging of quantitative
data - number of square miles covered, number of other law
enforcement investigators, population density and type and
quantity of crimes solved in the past - and subjective
data - the affects of attorney general cases, social
service requested investigations, state correctional
institutions, and other administratively determined
evaluations.
This part of the overall model could be a
decision support system.

The input of the Investigative Services goals will
allow the decision maker to use this information in
making subjective evaluations concerning the model.
It is
very difficult in an investigative unit to have the goals

reflect quantitative outputs.
How many cases are enough?
How many miles should an investigator drive?

effective investigator?
Describe an
These measures are not applicable
goals for the Investigative Services Division.

As previously stated, the questionnaire sent to state
law enforcement agencies (Schlachter,
1985) showed a great
deal of interest in the development of an allocation model
159
for the investigative unit of a law enforcement agency.

This model can then be combined with an allocation model
for the uniformed division to enable the law enforcement
administration to effectively determine the overall needs
for their organization.
Other areas for future research include additional
research on the organizational structure and
characteristics that best suit a centralized or
decentralized DSS.
This can include the personal
characteristics of the decision makers, organizational

culture, organizational size and other relevant variables
that effect the location and distribution of information
from a decision support system.
5.5
Summary
In this study two of the five hypotheses where

supported.
The experiment did not support the concept of
a decentralized organization implying the need of a

decentralized information system.
The experiment did
support the use of the present centralized system to

generate performance reports that are distributed
decentrally.
In aiding the NSP to meet their goal of developing
an Investigative Services Division Allocation Model, this
study laid the foundation for the proposed model
(see
160
Figure 5.2).
This model will assist in the
administrations strategic planning, concerning the

present and future needs of the Investigative Services
Di v isi o n .
The experiment provided the opportunity to manipulate
the location of the DSS in a real world situation.
This
has contributed several constructs to the body of

knowledge pertaining to the function of a DSS in an
organization.
First* a decentralized organization does
not prefer a decentralized information system.
Second, a
centralized DSS can improve the organizational

effectiveness by generating distributed reports in a
decentralized organizational environment.
reliability and validity
evaluated.
Third,
of the questionnaire was
This will improve necessary measures for
future MIS/DSS research.
Fourth,
the development of the
effectiveness measure to evaluate procedural changes in a

criminal investigation division.
And fifth, the results
of this study will assist the Nebraska State Patrols

continuing project to improve the effectiveness of the
organization.
This analysis is the foundation for future
research questions.
161
REFERENCES
Bennett, John L . ; Bu_il.di.ng Decision Support Systems;
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company; Reading, MA.;
1983.
Blakely, Robert T.; "Markov Models and Manpower Planning";
industrial Management Review; Vol. 11; No. 2; Winter,
1970.
Block, P. and Bell J .; Managing Investigations:.
Rochester System;
D. C.;
The
The Police Foundation; Washington
1976.
Bonham, T..W., Edward R. Clayton, and Lawrence J. Moore;

GERT Model to Meet Future Organizational Manpower
Needs; Personnel Journal; Vol. 54; No. 7; July,
1975.
Buchanan, Jack R. and Richard G. Linowes;
"Understanding
Distributed Data Processing"; Harvard Business

Review; July-August 1980.
Bui ter, A.J.P.; Police Management; Gower Publishing
Company; Brookfield, VT.j
1984.
"A
162
Burack, Elmer H. and Nicholas J. Mathys; Human Resource

Planning A Pragmatic Aggraach to Nangower Staffing
and Development; Brace-Park Press; Lake Forest > IL.;
1980.
Burch, John G., Felix R. Strater, and Gary Grudnitski;
i D f S y s t e m s , :
and Sons; Mew York;
Theory and Practice; John Wiley

1979.
Burkhard, Donald Larmeej An Examination of Decision

Su&rt Systems! E f f e c t i y e n e s s A n Empirical
iDysstigation; Unpublished Dissertation University of
Georgia; Athens, G A .; 198-A.
Burligame, John F.; "Information Technology and
Decentralization"; Harvard Business Review; NovemberDecember 1961.
Cantor, David Ira; Unemployment
Crime Rates^
Economic Activity and
A Re-Examination from an Q & e o r t u m t y
PeEsgectiye; Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation;

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign;
Champaign,
IL.; 1985.
Carlson, Eric D. and Jimmy A. Sutton;

Programmer,
"A Case of Non-
Interactive Problem-Solving";
Research Laboratory; San Jose, CA.; April
IBM
19, 197A.
163
Carter* Nancy M. and John B. Cullen; "A Comparison of

Centralization/Decentralization of Decision Making
Concepts and Measures"; Journal, of Management> Vol.
10, No. 2; 1984-.
Cawley, Donald F., Robert Wasserman, H. Jerome Miron,

Timothy A. Mannello, William J. Araujo, and Yale
Huffman; Managing Cri.mina.1 Investigations Manual;
Office of Technology Transfer, National Institute of
Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, Law Enforcement
Assistance Administration; United States Department
of Justice; Washington D. C.; June 1977.
Chaiken, Jan M . , Peter W. Greenwood and Joan Petersilia;

Criminal lDYil9il9D Process^ A Summary Regor 1 5
The Rand Corporation; Santa Monica, CA. June 1976.
Charnes, Abraham, W.W. Cooper, R. J. Niehaus, and A.

Stedryj "Static and Dynamic Assignment Models witn
Multiple Objectives with Some Remarks on
Organizational Designs"; Management Science; Vol.
155 No.
8; April,
1969.
Cheney, Paul H, and Gary W. Dickson; "Organizationa1

Characteristics and Information Systems:
An
Explanatory Investigation"; A c a d e m y of Management

Journal; Vol 25; March 1982.
1 64
Conover, W. J.; Practical Nqnqarametric Statistics^. 2ed;

John Wiley and Sons; New York; 19S0.
Daily, Madison McDonald; A Decision Suqqqrt System for
Motor Carrier Breakbulk Oqeratj.gnsj Unpublished
Dissertations University of Missouri - Rolla; Rolla,
MO.; 1984.
Davis, Charles K. and James C. Wetherbe;
"An Analysis of
the Impact of Distributed Data Processing on

Organizations in 1980s ; M J S Quarterly; Vol. 3;
No. 4; December 1979.
Davis, Gordon B . : Management LnfgrmatiQ Systernsy

C-2DEiyi Egundatignsj. Structure^ and Deve_lggment;
McGraw Hill Book Company; New York;
1974.
Davis, Gordon B. and Margrethe H. Olson; Management

iDfSIIiD^tign Systems.: Cgncegtua_l Foundations,,
Structure and Development; McGraw-Hill Book Company;
New York; 1985.
Deladurantey, Joseph C. and Daniel R. Sullivan; Criminai
lDvgii9il2D Standards; Harper and Row; New York;
1980.
Dickson, Gary W . , James A. Senn, and Norman L. Chervany;
"Research in MIS: The Minnesota Experiments";
y<D9!=fD!?Di Scgence; Vol. 23; No. 9; May,
1977.
165
Dintino, Justin J. and Clinton L. Paganoj
"The
Investigative Function: Reassessing the Quality of

Management"; The Pg.Ii.ce Chief; June*
198^.
Dowling, Jerry L.; Criminal Investigation; Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich,
Inc.; New York;
1979.
Eck, John E.; Managing Case Assignments^
The Burglary
lD9il9iD Dec i.sgon Model Reg JLicatgon; Police

Executive Research Forum; Sioux Falls. SD.;
Ein-Dor, Phillip and Eli Segev;
1979.
"Organizational Context
and MIS Structure: Some Empirical Evidence"; MIS

Quarterly; Vol.
6; No. 3; September 1982.
Emery, James C.; "The Impact of Information Technology on

Organization"; The Imgact of Information Technology
9D
Qgeratign; Edited by William C. House;
Auerbach Publishers; Princeton, N J .; 1971.
Ericson, Richard V.; Making Crime a Study of Detective

Work! But terwor ths; Toronto, Canada;
Farmer, David J.; "Out of Hugger-Mugger:

Police Field Services ;
1981.
The Case of
The Effectiveness of
Policing; Edited by R.V.G. Clarke and J.M. Hough;

Gower Publishing Company Limited; Westmead, England;
1980.
16 6
Farris, James R.; The Police Intelligence Function;

Unpublished Dissertation; Clarement Graduate School;
Clarement, CA.; 1982.
Federico, Pat-Anthony, Kim E. Brun, and Douglas B.
McCa11a; Management Information Systems and
9E9DiZiiQDi Behavior; Praeger; New York;
Fuerst, William L. and Paul H. Cheney;
19B0.
Factors Affecting
the Perceived Utilization of Computer-Based Decision

