PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE - DPRM Website - Home€¦ · · 2017-06-23An essential element of...

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE

PNPM-DPL-DS-5-1-03

POLICE COMMISSIONED OFFICER

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATING (PCOPER) SYSTEM

Directorate for Plans PCOPER Committee:

POLICE DIRECTOR HERCULES G CATALUÑA

POLICE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT LIBRADO B MATIBAG

POLICE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT LUIZO C TICMAN

POLICE SUPERINTENDENT JACINTO C DIÑO

POLICE SUPERINTENDENT LESTER O CAMBA

POLICE SUPERINTENDENT ALLEN B FORTES

POLICE SUPERINTENDENT NOEL A BARACEROS

POLICE SUPERINTENDENT RAMON O PURUGGANAN

POLICE SUPERINTENDENT ROEL B OBUSAN

POLICE CHIEF INSPECTOR ROMMEL FRANCISCO O MARBIL

POLICE SENIOR INSPECTOR RADEL DL RAMOS

POLICE SENIOR INSPECTOR ERCY NANETTE M TOMAS

PO1 Lilibeth L Elefanio

NUP Cynthia S Rosales

NUP Ester R Galvez

NUP Ma. Fe J Chan

NUP Ma. Luz M Megino

NUP Christy L Lingan

NUP Lemuel A Divinagracia

NUP Nhelbie S Foncardas

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword iii

Preface Iv CHAPTER I:

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background 1 1.2 General Policy 1 1.3 Purpose 2 1.4 Scope 2 CHAPTER 2:

POLICE COMMISSIONED OFFICER PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATING (PCOPER) SYSTEM

2.1 Description of the PNCOPER System 3 2.2 Five Levels in the Rating Scale 3 2.3 Three Major Parts of the PCOPER 4 2.4 Mechanics of Implementation of the PCOPER

System 4

2.5 Completion and Submission of the PCOPER Report

6

CHAPTER 3:

GUIDELINES ON RATING, REVIEWING AND TRANSMITTING THE

PCOPER REPORT

3.1 Duties and Responsibilities of the Rater, Ratee, Reviewer

and Admin PCO

7

3.1.1 Duties and Responsibilities of Rater 7 3.1.2 Duties and Responsibilities of Ratee 7 3.1.3 Duties and Responsibilities of

Reviewer 8

3.1.4 Duties and Responsibilities of Admin PCO

8

3.2 Rater/Reviewer Designation 9

3.2.1 Directorial Staff 9 3.2.2 Regional Offices/Units 10 3.2.3 National Support Units 11 3.3 Resolution of Conflict in the Designation of the Rater and

Reviewer 12

CHAPTER 4:

OFFICE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PCOPER REPORT AND PROPAGATION AND APPLICATION OF THE PCOPER SYSTEM

4.1 4.2

Performance Evaluation Section (PES) Propagation and Application of the PCOPER System

4.2

4.1 4.2

CHAPTER 5:

CREATION OF GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE 5.1 Grievance Committees

14

CHAPTER 6:

ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTIONS

6.1 Administrative Sanctions 16 Annexes “A” “B” “C”

Instructions on How to Accomplish the Police Non-Commissioned Officer Performance Evaluation Rating Forms (PNCOPER) 3A & 3B For SPO3 to SPO4 (Third Level) Instructions on How to Accomplish the Police Non-Commissioned Officer Performance Evaluation Rating Forms (PNCOPER) 2A & 2B For SPO1 to SPO2 (Second Level) Instructions on How to Accomplish the Police Non-Commissioned Officer Performance Evaluation Rating Forms (PNCOPER) 1A & 1B For PO1 to PO3 (First Level)

17 34 51

References

Republic of the Philippines Department of the Interior and Local Government

National Police Commission NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE

Office of the Chief, PNP

FOREWORD

An essential element of “O.N.E.” Philippine National Police is its human

resource. For the PNP to become an efficient and effective organization, it must consist of personnel that “talk less” and deliver more.

To attain our goal, we shall implement a new standard of performance

evaluation that is open, explicit and development-focused. It will be a basis for a policeman’s retention or relief, promotion and assignment or attrition.

