1. ASSESSING THE QUALITY OF CLACKAMAS COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE CHILD ABUSE TEAM SERVICES USING SERVQUAL Lieutenant Wendi Babst Portland State University 2010 EMPA Cohort

2. RESEARCH PROBLEM  How to identify the service expectations from the partner agencies who interact with Child Abuse Team members on a daily basis.  How to measure the level at which the Child Abuse Team is currently meeting the service expectations of partner agencies.

3. CLACKAMAS COUNTY CHILD ABUSE TEAM  Follow up investigation on cases involving crimes against children including but not limited to:  Sexual abuse  Physical abuse  Neglect  Computer-related crimes (Clackamas County Sheriff’s Office, 2002)

4. CLACKAMAS COUNTY CHILD ABUSE TEAM  Provide training and consultation with patrol deputies and other personnel  Participate in annual Clackamas County Child Abuse and Family Violence Summit

5. CLACKAMAS COUNTY CHILD ABUSE TEAM  2011 Statistics  Review of over 1,600 referrals from the Oregon Department of Human Services (Kollias, 2012)  Investigation of 181 criminal cases (Kollias, 2012)  Child Abuse Summit  Over 600 attendees  National and international participation

6. PARTNER AGENCIES  Partner agency personnel who regularly interact with and rely on work product from Child Abuse Team members:  Clackamas County Deputy District Attorney  Oregon State/Clackamas County Medical Examiner’s Office  Oregon Department of Human Services Child Welfare Division - split into 2 groups by location  The Children’s Center (medical assessment center)

7. LITERATURE REVIEW  Lack of any formal study of service quality for the detective division or the Child Abuse Team – annual reports detail outputs only (Clackamas County Sheriff’s Office, 2010)  2002 performance audit of entire Sheriff’s Office only examined numerical outputs and case load (Maximus, 2002)  2012 telephone survey of 400 Clackamas County residents:  31% were very satisfied with Clackamas County’s performance in providing public safety services  38% were somewhat satisfied (DHM Research, 2012)

8. LITERATURE REVIEW  Service quality is a central and growing concern for U.S. businesses and government agencies (Zeithaml, Parasuraman, & Berry, 1990)  Evidence-based practices in policing allow for systemic feedback which can be applied to continuous quality improvement planning (Sherman, 1998)  Public agency funding opportunities often tied to evidence-based practice assessment of programs (US Department of Justice, 1999, Mears & Bacon, 2009)

9. LITERATURE REVIEW  Service quality – based on the expectations of the customer differs from satisfaction which is based on the expectations of the provider (Parasuraman et. al, 1988; Wisniewski & Donnelly, 1996; Bland, 1997)  Service gap analysis has been used by private sector service providers for many years – valid and reliable (Parasuraman, et. al, 1988)  Gap analysis used to measure public sector entities in UK (Bland, 1997; Donnelly, Kerr, Rimmer & Shiu, 2006)  Gap analysis offers a method to identify customer priorities and service failures in order to prioritize perceived problems and take remedial action to close service gaps (Bland, 1997)

10. SERVQUAL  Developed by Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry in 1980s and refined over the 1990s (Parasuraman et. al, 1988; Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L., 1991)  Studied focus groups to identify key dimensions of service quality – identified ten evaluative dimensions and consolidated into five dimensions of service quality (Zeithaml et. al, 1990)  Developed customer surveys and conducted studies involving a broad range of service providers (Zeithaml et. al, 1990)

11. SERVQUAL CUSTOMER PERCEPTION TOOL  Examines service quality through the use of a Likert scale questionnaire that measures the following dimension of service quality:  Tangibles – physical facilities, equipment, personnel appearance, communication material  Reliability – the ability toe perform the service dependably and accurately  Responsiveness – the willingness to provide the appropriate service and respond to requests for assistance  Assurance – the knowledge of employees, courtesy of employees, and the ability of employee to inspire trust and confidence  Empathy – the caring, individualized attention provided to the customer (Parasuraman et. al, 1988, Zeithaml et. al, 1990, Parasuraman et. al, 1991)

12. SERVQUAL CUSTOMER PERCEPTION TOOL  Likert scale numerical score for 22 statements used to assess customer expectations and 22 statements used to assess perceptions for reliability:  Expectation - An excellent Child Abuse Team will provide their services at the time they promise to.  Perception -The Clackamas County Sheriff’s Office Child Abuse Team provides its services at the time it promises to.  Numerical gap score (Q) derived by subtracting the expectation score from the perception score P – E = Q (Zeithaml et. al, 1990)

13. SERVQUAL CUSTOMER PERCEPTION TOOL  Survey respondents were also asked to assign a numerical score (number of points out of a total of 100) to 5 general statements, each representing one of the five dimensions of service quality  Numerical score identified the relative importance of each of the dimensions which was used to generate weighted service gap scores (Parasuraman, et. al, 1988; Zeithaml et. al, 1990; Parasuraman et al, 1991)

14. DATA COLLECTION  Online survey method using the SurveyMonkey™ web-based questionnaire and survey software program  Survey distributed to approximately 70 respondents by email  62 started the survey  59 completed the survey  56 final surveys were reviewed based on additional criteria

15. OVERALL PERCEPTION Strongly Agree Neither Agree or Disagree Strongly Disagree Acceptable 5.6

16. PERCEPTION AVERAGE BY AGENCY Strongly Agree Neither Agree or Disagree Strongly Disagree Acceptable 5.6

17. OVERALL DIMENSION WEIGHTS

18. DIMENSIONS BY AGENCY

19. OVERALL SERVICE GAP SCORES

20. TANGIBILITY GAP BY AGENCY

21. RELIABILITY GAP BY AGENCY

22. RESPONSIVENESS GAP BY AGENCY

23. ASSURANCE GAP BY AGENCY

24. EMPATHY GAP BY AGENCY

25. CONCLUSIONS  Overall satisfaction level is below average for all dimensions  Largest weighted service gap in the reliability dimension  Reliability is the most important feature for all partners  Importance of five features fairly consistent between disciplines  Large disparity in scores between partner agencies

26. LEADERSHIP IMPLICATIONS  More qualitative data is needed to further identify the areas where service quality is lacking focusing on the areas of most importance to partner agencies – reliability, responsiveness and assurance  Leader needs to engage in coalition building with partner agencies and include them in setting policy for change  Results of the survey help to “establish a sense of urgency” to begin the process of change (Kotter, 1996)

27. RESOURCES Bland, N. (1997). Measuring public expectations of policing: an evaluation of gap analysis. London, UK: Great Britain Home Office, Policing and Reducing Crime Unit. Clackamas County Sheriff’s Office. (2002). Clackamas County Sheriff’s Office manual of rules and regulations. Oregon City, OR: Clackamas County Printing. Clackamas County Sheriff’s Office. (2010). Clackamas County Sheriff’s Office Annual Crime Report 2010. Clackamas, OR: Clackamas County Sheriff’s Office.

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

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

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