Support Systems in the Oil Industry"; Decision
Sciences; Vol. 13; No.
October 1982.
Gallagher, C. A.; "Perceptions of the Value of the

Management Information System"; Academy of Management
Journal; Vol. 17; No. l; March 197^.
Ginzberg, M. J.; A Process Aggroach to Management Science

IlDBlQ!D9i2D Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation;
M.I.T.; Boston, MA.; 1975.
Goslar, Martin D. Gary I. Green and Terry H. Hughes;
"Applications and Implementation Decision Support
Systems: An Empirical Assessment for Decision
Making; Decision Sciences; Vol. 17; No. 1; 1986.
Greenberg, Bernard, Oliver S. Yu, and Karen I. Lang;

the LQvesti.gati.ve EUQctign Volume ill
Methods and Results of Statistical Analysis j Stanford
Research Institute (unpublished); Menlo Park, CA. ;
1972.
Greenberg, Bernard, Oliver S. Yu, and Karen I. Lang;
"Felony Investigation Decision Model
An Analysis
of Investigative Elements of Information"; Final

Report, Stanford Research Institute; Menlo Park, C A .;
1975.
Greenwood, Peter W., Jan M. Chaiken and Joan Petersilia;
lb Eli!)iQ3i investigation Process; Lexington Books;
Lexington, MA.;
1977.
Hamilton, Scott and Norman L. Chervany; "Evaluating

Information System Effectiveness - Part I: Comparing
Evaluation Approaches"; MIS Quarterly; September,
1981
Hammond, L.W.; "Management Considerations for an

Information Center"; IBM System Journal; Vol. 21,
No. 2; 1982.
168
HaneS) Lewis F. and William W. Ramagej
"Productivity
Measurement for Computing Information Services";

?E 2 eed_ings Society for MIS 9th Annual C9Df<=EE!Ei? >
September,
1977.
Hardee, Joanne; "Measuring Productivity In a Criminal

Investigative Unit"; The Police Chief; March 1981.
Hilmar, James; "Microcomputers Modelling and

Probabilities: Valuable Tools for Patrol Workload
Analysis"; The Police Chief; April 1985.
Homant, Robert J. and Daniel B. Kennedy; P g H c e and Law

Df ED?Di AMS Press,
Inc.; New York;
1985.
Hofer, Charles W.s "Emerging EDP Pattern"; Harvard

Business Review; March-April
1970.
Huck, Schuyler W., William H. Cormier, William G. Bounds,

Jr.; Reading Statistics and Research; Harper and Row,
Publishers;
1974-.
Hunt, J. G. and P. F. Newell; "Management in the 1980s

Revisited"; Personnel Journal; January 1971.
Inmon, W. H.; "When Users Pay Their Way"; Information

Center; Vol. IE; December 1985.
169
Jarvenpaa, Sirkka L., Gary W. Dickson, and Gerardine

DeSanctis; "Methodological Issues in Experimental
Research:
Experiences and Recommendations ; MI.S
Quarterly; Vol. 9; No. S; June 1985.
Keens Peter G. W. ; "Value Analysis: Justifying Decision

Support Systems; MIS Quarterly; March,
1981.
Keen, Peter G. W. and Michael S. Scott-Morton; Decision

SyBB2Ei Systems An Organizational Ersgective;
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company; Reading,
MA.;
1978.
Kendall, Kenneth, E.; "A Decentralized Information and

Control System for Blood Management"; Journal, of
Systems and Software; Vol. 1; 1980.
Kenney, John P. and Harry W. More, Jr.; Pri.ncEB.Le5 of
lDY2ii92i2D> West Publishing Company; St. Paul,
MN.,
1979.
Kerlinger, Fred N .; Foundations of Behavioral Research;

Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
Kersletter, Wayne A.;
Inc.; New York;
"Patrol Decentralization:
1973.
An
Assessment"; Journal of Police Science and

Administration; Vol. 9; No. 1; 1981.
IS
170
Kochen, Manfred and Karl W. Deutsch;
"Toward a Rational
Theory of Decentralization Some Implications of a

Mathematical Approach"; The American Political,
Science Review; V o l . 60; 1969.
Kuykendall* Jack; "The Criminal Investigative Process:

Toward a Conceptual Framework"; Journal, of Criminal
Justi.ce; Vol. 10; 1982.
Kwak* N. K. and Michael B. Leavitt;
"Police Patrol Beat
Design: Allocation of Effort and Evaluation of

Expected Performance"; Deci.sJ.gn Sciences! Vol. 15;
1984.
Lee* Sang M. Lori Sharp Franz and A.
James Wynne;
"Optimizing State Patrol Manpower Allocation";

Journal of OgeratJgn Research Society; Vol. 30;
1979.
Leonard* V. A. and Harry W. More* J r ; Police Or.gani.zati.on

Management; The Foundation Press*
Inc.; Mineola,
NY.; 1982.
Maffeo* Dante; Duty Charts and Schedules Made Easy;

Charles C. Thomas; Springfield,
McEwen, Tom and Richard C. Larson;
IL.; 1982.
"Patrol Planning in the
Rotterdam Police Department";Journal of Criminal,

Justice; Vol. 2; 1974.
Meador, C. Lawrence, Martin J. Guyote, and Peter G.W.

Keen; "Setting Priorities for DSS Development"; MIS
Quarterly; Vol.
8; No. 2; 1984.
Minch, Robert P. and James R. Burns; "Conceptual Design of

Decision Support Systems Utilizing Management Science
Models"; IEEE TransaetIons on System^ Man and
Cybernetics; Vol. SMC-13; No. 14; July/August,
1983.
Mintzberg, Henry; Jhe Structuring of Organizations;

Prentice-Hal1, Inc.; Englewood Cliffs, NJ.;
1979.
Moynihan, Tony; "Computers, Decision Making and

Centralisation"; Management Decision; Vol. 83; No. 8;
1985.
Needle, Jerome; P o H c e
^nd Productivity
Measurement System; U. S. Department of Justice:

National
Institute of Justice; Washington D. C.;
December 1981.
Olson, Margrethe H. and Norman L. Chervany; "The
Relationship Between Organizational Characteristics
and the Structure of the Information Services
Function"; MIS Quarterly; Vol. 4; No. 2; June 1980.
Raub, Richard A. and George L. Sweat;
"Manpower
Allocation: Rationale for Methods in State Police

Districts"; Jhe Police Chief; June,
1983.
"Research Methods for Management Support Systems";

Computing Newsletter? March, 1985.
Reppetto, Thomas A.; "The Detective Task State of the Art

Science, Craft?"; Police Studies; Vol. l; No. 9;
1978.
Rieder, Robert J.; Law Enforcement Information Systems;
Charles C. Thomas - Publisher; Springfield,
IL.;
1972.
Robey, D.; "Information Technology and Organization
Design"; University of Michigan Business Review;
September 1976.
Robey, D.; "User Attitudes and Management Information
System Use"; Academy of Management Journal; Vol. 22;
No.
3; September 1979.
Robey, D . ; "Computer Information Systems and

Organizational Structure"; Communications of the ACM
Vol.
2<+; No. 10; October 1981.
Rockart, John F.; "Chief Executives Define Their Own Data

Needs ; Harvard Business Review; Vol. 57; MarchApril 1979.
17 3
Rowe, Christopher J . ; "The Impact of Computers on the Work

Organisation:
Centralisation or Decentralisation?";
Industrial NDSment and Data Systems; NovemberDecember 1984.
Schlachter, W. C . ; "Nebraska State Patrol Manpower

Allocation Study Step IV: The Investigative Services
Division"; Working Paper University of Nebraska
Lincoln; Spring,
1985.
Shugoll, Mark, and Jan Dempsey;
"The Availability,
Accessibility, and Level of Computerization of

Criminal Justice Data:
an Interstate Comparison";
JoyED^l of Criminal Justice; Vol. 11; 1983.