The Police Commissioned Officer Performance Evaluation Rating System

(PCOPER) presented in this manual addresses the weaknesses of the old PNP Performance Evaluation System (PNPPES) otherwise known as individual performance evaluation system, where overall effectiveness is measured in terms of the traditional policing of crime fighting. This time, we will measure individual competence and behavioral dimensions that contribute to the accomplishment of the PNP’s Vision, Mission and Goals.

Let this manual be the policeman’s guide to better performance. Let me

emphasize, there is no room for non-performers in the Philippine National Police.

Republic of the Philippines

Department of the Interior and Local Government National Headquarters, Philippine National Police

DIRECTORATE FOR PLANS Camp Crame, Quezon City

PREFACE

It has been a formidable challenge for the personnel of the Directorate for

Plans to come up and flesh out the details in this Police Commissioned Officer Performance Evaluation Rating (PCOPER) System Manual. Consistent with the C, PNP’s O.N.E. PNP Action Plan, the System is a major refinement of the old individual performance evaluation system.

As differentiated from the old system, the PCOPER system covers the

totality of the true nature of police service as performed/delivered by a Police Commissioned Officer. The performance of the PCO in the new system will be measured in terms of these dimensions: Output; Core Competencies on job knowledge, supervisory control, people management, and organizational responsiveness; and Personal Qualities. Each dimension is divided into several performance indicators that would help pinpoint the strong or weak areas that a PCO needs to enhance or improve on. His/Her rating becomes a basis for his/her assignment, retention or relief, promotion, and attrition from the service.

With the PCOPER System, it is hoped that the PNP will be able to

truly recognize and reward those who perform well and get rid of the “A-B-K-D Pulis”, in particular and insulate the organization from external interference, in general.

1.1 Background

1.1.1 Republic Act 6975, otherwise known as “The Department of the Interior and Local Government Act of 1990, as amended” provides for the establishment of a Performance Evaluation System which shall be administered in accordance with the rules, regulations and standards, and a code of conduct promulgated by the National Police Commission for members of the Philippine National Police (PNP).

1.1.2 In line with this provision, the National Police Commission issued

Memorandum Circular No. 92-012, entitled “PNP Performance Evaluation System (PNPPES),” otherwise known as individual performance evaluation system on November 13, 1992 to implement an evaluation system for the improvement of individual efficiency, discipline and organizational effectiveness. On Sept. 23, 1993, NAPOLCOM issued Memorandum Circular No. 93-019 amending Memorandum Circular No. 92-012, prescribing the use of five-point rating scale in compliance to the Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 12, series of 1993.

1.1.3 Analysis of the individual performance evaluation system shows that it

is output-oriented and basically related to the traditional model of policing where the overall effectiveness is measured in terms of crime fighting. Moreover, the parameters being used are not development–focused as called for in the community oriented policing model.

1.1.4 The Police Commissioned Officer Performance Evaluation Rating

(PCOPER) System addresses the above concerns in order to better assess and measure individual efficiency, effectiveness, competence and behavioral or personal dimensions. Also, it identifies strong and weak points of PCOs and the areas for development.

1.2 General Policy The PCOPER System shall be made an integral part of the Human Resource Development Program of the PNP. It is designed to suit its unique functions of quantifying performance given the nature of police work and the frequency of rotation in job assignments. It shall be in accordance with the following policies:

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

a. The PCO shall be apprised of what are expected of him as well as his rights under the System and shall be kept informed of how well he is performing;

b. The PCO’s immediate supervisor shall be cognizant of weaknesses and

deficiencies of his subordinates and provide the opportunity to remedy the same;

c. Appropriate recognition of a job well done which contributed to the overall

effectiveness and efficiency of the organization must be extended to the PCO concerned;

d. A continuing record of PCO’s performance rating shall be kept as part of his

personal file; and e. Continuing education and information shall be provided to ensure effective

implementation of the System.

1.3 Purpose

Consistent with the general policy, the aim of this PCOPER System is to attain the following objectives:

a. To foster the improvement of individual efficiency, work ethics and behavioral discipline of the PCOs;

b. To provide a basis for professional growth and to determine those

who possess outstanding abilities for conferment of greater responsibility or higher position;

c. To identify specific areas of individual weaknesses with a view towards

improvement and to motivate the personnel in working to the fullest; and

d. To provide an impartial evaluation of PCOs who appear unable to meet the standards and should therefore be considered for attrition from the service.