Sprague, Ralph H. Jr and Eric D. Carlson; Building
Effective Decision Suggort Systems; Prentice-Ha11,
Inc.; Englewood Cliffs, NJ.;
198S.
Srinivansan, V. and Shocker, Allan D.; "Estimating the

Weights for Multiple Attributes in a Composite
Criterion Using Pairwise Judgments"; Psychometrika;
Vol.
38; No. 4j December 1973.
17^
Stever, Ralph E. and Marc J. Wallace* Jr.; "A Linear

Multiple Objective Programming Model for Manpower
Selection and Allocation Decisions"; Management
Science Approaches to Manpower Planning and
0E9^Diât_ign Design* Vol. 8; Edited by A. Charnes,
W.W.
Cooper* and R.J.
Niehaus* North-Holland
Publishing Company; Amsterdam;
1978.
Stone* Eugene F . ; Research Methods i_n Organizational,

Behaygor; Goodyear* Santa Monica* CA.; 1978.
Synnott* William R. and William H. Gruberj
Resource Management^ Q
itl
information
i
> John Wiley and Sons; Mew York;
1981.
Jask Force Report,: lb Po_lice * U.S. Government Printing

Office; Washington D. C.; 1967.
Taylor, Bernard W. Ill, Laurence J. Moore, Edward R.
Clayton, K. Roscoe Davis and Terry R. Rakes;
"An
Integer Nonlinear Goal Programming Model for the

Deployment of State Highway Patrol Units"; Management
Science; Vol. 31; No. 11; November 1985.
"Team Policing:
Management of Criminal Investigation";
Police Chief; September 1976..
Vancil, Richard F.; DecentraiizatignjL NE!^9Ei.î Ambiguity

bY Design; Dow Jones-Irwin; Homewood,
IL.; 1979.
175
Vi ana, Emilia; Criminal Justice Research 5 Lexington Books;

Lexington, MA.; 1975.
Vierck, Robert K.; "Decision Support Systems: An MIS
Managers Perspective"; M_IS Quarterly: December,
1981 .
Walker, James W.; "Evaluating the Practical Effectiveness
of Human Resource Planning App1icat ions; Human
Resource Management; Vol.
13; No. 1; Spring,
197^.
Watson, Hugh J. and Marianne M. Hill; "Decision Support

Systems or What Didnt Happen with MIS"; Interfaces;
Vol.
13, No. 5; October,
1983.
Weber, Wesley L.; "Manpower Planning in Hierarchical

Organizations: A Computer Simulation Approach";
M^D^gement Science; Vol. 18; No. 3; November,
1971.
Whisler, Thomas L .; Ihe Imgact of Computers on

Organizations; Praeger; New York; 1970.
Whitaker, Gordon P., Stephen Mastrofski, Elinor Ostrom,

Roger B. Parks, and Stephen L. Percy; Basic issues in
Police Performance; U. S. Department of Justice:
National Institute of Justice; Washington D. C.; July
198E.
176
Wilson, James Q.j The InvestIqatqrsi
Managing FBI and
Narcoties Agents; Basic Books, Inc.; New York; 1978.
Wilson, 0. W. and Roy Clinton McLaren; Police

Bdministratign; McGraw-Hill Book Company; New York;
1977.
Zannetos, Zenon S.; "On the Theory of Divisional
Structures:
Some Aspects of Centralization and
Decentralization of Control and Decision Making";

Management Science; Vol. 12; No. 4; December 1965.
Zmud, Robert W.; "Design Alternatives for Organizing
Information Systems Activities; MIS Quarterly;
Vol. 8; No. 2; June 1984.
177
INTERVIEWS
Abshier, Morryi October S3, 1985; Nebraska State Patrol

Investigator; Lincoln, Nebraska.
Ball, Larry; June 13, 1986; Nebraska State Patrol

Lieutenant; Lincoln, Nebraska.
Burnett, Jim; October S^t, 1985; Nebraska State Patrol
Captain; Lincoln, Nebraska.
Dowling, Terry; January 9, 1986; Nebraska State Patrol
Lieutenant; Lincoln, Nebraska.
Lieutenants Meeting (Lt. Ball, L t . Dowling, Lt. Gates, L t .

Gallardo, Lt. Reece); January 9, 1986; Nebraska State
Patrol Lieutenants; Lincoln, Nebraska.
Niemann, Donald; November 15, 1985; Nebraska State Patrol
Major; Lincoln, Nebraska.
Streeter, Mike; October 2^, 1985; Nebraska State Patrol

Sergeant; Lincoln, Nebraska.
178
APPENDIX A
NEBRASKA STATE PATROL ORGANIZATION

CHART:
SEPTEMBER 1981
ll
LU
>
I
III
rr
5 :
uj
*
O
<
10
u. <
y
U
3
GQ
3
ULi
<
ii
179
II
il
II
ii
ii
G -
M
u
5:1
2*0
!i
35
Jg
^r:
5
3
f .1
ii
Si
*5
Ii
1
Ii
i!
ii
il
?
i
11
1 80
APPENDIX B
NEBRASKA STATE PATROL ORGANIZATION

CHART:
JULY 19S5
181
LAW ENFORCEMENT
Governor
and
PUBLIC SAFETY
lidine!
-I
ion*
ms
finss
I--
(mt
IlH
trm
__I
am
__ 1
--1
inn
!------
-I
t_
mn
inn
inn
LEGEND:
lh*tl
lift* * 1 h l t t m t i M
j H tf i f 5
isa
APPENDIX C
PROACTIVE PRIORITIZATION FORM
183
PHUACT1Vt CASE PRIORITIZATION

S e le c t th e h lg h e a t p r i o r i t y
c o r r e s p o n d in g l e t t e i
in th e
CASE NUIIbEH
answ er fo r each a re a .
P la o e
b la n k t o th e l e f t o f e a c h
th e
quest i on.
larqet ol lilt c m
A. Organisation
A. Individual
C. location
0. Other/Untnoun
Casts a i l e d Iht average taipayer* due tei

A. Ihe danger to others/sell tdrug dealers selling
to oinorsi doocstic disturbance groupsl
A. Etotional outrage Iviolent ctietsl
C. Ihe freguency/pat'.ers ol criat and the I is. K i t
i t p a d o n insurance rates. tares, etc. (auto
theft rings, conspiracy drug casesl
D. Crises that society deeos undesirable
Igaobling, n o n - a d d i d i v e drugs!
Intelligence infoitilion Source

A. Hebraska State Pate cl
I . Inforsant
C. Cituen cosplaint
0. Leu Enforceaent Aaenty
Case Progression
A. Ihere is additional pertinent i n t o n a t i o n
I. Ihe case is setting it s stated goals ttarget
and/or lioel
C. (here are undeveloped leads and/or i n t o n a t i o n
sources
0. Ihere is no uay to proceed at this point
Accuracy ol Inloioalion Sourct

A. Pail reliab ility ol sourct U qood
t . Past r t lia t ilily ol souict i t lair
C. Ho inloioalion
0. Pail reliab ility ol sourct is poor
Availability lor Additional Agencies In/cl.eaent
A. last loret (3 or sort agencies anth a
designated leader to tenant the easel
A. federal agency/agencies
C. Nebrasta State Patrol only
D. Police Oepaitientlsl and/or Sherills* Office
lype of Drug
A. Cocaine/Opius derivalivesrttethasphetasines/
Hallucinogens
S. Other Depressants or Stioular.ts
C. Harijuana
D. Other/ Hot applicable
Additional Atsources can be Obtained

A. Ilectssatf sor.ey. tanpoueri l i t t and equipeerit
are?available
A. OnlV three ol the above art tvailablt
C. Only luo of Iht above art available
D. Only one ol the above is available
Ihe Quantity of Drug Involved

Harijuana
A. Ereater than
ten pounds
A. Ereater than
2 to 9 pounds
C.
Less than
tno pounds
0. Not applicable
Public/Nebraska State Patrol Aeaction to the Cast

A. I he public ind HSP have tipresied concern about
the target and Mill be very pleased m i th the
eipected results.
A. Ihe public and/or NSP t i l l be very pleased uith
the eipected results of the case.
C. Iht public and/or HSP Mill be satisfied mith the
eipected results ol the cast.
0. Ihe public and/or NSP Mill have lit t le reaction
to the eipected results ol the case.
Value ol the traceable P c o p e d y

A. Case involves traceable property of value
greater than SICn/0
A. Case involves traceable property ol value Hl/d
to tlvuu
C.
Case involves traceable property of value lets
than 1300
0. Not applicable
Action Needs to be Initialed or Continued

A. Uithin 2S hours
A. Uithin 32 hours
C. Uithin l i t bours
A. Ihere is ne tase constraint
A dd t h e t o t a l
p r io r ity
lin e
lype
A.
B.
C.
of Crisinal (non-drugl Activity

Serious crises against person
Serious crises against property
less serious c n e e s / V i c t i e l e s s non-drug c n e e s
D. Other/Not applicable
num ber o f e a ch l e t t e r ,
f o r th e t o t a l p o in t s .
Hunber o f
N um ber o f.
N um ber o f
N um ber o f
Other Drugs
one ounce
one gras
one gras
C heck
th e
c o r r e s p o n d in g
P r io r ity A
(4 1 p lu a p t a )
P r io r ity B
(3 5 -4 0 p ta )
P r io r ity C
(2 5 -3 4 p t a )
A 's
B 'a
C 'a
D 's
Total
Priority D
(0-24 pta)
1B4
APPENDIX D
REACTIVE PRIORITIZATION FORM
185
REACTIVE CASE PRIORITIZATION
CASE NUMBER
Place the
Select the highest priority answer for each area.
corresponding letter in the blank to the left of each
quest ion.
Referral Sourct
ft. Victie/Oecoased body found
P. U Enforcement Aqoncy
C. I n f o r e a n W C r i a t Stoppers
D. Citizen Cooplaint/Other
Follou-up leads
A. Ihere are witnesses to the crime
I. Case has a distinguishing H.O.
C. Ihere are undeveloped leads lother than
witnesses)
D. there is no way to proceed at this point
Accuracy of I n t o n a t i o n frot Referral Source