1.4. Scope

The Police Commissioned Officer Performance Evaluation Rating (PCOPER) System shall apply to all PCOs of the PNP. It shall be used to assess the performance of a PCO in terms of his contribution to the attainment of the PNP Mission and Vision, his skills and competencies and attitude towards work. The PCOPER shall be a requirement and parameter for promotion, assignment/ designation and attrition from the service.

2.1 Description of the PCOPER System

2.1.1 The Police Commissioned Officer Performance Evaluation Rating System prescribes the procedures for evaluating the performance of individual PCOs based on his rank. The PCOPER shall be grouped in three (3) categories: (a) Senior Superintendent Up (Third Level); (b) Chief Inspector to Superintendent (Second Level); and (c) Inspector to Senior Inspector (First Level). Depending on the rank of the ratee, the rater shall use the appropriate form for the performance evaluation.

2.1.2 Rating shall be done/accomplished by the immediate supervisor

(RATER) of the individual to be rated (RATEE), and reviewed by the next higher supervisor of the ratee.

2.1.3 Rating of the individual performance shall be undertaken every six (6)

months. Evaluation report covering the period January to June shall be submitted within the first twenty (20) working days of July, while for the period July to December shall be submitted within the first twenty (20) working days of January of the succeeding year.

2.2 Five (5) Levels in the Rating Scale The five (5) levels in the rating scale in the performance evaluation shall be

the following: 2.2.1 Outstanding (OS) – Achieved exceptional performance clearly higher

than competent peers. Exceeded all or most objectives and added value beyond the scope of the normal job.

2.2.2 Very Satisfactory (VS) – Achieved completely all aspects of most

objectives of the normal job and even exceeded in some areas. Consistently demonstrated competency.

2.2.3 Satisfactory (SF) – Achieved the essential requirements and minimum

expectations. Usually demonstrated competency.

CHAPTER 2

POLICE COMMISSIONED OFFICER

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATING (PCOPER) SYSTEM

2.2.4 Poor (PR) – Fell short of expectations and still needs improvement. Demonstrated little competency and needs skills/capability upgrading.

2.2.5 Very Poor (VP) – Did not achieve minimum expectations and needs major improvement. Demonstrated very little or no competence at all.

2.3 Three Major Parts of the PCOPER The PCO performance evaluation rating shall consist of three (3) major parts,

divided into several dimensions and indicators, as follows: 2.3.1 PART I. OUTPUT – this includes the quantity, quality, and timeliness of

work done vis-à-vis the required target output. 2.3.2 PART II. CORE COMPETENCIES – this refers to the core

competencies which are basic and essential in order to efficiently and effectively deliver required services. This aspect includes the following:

a. Job Knowledge b. Supervisory Control

c. People Management d. Organizational Responsiveness

2.3.3 PART III. PERSONAL QUALITIES – this refers to personal characteristics which enhance or adversely affect individual performance.

2.3.4 RATER’S ASSESSMENT OF RATEE – this refers to the overall

assessment of PCO based on his performance evaluation rating whether or not he/she can be recommended for promotion, designated to higher position or relieved from his/her position.

2.3.5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT/COMMENTS – this contains the

signatures/comments of the rater, ratee and reviewer to attest to the objective conduct of performance evaluation of the ratee.

2.4 Mechanics of Implementation of the PCOPER System

The PCO performance evaluation rating shall be conducted by the immediate supervisor (rater) to his/her subordinates (ratee) every six (6) months covering the period from January to June and from July to December. It shall be submitted to PES, PPD, DPRM within twenty (20) working days after the rating period. The rater shall observe the following in the performance evaluation of PCOs:

a. In the event that a PCO would be transferred or detailed to another

Office/Unit or there would be change in position/designation due to job rotation or promotion in the middle of the rating period, the immediate Supervisor (old unit)

should make a performance evaluation of the PCO for the lapsed period and should furnish a copy to the immediate supervisor of the receiving unit who would attach it to his/her evaluation of the said officer at the end of the rating period. The same shall be applied for any movement of PCO within the same Office/Unit.

b. PCOs who are on official study leave shall not be rated during his leave of

absence. However, he/she must secure his/her rating prior to leave. On the other hand, PCOs on service schooling must submit, together with his/her academic grades in school, his last performance evaluation rating to the new unit/office upon completion of schooling or training.

c. PCOs who are on secondment status shall secure their latest

performance evaluation rating prior to secondment and submit it to his/her new Office/Unit upon return, including a copy of his performance rating on secondment.

d. PCOs who are on non-duty status; meaning those who do not hold any duty designation or position during the rating period shall not be rated. Failure to acquire rating for four (4) consecutive rating periods or a rating of Poor (PR) or Very Poor (VR) for six cumulative ratings shall be a ground for attrition.

PES, PPD, ODPRM

PRO Admin PCO

D-Staff Admin PCO

NSUs Hqs Admin PCO

PPO/CPO/ RMG

Admin PCO

D-

Staff

RAT

EE

NATI

ONA

L

SUPP

ORT

UNIT Admin PCO

MPS/CPS/ PMG

Admin PCO

MPS/CPS/ PMG

RATEE

NSUs (Regional/ Provincial/

City) Admin PCO

2.5 Completion and Submission of PCOPER Report

The PCO performance evaluation rating report shall be accomplished by the

rater in three (3) to five (5) copies, depending on the assignment of the ratee. The PCOs concerned shall observe the flow of submission of the PCOPER Report as illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Flow of Submission of the PCOPER Report

3.1 Duties and Responsibilities of the Rater, Ratee,

Reviewer and Admin PCO

3.1.1 Duties and Responsibilities of Rater

a. For the purpose of evaluation, the immediate supervisor has the responsibility of rating his/her subordinates. The rater should be able to rate his/her subordinates within ten (10) working days after the rating period. He should bear in mind that the PCOPER is a documentary evidence in which comments and observations should be properly recorded and attested. It shall be the rater’s responsibility also to ensure that the duly accomplished and signed rating form is transmitted by the Admin PCO to the ratee for his/her concurrence and signature within the same ten (10) working day period . The rater thru his/her Admin PCO shall take note of the date and time the ratee receives his/her rating report.

b. When the rater gives extreme rating (highest or lowest), he/she shall support/justify his/her rating of his/her subordinates by citing significant/critical incidents in the space provided in the PCOPER worksheet. The significant/critical incidents are situations or incidents that the ratee manifested during the rating period that have a bearing in the performance of his/her duties.

3.1.2. Duties and Responsibilities of Ratee

a. The ratee, who conforms with his/her supervisor’s or rater’s

evaluation of his/her performance, shall affix his/her signature and the date on his/her rating report within two (2) working days from receipt or tender of the rating . During the said period, he/she shall forward his/her rating report to the reviewer who in turn, shall transmit the same to the Admin Officer. Once signed, the ratee shall keep an authenticated copy of his/her rating report for the period.

b. A ratee who disagrees with the rater must submit a written

request for a review of rating to the reviewer, copy furnished the rater, not later than five (5) days from receipt or tender of the rating. In this case, the twenty-day working period within which to observe the submission of the performance rating report to DPRM shall not apply. In his/her request for review, the ratee must include the following:

CHAPTER 3

GUIDELINES ON RATING, REVIEWING AND TRANSMITTING THE PCOPER REPORT

1. Copy of the PCOPER report; and

2. List of performance factor ratings that are in dispute and written explanation why he/she deserves a different rating.

c. If the disagreement stands after the clarificatory meeting called

by the reviewer, the ratee must appeal within five (5) days, after the meeting, copy furnished the rater and reviewer, to the Grievance Committee who shall review, re-evaluate and resolve the case within thirty (30) days upon receipt of the request. Otherwise, the rating becomes final. The request for appeal must include the same requirements earlier mentioned.

3.1.3. Duties and Responsibilities of Reviewer

a. It shall be the duty of the Reviewing Officer to peruse and attest the rater’s evaluation of the ratee within eight (8) working days after receipt or tender of the rating. The reviewer shall insure also that the PCOPER is duly accomplished and signed by the rater and ratee. Subsequently, he/she shall transmit the rating report to the Admin PCO within the same eight (8) working days after receipt of the rating.

b. In case the ratee requests for a review of his performance rating, the reviewer should schedule or arrange a meeting with the rater or supervisor and the ratee to discuss and clarify the report not later than five (5) days from receipt of the request.