A. Past reliability of source is good
8. Past reliability of source is fair
C. Ho i n t o n a t i o n
0. Past reliability of source is poor
lapse of tiae between the Crime and the Initial

Investigation
A. less than one hour
B. One hour to six hours
C. Sis hours to H hours
D. Sreater than 21 hours
lype of Crioe
A. Serious crioe against person
B. Serious crioe against property
C. less serious crioe
D. Victioless crioe
Public/Nebraska State Patrol reaction to the case

A. The coaounity is appalled.
B. Ihe case involves a sensitive or unusual place
or person (religious building or public edifice
child, elderly or handicapped)
Ihere is significant community reaction
little to no reaction to the case
Urgency for Action

A. Danger to others
B. Immediate action required
C. lapact o n victia
0. Pattern/frequency of crioe
Agency/Agencies Currently Involved

A. lash force (3 or aore agencies with a
designated leader to oanage the case)
B. Nebraska State Patrol only
C. Federal agency/agencies
0. Police Bepartaentfs! and/or Sheriffs' Office
Suspectts) Information
A. Suspectts) is (are) naoed
B. Suspectlsl vehicle is (are) identified
C. Suspectts) is (are) described but not naoed
D. No suspect information
Additional Resources can be Obtained

A. Noneyi manpower, tine and equipment are
available if necessary or applicable
B. Only three of the above are available
C. Only two of the above are available
0. Only one of the above are available
Evidence
A. Case involves traceable property
B. Case has prominent physical evidence
C. Latent fingerprints arc the only evidence
D. Insignificant evidence is identified
Add the total
pr io rit y line
N
N
N
N
u
u
u
u
m
m
m
m
b
b
b
b
e
e
e
e
r
r
r
r
of
of
of
of
number of each letter.

for the total points.
A's
B s
C s
D's
3
3
*
a
X
X
x
X
c* 3
3 3
a 3
1 3
Total
Check
the
corresponding
Pr ior ity A
oa-'i'm p t s >
Pr ior ity B
( 2 3 - 3 1 p t s ) ____
P r ior i ty C
( 1 9 - 2 k p t s ) ____
Prior ity O
10-18 pts) ____
186
APPENDIX E
PROACTIVE INVESTIGATION PROCESS
187
P R O A C T I VE
1.
I N V E ST I GA T IO N P R O CE S S
Initial
a.
b.
investigation (investigators initiative)
Proactive/reactive work leading to a case

Developing informant information and/or an
intelligence base
2.
To target a crime, person or location
3.

a.
b.
c.
d.
Analyze the case, available information and

potential information sources
Identify specific informants
Determine the case priority
cr ime
A.
Review with superv isor <s ) and other investigators
5.
Investigation of the target

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Surveillance
Informants
Undercover/overcover operations
Phone tolls
Wire taps
6.
Review to assess completion of the case goal(s)
7.
Prepare and obtain warrants

a.
b.
Search
Arrest
8.
9.
Evidence to and from the lab
10.
11.
Appear in court
12.
13.
1A.
Disposal of the evidence
[T.
isa
APPENDIX E
REACTIVE INVESTIGATION PROCESS
189
R EA CT I VE
INVESTIGATION P RO CE SS
I.
Notification of a crime
E.
Initial investigation
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
3.
Plan of action before going to the crime scene

Going to the incident
Actions at the scene
1. Securing the area
S.
Initial interviews
3. Evidence gathering
Looking at the area
Return from the incident
Evidence to the lab
Notify the appropriate persons
Completing and submitting report and additional
forms if necessary

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Analyze the case and available information

Assess the potential information sources
Determine which investigative steps are of
the
highest priority
Define the steps to be taken to best approach
the crime
Evidence from the lab
^.
Review with supervisor<s ) and other
5.
Gather additional
a.
b.
c.
information [contacts!
Interview the victim> witnesses) and potential

witnesses
Conduct a records search
Discuss case with specialists* uniformed officers
and/or other agencies
6.
Ascertain the location of a suspect
7.
8.
9.
Appear in court
10.
II.
investigators
rReproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
190
APPENDIX G
INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES
I N V ES TIG ATI VE ACTIVITIES:
Function
Codes
to
collect
necessary data for the investigator allocation model

and provide information to the supervisors
Travel time <to and from the crime or case location)

Evidence Collection (time spent working the crime scene,
auditing books, or collecting evidence in a proactive

case)
Evidence Handling (anytime spent with the evidence, after
it has been secured including time to and from the

lab)
Intelligence Gathering:
Specific Case
General
Recording and Analysis
Time to Informants:
Recruitment
Information gathering
Working a case
Undercover Assignment
Surveillance:
General
Technical
(used to justify the equipment)
Interviews/Interrogation:
Suspect(s )
Vic t im <s )
Wi tnesses
Report Writing
(any paperwork other than court authorized)
Court Authorized Paperwork
(preparation and return of a
search warrant, subpoenas, wire taps, etc.)
192
Confer with prosecutor

Arrest and Process Time (suspectCsl)
Court Time (average time per type of case broken into
types of hearings)
Educational Programs:
Public
Law Enforcement Agencies
NSP
Training:
Specialized
General
Meetings:
Specific Case
General
PBO
Range Time
Assist other Law Enforcement Agencies (specific
activities that reflect the piece work needed)

Supervision:
Out in the Field

In the Office
Special Services (hypnosis* polygraph, security, bomb
disposal, Emergency Service Teams, grievance work,

etc . )
Internal Affairs Investigations
Background Investigations:
NSP Pre-employment Checks

Liquor Commission Assessments
Other Law Enforcement Agencies
Miscellaneous
Career Development and Career Advancement Time
r
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
193
APPENDIX H
ABSHIERS TROOP C S CASES FORM
r
19^
n
C i
i
i
;>* i.<
i/
.
ci
l
lo M
U
i.i
O
. iO
Co.
i.1 1
t>
*.* i..
to 1
. !
1* II
i
11
Illj
II
l-
m :ci-j
cc
c
o
v*
l"
ii '
i:c.
t\
r.
Ui
_| :
u
Ui
t-
c
tr-t
*tia
/*<
i<i.
ii
O -
Q
U
v%
3
it
<
ÂSE NAME
l
lj
*
**
M
3J
C
Source:
Investigator Abshier
(original form is 8.5 x 1^)
F
T--''
I
?
APPENDIX I
RANGE COUNTY FLORIDA SHERIFFS

DEPARTMENT CASE TRACKING REPORT
196
Figure 2.9
Orange County Sheriffs Department

Case Tracking Report Output
Input
Case Number:
Section:
Detective:
Date-Aaslgned
Initials:
Evidence Retained:
Assign/Screen: Trans. Code
Oftense Code:
Multiple Case:
Value ol Rcvd Prop:
S.O.-DI*posltlon-Code-1:
Date:
Victim: Last:
First:
Code-2:
Number Arrested:
CT.-Dlsposltlon-Code:
S.A.-Acceptance:
Date: - -
Date: - -
Multiple Case:
Lesser-Otfense-Code:
S.A.-Code:
HRS-lnvestlgatlon:
Output
Section:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Assigned
Screened
Cleared by arrest
Exceptionally cleared
Per
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
18.
17.
18.
19.
Source:
---------------------
5.
6.
7.
8.
Unfounded
Filed tor prosecution
Arrests
Property recovered
---------- "
Detective:
Cases assigned
Cases screened
Cleared by arrest
Exceptions,:-/ cleared
Unfounded
Filed lor prosecution
Arrests
Property recovered
Accepted for prosecution as charged
Accepted as lesser otlense
Convrctions as charged
Convictions as lesser otlense
Plea as charged
Plea to lesser offense
Acquitted
Dismissed
Cases lost = negative assessment
Cases lost = neutral assessment
Hours overtime paid
Section
Section
Section
Snction
Section
Section
Section
Section
----
-e __
__
.
__
'V. ---% __
% __
% __
-------------
----
Hardee* Joanne; "Measuring Productivity in a

Criminal Investigative Unit"- The Police Chi_ef ;
March 1931.
jr. '
197
APPENDIX J
INVESTIGATOR CASE PROGRESSION REPORT
198
CD
fM
It
a
tn
tn
in
tn
cn
fM
in
(M
I) O
fM
> a>
L4e
i
L
J
le
ii a o k
J A
a>
tn
in
eg
eg
IQ <4. w
C CD c
tn
in
tn
in
o
Si Cj K
aa
tn
tn
tn
tn
vO
w a ak-
tn
03
tn
tn
03
in
tn
ro
\D
D w
CD
fM
eg
in
VI JD
0*06
3
O'
\D
in
m
O'
tn
.m
<D
vO
in
if
199
a
a i
CD
a i
cj
u
a!
a <
a>
m m
w
o*o0I
II
I
au n
- -+i ii
L<
9
t
|
ion
o a
W U - V 0 C ^
L
O
aa
m
II
II
II
ii
JO II
UJ<*-
200
APPENDIX K
EXCEPTION REPORT
rr
201
TROOP
EXCEPTION REPORT
Case Number)
Investigator
3S69XXXXX 1
Comments
iMMMHiisaESssaaatnaiMn
Attempted to flip - failed prosec. pendin
3537XXXXX 1
Flip
3569XXXXX 1
Good Invsetigation Suspect Flipped see case
356SXXXXX 1
No prosec. - bad Cl (Cl buys)
3S6SXXXXX 1
Flip on Public
3S37XXXXX 1
Not filed on Cl buy
3368XXXXX I
Search Warrant - Out of State source
3S50XXXXX I
Called in DEA needed *
3509XXXXX 1
Cl involved in Delivery no Prosec.
3S6BXXXXX :
Pending invest, review 6/13/86
3337XXXXX )
Prosec. pending review 7/03/S6
see case M3567XXXXX
Check 6/20/86
I
!
1
-------------------- -----------
1
1
1
1
i
--------------- :----------------
1
1
1
I
--------------------------------
5V
APPENDIX L
INVESTIGATOR E F F E C T I V E N E S S EVALUATION
MEASURE
203
INVESTIGATIVE EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATION MEASURE

(Evaluating the effective use of time in investigations)
Time f r a m e ________ t o _________
Directions:
Note:
Badge N u m b e r __________
Fill in the blanks.

Total the point column

(WT
1.
Percentage of hours worked on qrqacti.ye cases having:

Xage X Wt = Iqtal
__ X
10 = _____
b. A "B" prioritization rating
__ X
8 = _____
__ X
6 = _____
d. A "D" prioritization rating
__ X
4 = _____
2.
Percentage of hours worked on rgactive cases having:

'Xage X Wt = TqtaX
__ X
10 =______
__ X
7 = _____
X 5 = _____
X 3 = _____
3.

Service Reports
1 = _____

polygraph reports written with a
confession from a deceptive subject ____
2 = _____

polygraph reports written without a
confession from a deceptive subject ____
i = _____
/.age X Wt = Jota.1
5.
6.
7.
8.
Percentage of hours worked on poly

graph reports for a truthful subject
Percentage of hours worked on poly
graph reports for pre-employment
k.
2 = _____
X 1.5 =_________

hypnosis or ident kit reports'
X 1.5 = _____
TOTAL
rr
20 A
APPENDIX M
205
Name
The following questions refer to your use of the case
progression system.
Circle the number that best represents
the way you feel about the question.
Do not spend a lot of
time thinking about the questions:
go with your initial
reaction.
"Information" refers to the data available from the N.S.P.
Administrative Data form, N.S.P. Weekly Time Sheet,
Proactive/Reactive Prioritization form. Investigator Case
Progression report, and Exception report.
The "decision making task" or task relates to the allocation
of manpower to maximize the case clearances.
W tfl
tn cs
1.
The inforaation aas relevant te aaking the required

decisions.
2.
The aeount of inforaation aas sufficient for eating the

decisions.
3.
The output inforaation aas accurate.
H. The input inforaation aas accurate
5.
The necessary inforaation aas available.
6.
The inforaation aas easy to use for aaking the required

decisions.
7.
Hy decisions accoaplished ahat 1 expected then to.
8. The aeaning of the inforaation aas dear.

9. The inforaation aas understandable.
10. The aaount of tiae spent looking for the input
inforaation aas reasonable.
e
o*
o
w o
is*
(please turn page)
206
flgree
pag e 2
U. (A
11. The inforaation aas precise.
E 3
IE. The systea allowed the learning of inforaation.
E 3
13.
The systea helped ae structure ay thoughts.
E 3
14.
The use of ay judgeaent was at an appropriatelevel.
15. I will recoaaend this systea to ay peers.
16. The systea was easy to use.
17. This systea was very frustrating.
IB. 1 felt free to do other things 11ike stretchingt taking

a break) or siaply resting to collect ay thoughts) while
using this systea.
19. 1 frequently felt stiaulated by the task.
1 3
EO. The function of the systea is not very significant or

iaportant in the broader scheae of things.
On a s c a l e o f o n e t o t e n how v a l u a b l e
N eb rask a S t a t e P a t r o l ?
l
Note:
This
form
is
red u ced
is
0
this
9
system
10
?**/..
Strongly
Agree
cn o
to the
APPENDIX N
ROCHESTER POLICE DEPARTMENT

CRIME INVESTIGATION REPORT
208
t . t U I D f K K I M OF B F ftN M U lO t M I I W T N n ( t l
t . t r K I N p u n tM C ittC M M t t t
! mm iLAi.fnk.Mjeu>aK
i.cTMiwaDMr
waw
t .
f I.
s = fn -
* M M U l0flSC w w l t i ' M l ( | T i M
IHJW1IIIXW ..
. I, *I.*I<
* ;,
i s i t s h a p e . m m A B S iS T tE iB tM A tB A tiv i p l a c c t m I w t s o
*'
I t . c.a. . t m t ii l t i
(ow n mo. g m n i m i
L
Ao * k ( M U L .
K W T ll
prwotw
A t s t* T E fi < B 0 i a
w wont
i.iu<tuah.M
>>t
p la c e i w i m
n i
***> mi
M M tlt m
a il
iPT.B
K H t i Iil| f iu i0
MfOMMAVa* M e n u * - M l H M <TI(
W MCIMt
n ito i la u if it n i
IM IIU
C a flU l
u m s s c a ta u
a ttto la t u iic a io
M i a t ll c * fc a tt
w
t i w t m
I t . W A1THES1 A T T NESS TO THE C S P ~

IT . CAN A SUSPECT BE MAMEO?
w m c f (NAAN K U M MTV *<
1 # N O PLACE AM 1 M S O I s w h o p C a c e am i in s o ? c
* 9 l tw ( C tvS f
lAOgiartHgTKLMAtW
s t t s n e t i m t sc lo c A fc s at
tU tM C T >
m a B lU M C C t S m at ( iOCAT(B At
C lOCAItO AT
ttMO PLACE AM X BI BOX E -
11. CAM A SUSPECT BE o e s c b c p

to s a c c t tttC N ia t it u
M I I M d >1 D M C tiM tO a
,r li d *:n* !(*
H K B I K CACM ItftN ffT ! AAC
Ia n
W K T m t & U T\ h W
- I F SUSPECT MFO0MA TON HASBEEN CtVEK
OUT v u SADCCOMM PLACE AM X H SOX 91
iii
i(i(tirti(
la a a ft 1 * 0 ( l9 M l* 4 O f * ( * > * IQ
k1
ONKHATtfl.
> - P L A C E A M V y iB O iP
us*,vt3M>irr COM W TK 0*C5

w e i& -M c M i > w t n i m n n tu ta tc *
u o o tk MAac
S t. r t l N l K U K
11 r rt t )
IF MO PLACEAM X M SO X G -
_ as. C A M T H f SUSPECT VEMCLC BE WEMTIFIED
tt
S t.
i l
a^ i
2------------~ACCABljiHE<ATr<fMT0>AC!ffigvgtggEt0Cg""'
SUSPECT v g W C L g tM fQ O M A T IP S WAS Q v I m V U R A DIO CO m m UWICA T P M P L A C f A

! N X M ftO X 7-i
N g P C I U AM X M S O X M
at * **W
ra o w
ST. !(*(
o o c a i t t M e a ta tT tAtM.*BAWA8C6
M VMCtc MOtatiAHUn J 1. ATlfl