3.1.4. Duties and Responsibilities of Admin PCO

a. The Admin PCO shall strictly observe the transmittal of the PCOPER within the first twenty (20) working days of January/July as required. For official documentation, he/she shall keep the received copy of transmittal to the ratee and reviewer.

b. Within eight (8) working days, the Admin PCO in the PRO shall consolidate and encode all the rating summary reports of the PCOPER in the diskette. For easy access, retrieval and fast processing, he/she may unload the PCOPER and rating summary forms in the PNP website or e-mail address. Also, the Admin PCO shall submit to the Performance Evaluation Section, Personnel Plans and Policies (PES, PPD), DPRM the diskette containing only the rating summary reports and the original hardcopy of the same, bearing the signatures of the rater, ratee and reviewer.

c. In addition, the Admin PCO in the PRO/NSU shall maintain the original copy of the PCOPER and the diskette. He/she shall provide an authenticated copy of the rating summary report and the PCOPER to the

RATER REVIEWER

TCDS

*PC

Os in

the

Divis

ion

D-STAFF

DEP

EX-O

DIVISION CHIEFS

TDCO

TCDS

D-STAFF

DEP

EX-O

ratee and to the Office/Unit, particularly to the Personnel Division in the PPO/CPO/RMG or MPS/CPS/PMG where the ratee is assigned.

3.2 Rater/Reviewer Designation 3.2.1 Directorial Staff At the National Headquarters, PCOs in the Division shall be rated by

their Division Chief with their EX-O as reviewer. The Division Chiefs shall be rated by their EX-O with their Deputy Director as reviewer. The EX-O shall be rated by the Deputy Director with the Director as reviewer. The Deputy Director shall be rated by the Director with TCDS as reviewer. The Directors of the D- Staff shall be rated by TCDS and with TDCO as reviewer. Figure 2 shows the rater/reviewer designation

Figure 2. Rater/Reviewer Designation in the D-Staff

3.2.2 Regional Offices/Units

*See paragraph no. 3.3 of this Chapter.

PCOs in the Police Stations shall be rated by their respective Deputy Chief of Police with their Chief of Police as reviewer. The Deputy Chief of Police shall be rated by their Chief of Police with their Deputy Provincial Director/City Director as reviewer. The Chiefs of Police and PCOs in the Provincial HQs /City Police Office/RMG shall be rated by their Deputy Provincial/City/RMG Director with their Provincial/City/RMG Director as reviewer. The Deputy Provincial/City/RMG Director shall be rated by their Provincial/City/RMG Director with their CRDS as reviewer. The Provincial/City/RMG Director and the Regional Staff shall be rated by their CRDS with their DRDO as reviewer. All other PCOs in the Regional Headquarters shall be rated by their respective Regional Staff Officer with their CRDS as reviewer. CRDS shall be rated by the DRDO with the DRDA as reviewer. DRDO shall be rated by the DRDA with the RD as reviewer. DRDA shall be rated by the RD with TCDS as reviewer. The RD shall be rated by TCDS with TDCO as reviewer.

Figure 3. Rater/reviewer Designation in the Regional Offices/Units

3.2.3 National Support Units

RATER REVIEWER

TDCO

TCDS

TCDS

RD

DRDA

R-STAFF

DRDO

DEP PD

PPO -STAFF

COP

PD

DEP PD

PPO HQ *PCOs

RD

DRDA

RCDS

RHQ *PCOs

PD

Dep COP COP

PS *PCOs

CRDS D RD

*See paragraph no. 3.3 of this Chapter .

Rater Reviewer

D-Staff Supervisor

NSU DIRECTOR

DEP

CDS

RO

PO

*Line PCOs

NSU STAFF

NSUHQ

Officers

RO

TCDS

D-Staff Supervisor

DEP

CDS

DIRECTOR

3.2.3.1 At the NSUs, the line PCOs shall be rated by their Provincial Officer (PO) with their Regional Officer (RO) as reviewer. The POs shall be rated by their RO with their Chief of Staff as reviewer. The ROs shall be rated by their Chief of Staff with their Deputy Director as reviewer. *The PCOs at the NSUHQ shall be rated by their respective Unit Staff with their Deputy Director/Chief of Staff as reviewer. The NSU Staff shall be rated by the Deputy Director/Chief of Staff with their Director as reviewer. The Chief of Staff shall be rated by the Deputy Director with the Director as reviewer. The Deputy Director shall be rated by the Director with the concerned D-Staff Supervisor (depending on one’s functional group) as the reviewer. The NSU Director shall be rated by the concerned D-Staff Supervisor with TCDS as reviewer.

Figure 4. Rater/Reviewer Designation in the NSUs

3.3 Resolution of Conflict in the Designation of the Rater and Reviewer

In case conflict arises in the designation of the rater and reviewer, the PNP Chain of Command shall at all times be observed. Thus, the hierarchical structure of the Office/Unit shall be the deciding factor in the resolution of conflict. In this case, the rater shall be the immediate supervisor or PCO who has the immediate supervision over his subordinate or ratee in the hierarchical structure of the Office or Unit. The reviewer, on the other hand, shall be the next higher supervisor of the ratee.

4.1 Performance Evaluation Section (PES)

4.1.1 The PES shall be responsible in receiving, maintaining and updating the records of the PCOs on their performance evaluation rating. It shall receive and check the diskette containing the rating summary sheets and the original hardcopy of the same, bearing the signatures of the rater, ratee and reviewer of the PCOs in the different Offices/Units. In case of discrepancy between the hardcopy and the diskette, the hardcopy shall prevail. 4.1.2 The PES shall also initiate in providing copies of the PCOPER Report, particularly those who are due for promotion, assignment/designation and attrition from the service, to the Placement and Promotion Board and Attrition Board.

4.2 Propagation and Application of the PCOPER System.

All PCOs shall fully abide by and willfully promote adherence to the PCOPER

System as this shall be used in a highly objective assessment of individual performance that contributes to the attainment of PNP Mission and Vision. The PCOPER shall be a basis in the assignment or reassignment, promotion or attrition, and training or skills enhancement of personnel.

CHAPTER 4

OFFICE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PCOPER REPORT

AND

PROPAGATION AND APPLICATION OF THE PCOPER

SYSTEM

5.1 Grievance Committees 5.1.1. There shall be four (4) Grievance Committees, such as: 1.) National Grievance Committee; 2.) NCR Grievance Committee; 3.) Regional Grievance Committee; and, 4.) Provincial Grievance Committee. The Grievance Committees shall review, evaluate and render a final decision on the appeal filed by the ratee within thirty (30) days from receipt of the appeal. In no case, the rater and reviewer be designated as members of the Grievance Committees. The decision of the Committees shall be final and executory.

5.1.2. The composition of each Committee shall be the following:

a. National Grievance Committees (NGC) – shall be composed of five (5) different levels to act on the appeals of the PCOs in the different Offices/Units in the National Headquarters, such as:

1. National Grievance Committee A (NGC A) - shall be

composed of TDCA and Directors of the D-Staff to act on the appeals of other Directors of D-Staff/NSUs and PRO Command Group.

2. National Grievance Committee B (NGC B) - shall be

composed of TDCO and Deputies of the D-Staff to act on the appeals of other Deputies of the D-Staff/NSUs.

3. National Grievance Committee C (NGC C) – shall be composed of TCDS, SDS and EX-Os of the D-Staff to act on the appeals of the EX-Os of other D-Staff/NSUs.

4. National Grievance Committee D (NGC D) – shall be composed of the Director of the D-Staff or NSU (depending on who files the appeal) and SDS to act on the appeals of the Division Chiefs of the D-Staff or NSUs.

5. National Grievance Committee E (NGC E) – shall be composed of the Deputy Director of the D-Staff or NSUs (depending on who files the appeal) to act on the appeals of other PCOs in the D-Staff or NSUs.

CHAPTER 5

CREATION OF GRIEVANCE COMMITTEES

b. NCR Grievance Committees ( NCRGC) - shall have two (2)

levels, such as:

1. NCR Grievance Committee A (NCRGC A) - shall be composed of RD, DRDA and members of the D-Staff of NCRPO to act the appeals of the Command Group in the District Offices.