A f i f mqmc a m tic ta a
IS . ttT M is r X 0 M ffC A M 1 M 0 > S C g M t
M .ia o ( in m . .
1*
0*U
t t u t m i' m i r r
W hS
*i9(*nn(itioimetuinoi
M i r u im ia 'V in * i( iA t > K it
|
IF TCSOtSC RIBt H H a M a TIv C ___________________ '
bo'
ao
a a ru p f o r ia m b i
ifl.&THIBI
it
f* A i n ) r a i* -iiiir p
Naur
IF MO PLACE AM X W BOX I *
19
T ta t o r { * b o k . i ) t r u v ( i t o i r o a : i u U 9
yaapcierATimgggj:
VliPfKlftf f f i m n m w r
( . t ic k o t boac t
9 NOPLACE AM X M BOX X
MAS AN EVIDENCE TCCHMIOAN 0ECM C A lL E O '
PLACE AM X M B O X X
STVIOEMCe TECHNICIAN REPORT POSITIVE*
IS THERE ASCMiriCAMT SEASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE C Rt*E MAY BE SOLVED WITH A
r NO PLACE AM X M BOX L SEASONABLE AMOUNT OF INVESTIGATIVE EFFO RT* __ _____
O WAS THESE A OEFBSTE LAilTEO OPPORTUNITY FOB ANYONE EXCEPT THE SUSPECT TO COMMIT THE CRIME* 9 NOPLACE AM X H BOX M INATlVf BUMWAAlIl 00*110* CMNI B<l U0*4 A (K tCAlBIMA OS
AA AOC llOA* MfOAWAtlO* AMtCKIS AMt*rtA$a>lO* AM* 0 * AA3.I B0>(* MAWIJO*
AAactrtB.mamu oOTMC*orricrp*oipktm u i i h
4 t . l t OMK 0 * taesc OF T K A01v a t u ITT IN T O B MHtOaT
ataoAtiMt ornciAt
A l t l t K t O BEAT *
M T M S E F O P tr
t ir m . o . K w w i
D .iy n a n w .i
ncitUPtavtM va
n^-n ,,n^*
( . 1 . 9 . * M C I IBM C M M U t M v iC M
i O c
I I o n a
C ^ A tn s t
f~ ~ t KO
1 u!|t
10. IIA T M a ON M M * C IN U N
rntFKewoco
r~ ~ l
1-
rnBNOtCCWTOa
l a iM iti acm cr
(Form is 8.5 X 11 inches)
r.
209
APPENDIX 0
NEBRASKA STATE PATROL WEEKLY REPORT
10
N E B R A S K A STATE PATROL
WEEKLY REPORT
SA
TOTALS
FOURTH PAY
THIRD PAY
PIFTHPAY
SIXTH DAY
TOTALS
SEVENTH PAY
umt:
[I'lS milimJi
T O T A L C ONTACTS
OATC
O IC T A T O O
C A S C N U M flC R
TOTALS
NSP-778, Jul 7
'
THIS F O R M AKPLACCS NSF-T7S. J U L 7 *.

P W C V IO lU C O IT IO N S W IL L C USC P U N T IL tX H A U S T S O .
(Front of the form)
211
jj\ 5 (7/
WEEKLY SUMMARY
STATUS
SUBJECT
STATUS
ca
OATS
OATS
CONTACTS
TIMS
TO
A/C
TO
NUMB
PARTY CALLED
CITY
STATS
(Back of the form)
APPENDIX P
NEBRASKA STATE PATROL ADMINISTRATIVE

DATA FORM
ai3
IfATft * t O V
WVIIION Q f I M V t i m k T I V V U f l V K I t
SEARCHEO I
ADMINISTRATIVE DATA FORM
filed
iktbl,1
IN V .t
MTIWflllUtU,
ESUHVVi
TiBprmeiv;
5*iriacnTEBT
NEW CASE
STATUS CHANGE
eVID.DISPOSAL
ACTIVE
CASE INVEST.
INVEST. SERV.
GEN. INFORMATION
POLYGRAPH
HYPNOSIS .
IOENTIKIT
OTHER
DIAGRAMS
PHOTOS
MUG SHOTS
CLEAR ED
UNFOUNDED
NAMC
hoik
FINAL
COURT ACTION
CRIME CHANGE
PREFIX CHANGE
AO M IN . CLOSURE
REACTIVATE
F/PCHECK
THEFT FILE
B MO FILE
F/PCARO
RAOIO ITEM
FBI a
8ID
NCIC
*C C
III
HAII
ivlt
R O L E : A rte tle d ( A ). Suspect (S ), V ic tim ( V ) , f f i l n f u ( f f )

COCOA
SEIZED:
VCAH
YES I
UAKI
No(
o c s c n ir r t o N
D IS P O S I T I O N
in ta iU i ttnfhut*liiif iiii'Tiaii'T riM/Ji!?" <**
VALUE
LOSS
I _______
VALUE
RECOVER
8 _______
FUNDS
EXPENOEO t___
AppiotH.
cc: Div. Ll.
Troop Are*
Cue ImetL
MCOC *11
(Form is 8.5 X 11 inches)
214
APPENDIX Q
NAP OF NEBRASKA TROOP AREAS
Troop Station
O Troop H u d Q tu rttf %
216
APPENDIX R
MONTHLY REPORTS TO THE TROOP AREA
CJ
a
CJ
4
z
UI
QC
I-
__ .
a
z
H4
to
XI
A
Q.
0
0
0
217
o o
V t
oo oo o ooo ooo ooo o o

o o o o o oo o o o o o o o o
1

cc
cc
<t
a
o o oo o ooo ooo ooo o o \
CJ
a:
X
o o oo o ooo ooo ooo O O A
O
Ui
CO
4
ui
a i
ib
tb
o
x
oo OO
at
4
;. r
!!*'
1 '
k
-V
r
' i
:
. . ,
i iif'
r*.
*r
ooo ooo ooo o o
m
Mil*
M ty
H
H *4
n o
rxIX
m n
M rt
O ooo
v4
C4
in
o
i
>
o
90 0
o
w
cU
Ci
p4
n
s
0
n
9
o
M
n
*4
v4
n
rx
n
n
00 OO
a
X
z
s
u
J
CJ
A
C
H
oe OO o ooo OOO 90 0 o o z
A
o
o
o
X
I
CC
2.. u
o
i
t
' ,v: in
. o
O Q oo o ooo 90 0 9 00 o o o
o
?'
_ "X
z
-* >
cc to
H
p
H
. *
-j
ib'
<
a
cc ill u
o o ooo ooo 90 0 900 o o
U
\
A
o
z
*
a. fe
a
A
a.
w 0.
i
x
ir <r r e <r * ^
<c hi
o o ooo ooo poo poo p o
z
in m in in inm m m n m m n m m m m j
o
CO i r 3 n n t n n n W W W i n n * W M "JM D
A
z
4
X
X
CO o o o o o o o o 9 0 0 9 0 0 o o
CO CC UJ
>0 0*
*
4M
O ^ f4 <0 >0 N
4
O
-I
NH H
<0 A
o
oc a. m
a
at ui r
H
Ui cc
z
z
a
to in in m o in o o in n o o 9 o m n tn z
o

C
M cc
H N O CM CM C4 W *0 K O CN n * H N o
H
3
*
4
*4
4
fx
<
M
3
u
a
z
z
a
b
-1 o
a
cj
V COf M O t O T O rM4in.4A4 4 4-
4 m O iO O h O< h O jO *4 O H o <4:iH H ^
lb CO 0 4 19 0 4 4 0) 9 CO 0* D Q O 30 A
X
o
z
v tnrx o> oc* w o V -4 imn x ty 3
3
o o p o o 0*4*4 rn<o 0 X3 S3 0 4(0
lb tx rx X K fx X rx rx x rx rx x n rx X N
_
4
1
9
IX
o
X
' 1
a
U
0
P
El
V
H
'P
0
4
5
4
b
4
q
3
a
&
w
h
3
o
CO
iH
4
VI
9 CJ
a cj
z <z
M
bA A
A
J
3 <t - A C 9
tn
H
c? a? 3 3
A
-J J
UI
A A Z X CC Z A
M
Ohi
z z a o a .M Z
4
CCXL
K -J
u
ij <r a
hz
P J A atbib 4 4
<K a
4 P*
UI --J flOO
O. L
C9 J A A
JA
o
a
4
4 U (9 JJA A X CL
M z z
X A 3 ina -i X O
3 I* CCp < H a A
J OM
A Z
ui a x x a IAII1 5 O A
3
3
UI J
Q.
-J z > M M M A X M
4 z z z z z z i O X
3 cc
(b OS K 3 0 0 o o o UJ N
O CJ
Ui A 4MH 4M M (J
iiuj uj i ix A - J h* - K Z A
-z - U S X S K - X 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 K A
O r~ H M 1-4 O
9(3(9 9 ( 9 ( 9 J Z Z
w U & H h - -J H H H H W M LJ <X 3
f* 3 K
V- 4 P h - K H X O
O l t i P h -A0 n a a n A A UJ CC X
CJHAXGCOCHAAAA A A A 9 Q
3 A 1 3 3 3 A Z 9 9 9 9 9 9 Q lb
OZZOOOIOUIZZZ Z Z Z 3 Z
w
p.J
.
i.S. .4 1 |
r^~ *-
o
A
o
*4
o
*
4
*4
n
w
S3
aia
APPENDIX S
REVISED PRIORITIZATION FORMS:

PROACTIVE AND REACTIVE
P R O A C T IV E
CASE
N U M B E R _________________________
P R IO R IT IZ A T IO N
CASE
P R IO R IT IZ A T IO N
DATE
CASE
D A T E ______________ L A B
IN IT IA T E D
D A T E __________________ C A S E
C A S E N A M E --------------------------------------------------------------------------S e le c t th * h ig h e a t p r i o r i t y
c o r r e s p o n d in g l e t t e r
In th e
u t a n tM tr e a c h q u e s t io n .
I.
faryvt t f tM C m
A. O r f w lt illM
I . taflv lfaa l
C. It C lt l* *
I . tthtr/tfataan
2.
la t a l l i y m * l i f i i M l i i i I t w t f
9. M n t l i S lat* Patral
I . IM ir u a t
C. t i t l e * * caaplalat
I . Lm E i r m m i t 9*etcy
^ . I.
4.
9.
9.
7.
- . I.
CASE
I.
Affttianal Haatfi Ptrtaaat! oaf Eyaipwat e n

la a H la ttlf k t Obtalaef to Partkvr tk* Cat*
Prayrm ta*
9. 911 r t f i l r H r tw e r c n a rt tvailabl*
I . The reyvlref ft r n n a t l I t available
C. tk* r * * * lf * 9 ta tty a t* eyslpwat art avallakl*
I . Ran* of tk* r t f il r t t f r tw e r c n tr *
avallakl*
9ctlaa h r h la k* I a l t i a t t f ar C aatin tf
9. Pitkin 29 kaart
I . lit k la 72 k w *
C. fitk la f i t fcaars
I . Tkar* la aa l i t * c antratu t
,1 1 .
Cawt 9 f f K l tk * *9m aye T iip im * la * lot

9. Tk* faayr ta a lk a li (cfcllf yamyrayky rlay.
fa tu t le fliltrk a a c t yratytl
I . E attlaw l ar ta rt! astray* ( t l a l n t , aaatctataically n l l v a l t f c rl***)
t . Tk* frcywncy/palter* t f erla* oaf Ik*
flaaaclal lapact a * i n a r m * ratea, ta rn *
*te . ( u l a theft ria y t, ctMplracy fray
cawt)
9. Crlatt tkal taclaty fw a t ^ n m ira kl*
tya m tey , a a a *lff!c tlv t frxytl
..11.
Caw Prayrm iaa

9. Tkar* I t a ffitla a a l parllatat lafaraallaa
9. Tk* caw I t w cttay lt* tta la f yaalt (laryct
anf/ar l i t * )
C. Tktr* art i n f m i t p t f I t i f t aaf/ar lafarsatla*
w irc tt
I . Tk*ra I t aa aay I * practtf at t k li palal
t t t f t y j l 9cllvlty
PartI c rla tt a ya tn t ytriaa
Part1 crlaca ayalait praperty
PariI t criact tic r^ l fray v io la tio n
applicable I * Ikia caw
__!2. Type af tray tr Irty Arlatrf 9cll*lly

9.
9.
C.
9.
t o t a l num ber o f each l e t t e r .

ffr* t o t a l p o in ts .
C o m p le te
f
f
f
f
A 'S
B 's
C 's
D *s
_____ X
:*
22x
Ik
_
_
__
T o ta l
mautaaM
*1 if\\ /Oi.
u
3
a
i
m
m
m
IUief*ct*riay/Ci)tlvatiaa/CecaiR*/Opin
f*rtv a tlm /ll*tk aa p k tM ia*t/lla ll*c l*a y tn
6tk*r ft p n tta a lt t r Sllaalaalt
9arl)aan/Ratkitk
lo t applicable I * t b it ciw
__13.
Tk* Eipectef 9allar V a in af tk* lllt y a l 9 cllvtty I t

a Slayl* Tranaclita *kth Ik * Tarytl
9. fa treats sf 72997
9. fireattr Ikaa 1300 N t last Ikaa 02000
C. firaattr Ikaa 190 H I I t t t tkaa 1300
9. Defer 150 t r Rat applicable la I k i t caw
_ ja .
Tk* E tftc trf fo lia r V ila * t f Ik* lllt y a l Activity la

Ik illip l* TrerttKllaM with Ik * Tarytl
9. 1* t t c t t i t f 929*000
9. fr t a ltr tkaa 119,900 M l l m Ikaa 129,999
C. fr ta ttr Ikaa 11909 N t I t t t I N * 919,999
9. tfnfn 91099 t r Rat applicable '
caw
Pvtllc/Rebrasta Stale Patral Atactic* la tk* Cat*

9. Tk* piblic *af KSP k m * i | r M t * f caacara
akat Ik * U r y tl aaf a kll k t w ry plcaw t a llk
tk* vtpectef r e w lt t .
I . Tke pablic aaf/ar RS9 *111 be m y p lta u f
with Ik* ciptctcf r t w l t * f tk* eat*.
C. TI* yakllc aaf/ar CP t i l l I * fttU fle tf a it*
tk* cipvcttf r t w i t i of Ik * caw.
I . TI* y ik llc aaf/ar RSP t i l l ban l i t t l *
rta d la a la Ik * cipectcf r tw lta af tk* caw.
o
o
o
o
You
fk* P ra la ltlfty af Prawcalla*

9. 9 plea karyala cat | ew< la favlkw Ik*
tavfftlyallaa ( k t w f l l la Ik * HP)
I . Tk* ny c tU I *1 11 1* y riw c v tff a t ck*ry*f.
C. Tk* prawcvtar t i l l fa c rtn * Ik* ckary* im
baacflt I * tk* S P t
Ik * yrawcitar w ill f i w i u t r feclta* Ik*
caw.
Availability far M f lt lt n a l Aycnctn Im ilfM e a t

9. In k fore* 13 t r to r* aye**)** with i
l n i | i u M l i i f t r t * aaaaf* Ik * caul
I . Feferat a y m y /a y m ie t
C. Rfkritfea S lat* Patrol aty
I * Pallet 9*part*c*t(t) a * f/* r f t c r iff t* Offtc
Add th e
* n*
P R IO R IT Y
O F F IC E R
anm xer fo r each a r e a .

P la c e th e
b la n k to th e l e f t o f e a c h q u e a t lo n .
k t l T K f i f I t f t f M l l N S ttftt
9. P n i i M p flH l i l i r u t l H tkat r a n ltc f la
irrn ti
9. h t t l M reliable la f r u li* I t Ike peat
C. H ln f*r*a tia i la Ik* p u t
>. Pravlfef M la ftr M llM i la tk* p t
Tyy* t f Criafaal
9. K t
I.
UCX
C. get
I.
lo t
219
13.
Tk* S tftr v lw r 't E valtati** t f tk* Cat* P rtarliy la

Aelatiaaiklp la QtNr 9ctiv* Cawt la I N Trttp
Area
A. Tkit I t a**9* f* itr * * r fi* a ry } priority caw
I.
(h i! i t a *9* labav* avirtyt) priority caw
C. Tkit i t a (f favtrayt) priority caw
9. Tkit I t a T falntaalI priority caw
C h eck th e c o r r e s p o n d in g
th e s i g n - o f f b lo c );.
P r lo r i ty
(5 6 -6 0
P r io r ity
< < 1 -3 3
P r i o r 1ty
(2 6 -^ 0
Pr i o r I t y
t 1 5 -2 5
^
p ts )
B
p ts )
C
pts)
D
pts)
Ts Tg
o ff
p r io r ity
'
block
" !
(Initials)
iO ffle e r
__ _
'S u p e r v is o r
:
_
lOate
{---
- -
-- TlErr.lVCXAMPRKJRlTlZATiaN
CASE NUMBER
PRIORITIZATION DATE
CASE NAME
DATS CASE INITIATED __ ______

LAE DATE_______ CASE PRIORITY____
......
CASE OFFICER
. ...
Stlict th* hijhnt priority answsr for tsch ores. Plae# th*
corresponding letter In th blank to th* left of each question. You
Hunt irfxtr i k N qiim* Inn.
__ 1. kmiitM lafKNlin
_ 1. fafarrjli*rti
L ftayactd) iilarek**H
k. WtlWhmik Mr fmi
L Snoctlil nkicltif(ar*lIfntlftot
1. la Eifmiait kmcy
C. SnyfCtts) ifIni McriM HI M mat
C. lifamt/Dta Stmas
S. SiiMl IstorsstUs" at tppiksobleis
L Cltlu*CafUiH/NMr
Iklfcm
_L kccaicyifhfaatla fraMtrrii Sant
L fraiM Ria Miratia bitnalUf to
* f. Pallaa-a*Inks
rmtt
L Tkfffn Mftatlii IfM U a
1. PmiM railatIfManilla 1*It*Ml
tomtifitik
C. II*iFnatlM pniM 1*tH Ml
1. Cm ka illftimlfktRU.S.tat
1. fralM M lifautln I*tkMl
failltilaikeinsfllfillaa
C. THn n oNalaif lot*
_I. In*ifCria
1
.
1km ifa or toprtctaCittbitf*M
*. Saifscria Mint )w
1. Sarimcria lyintprfffrif
C. lm nrim cria
If. Pilllc/MriitiSlit*PitralriKtia toto*cm
1. Tictiilmcria
S. IH comity itsyyilirt.
1. TH cm lmirtf Icmittf*irranil flat
_1. UrqncTfirIctin
r;nw Iriliyimtailliqirpaklic
1. HiiqartiiirMiltl
Hificilckilliilkirlyirknkiciffik)
1. Palatial lm if"kytiolnitoci
C. THn iffittifiCNtcamily rnctiaa
C. Imqirti|rv*('ty
1. Littletoa rmtla toIH cm
1. IbtlficlirfirIllscm
_3. TH PraMilltyiffrincitia
1. TH HrSfKtll)fillH amato# ifcl|ll
1. IH i'ihciIkfilltama UucbwR
C. TH rriwattrfillliuniirMlia Uk
cut
1. (Maw a nt MiicAti titkitcm
_ i. Ufa ifttaatom iktCriaok IH diliil
Iimiifiiin
1. lm tkam kar
1. Sa knr I*tiikan
C. SlikariI*n kan
1. IrHtrrtkaM kan
_11. lyficy/kyfiKiifCimtily Imlnf

1. Taskfirtf(3r<n iqmiH ailkI
fniqxtt* Ink* lanuft IHcntl
1. FMml qKrTkWln k IH Stitfftltoroy
Saaril'fOffice
C. PllinHyatmttil uf/a SHriff*'Mflc*
aH/ac tHcmty iltaney
1. kitriftiSliitfiirtlaly
II. TH Say*ii*'iEnlntla*ifIHCm Malty i*
ttiiltoaklftotH ItHrkctinCam toto*Trof
km.
k. Tkiiisn *k*(*tra*kinrylyriattycm.
1. Ikififs'1*(itm mrt** Riattycm.
C. TkitisiT lanrifNFlatlycm. "
. Ikififi*1*!*ti**llFlatlycm.
_7. EtiMci
k. Can imlm tncnklf;rayaT*T
1. Cm in fnaioitikptcilrMki
C. Utnt fianni^y m tk*wlfniN*r
1. Imoifiml ari/or*iiMUO*#
Add the tot.il trurl.-r tif cacti tettrr . ClierV the rnrrrapninlInq priority
1in* for the total points. Couplet* th* slqn-off block.
Priority A
!SIGN-OFF BLOCK t
<66-68 otsl __
! (initials)
I
Nueber of As __ X A ___
Priority 9
'------ ----- '
Nuaib*r of 8*s - __X 3 ___
<32-63 pts)__
1OrTleer
___1
Number of C*s * __X 2 ___
i :
Number of D*s __ X 1 * ___ Priority C
<20-31 pts)___
1Supervisor ___
1--------- ---
Total a ___ Priority 0
<12-17 pts)
IDate ______ !
Form revised 7/01/06
APPENDIX T
R E VISED EFFECT I V E N E S S M E A S U R E
sss
CASE PROGRESSION SY STEMS EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATION FORM
Time F r a m e ________ t o _________

Directions:
Note:
Badge Number
Fill in the blanks.

Total the point column

(WT
Percentage of hours worked on proactive cases
Eaqe X Wt
X 10
____ X
8
c.
A "C" prioritization rating
X 6
d.
X A
having:
= Jotal
=______
=______
= _____
= _____
3.
Percentage of hours worked on reactive cases having:

Xaqe X Wt = Iqta 1_
X 10 =______
____ X
7 =______
X 5 = _____
X 3 = _____
3.

Services reports
1 =______

polygraph reports witha confession
from a deceptive subject
3 =

polygraph reports without a
confession from a deceptive subject ____ X
1 =

polygraph reports with a
truthful subject
3 =

polygraph reports for an
employment examination
X 1.5=

hypnosis or ident kit reports
X 1.5=
7.age X Wt = Tota_l
5.
6.
7.
8.
TOTAL
523
PART II:
Evaluation of the quality of the case

investigations. The evaluation is taken from the
final disposition of a case.
Number of cases in which:

Number X Wt = Total
1.
2.
3.
A.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Poor casework caused the prosecutor

to dismiss or declines the case
X -3 =
Poor casework led to a reduction in

charges and investigation ends
-2 =
A plea bargain is used to further the

investigation or this suspect is not
needed to continue the investigation
3=
The case was unfounded
X0.5=
The case was unresolved and adminis

tratively closed as an active case
The case is cleared by an arrest and

prosecuted as charged.
X 2.5=
A warrant is issued but the suspect(s)

whereabouts is unknown
The prosecutor dismisses or decreased
the charge at their discretion
1 =
X 2 =
X 1.5=
TOTAL
224
PART III:
Si*?jec t i''-c evaluations: to evaluate the fol lowinq

questions fill in the appropriate word (always,
usually, sometimes, rarely.or never) for the blank
space in each question.
1.
The investigator ___________ prepares their cases in a

professional, high quality manner.
S.
The investigator________
_participates in special
assignments that decreased the amount of time available
for them to work on cases.
3.
The investigator ___________ shows initiative in

uncovering potential cases.
4.
5.
6.
The investigator__________ works effectively with the

team.
The investigator __________ handles themselves in court
in a professional, knowledgeable manner.
The investigator __________ organizes their cases
to facilitate the successful closure of the case.
7.
The investigator___________ handles the crime scene

in a professional, competent manner.
8.
The investigator _________

on a timely basis.
9.
The investigators reports are ____________ thorough

and accurate.
10.
The investigator _________ delegates at appropriate

times but doesnt pass work off unnecessarily.
11.
The investigator _______ uses the resources available

and identifies the resources that could be used if
available.
12.
The investigator ________ has knowledge of the elements

of the case to complete the investigation.
13.
The investigator ________ handles search and arrest

warrants in a professional, quality manner.
14.
The investigator _______
develops informants.
15.
The investigator _______

information.
reports intelligence
completes their reports
Number of Always
= ______X 10 = ;
_____
Number of Usually
= _____ X B = ______
Number of Sometimes =
X 6 =
MUIIIUCI
U I HOI C Iy
Number of Never
TOTAL

Schuld T

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Schuld T

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

UMI

MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART

University Microfilms International

University Microfilms Internationa!

COMPARING DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM STRUCTURE TO DECISION

The University of Nebraska - Lincoln

300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106

Glossy photographs or pages_____

Colored illustrations, paper or print_______

Photographs with dark background_____

Illustrations are poor copy_______

Pages with black marks, not original copy

Print shows through as there is text on both sides of p a g e _______

Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages

Print exceeds margin requirements______

Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine_______

Computer printout pages with indistinct print_______

Page(s)____________lacking when material received, and not available from school or

Page(s)____________s~em to be missing in numbering only as text follows.

Two pages num bered

Curling and wrinkled pages______

Dissertation contains pages with print at a slant, filmed as received_________

COMPARING DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM STRUCTURE TO DECISION

A FIELD EXPERIMENT IN THE NEBRASKA

STATE PATROLS INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES DIVISION

Presented to the Faculty of

Under the Supervision of Professor Kenneth E. Kendall

Comparing Decision Support System Structure To Decision

August 22, 1986

August 22, 1986

August 22, 1986

August 22. 1986

BARBARA ANN SCHULDT

COMPARING DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM STRUCTURE TO DECISION

A FIELD EXPERIMENT IN THE NEBRASKA

STATE PATROLS INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES DIVISION

The problem this study addressed was the comparison

The comparison involved an assessment of th

decision makers effectiveness under each structure and

(2) to assess the use of a centralized

DSS with distributed reporting as an interim techniques

it did not demonstrate that a decentra 1ized

organization prefers a decentralized information system.

effectiveness by generating distributed reports in a

reliability and validity of the questionnaire was

This will improve the measure for future DSS

for evaluation of procedural changes in a criminal

And fifth, the results of this

study will assist in the Nebraska State Patrols

These results are the foundation for future

research questions and the provision of valid tools to

I would like to thank the many individuals who have

impact on my graduate work and the

completion of this study.

My sincere thanks to each of

thank him for his perspective and confidence that I would

And for providing the opportunity

that allowed me to investigate this challenging field.

Schniederjans for his support and expertise.

Morris Schneider for his insights on the small number of

Professor William Torrence for providing

knowledge and experience to aid in the completion of this

I would like to recognize those individuals, who