2. NCR Grievance Committee B (NCRGC B)- shall be composed of the NCRPO CRDS, members of the Regional Staff, District Director to act on the appeals of the line and staff PCOs in the NCRPO.

. c. Regional Grievance Committees (RGC) – shall have two levels, such as:

1. Regional Grievance Committee A (RGC A) – shall be composed of RD and DRDA to act on the appeals of the PRO staff.

2. Regional Grievance Committee B (RGC B) –shall be composed of DRDA and three (3) Regional Staff to act on the appeals of Director, PPO, CPO and RMG and other line PCOs in the PRO. DRDO and the same three (3) Regional Staff above shall act on the appeals of Deputy PD/CPO/RMG and PCOs Staff in the PPO, CPO and RMG.

3. Regional Grievance Committee C (RGC C) – shall be composed of Chief Regional Directorial Staff and three PRO staff to act on the appeals of the COP, Precinct/City Commander/Director. DRDO and same (3) PRO staff shall act on the appeals PCOs in the PPO, CPO and RMG excluding PPO, CPO and RMG staff.

d. Provincial Grievance Committees (PGC) - shall have two levels,

such as:

1. Provincial Grievance Committee A (PGC A) – shall be composed of the Provincial Director and the two other staff. It shall act on the appeals of the Deputy COP, Deputy Precinct/City Commander/Director. The same shall apply to PMG.

2. Provincial Grievance Committee B (PGC B) - shall be composed of the Deputy Provincial Director and two Provincial Staff. It shall act on the appeals of PCOs lower than the Deputy COP, Deputy Precinct/City Commander/Director. The same shall apply to PMG.

6.1 Administrative Sanctions

6.1.1 Failure of the rater, ratee, reviewer and Admin PCO to accomplish, sign and transmit the PCOPER within the period required from each one of them resulting in its non-submission to PES, PPD, ODPRM within twenty (20) workings days after the rating period is a ground for an administrative case for simple neglect of duty, and if found guilty, shall be a cause for :

a. relief from his present position;

b. disqualification for training or scholarship grants; c. forfeiture of productivity incentive bonus for one year; and d. other penalties as provided for under PNP Manual on Summary

Proceedings.

6.1.2 Procedure for filing of complaints and imposing administrative sanctions shall be in accordance with the rules and regulations promulgated by the PNP and NAPOLCOM.

CHAPTER 6

ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTIONS

ANNEXES

INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO ACCOMPLISH THE POLICE COMMISSIONED OFFICER

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATING FORMS (PCOPERF) 3A & 3B

FOR SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT UP (THIRD LEVEL)

This Police Officer Performance Evaluation Rating form has three (3) major

parts, namely: Part I. Output; Part II. Core Competencies; and Part III. Personal Qualities. Parts I and II are divided into dimensions and indicators. Part III is a checklist of PCO’s personal qualities.

Using the PCOPERF 3A or the rating summary form as guide, read carefully the dimensions and their respective indicators. For Parts I and II, rate the PCO by placing in the box/blank space provided in the PCOPERF 3B or worksheet the numerical rating for every performance indicator. On the space provided, please cite the significant/critical incident/s to support extreme rating (highest or lowest) on a specific performance indicator. For Part III, check in the box the trait(s) exhibited by the PCO.

All ratings should be reflected/recorded in the PCOPERF 3A. Other items in

this form should be properly accomplished/filled out . After rating the PCO in the PCOPERF 3B, please multiply the point allocation by the numerical rating for every performance indicator to get the weighted score. To get the numerical performance rating (NPR), add the weighted scores to get the total weighted score (TWS) and divide the sum by 5.

To translate the numerical performance rating (NPR) to its equivalent

adjectival performance rating (APR), please be guided of the conversion table below .

Conversion Table for Numerical Performance Rating (NPR) to Adjectival Performance Rating (APR)

NPR APR

91 - 100 Outstanding (OS) – Achieved exceptional performance clearly higher than competent peers. Exceeded all or most objectives and added value beyond the scope of the normal job.

81 – 90.99 Very Satisfactory (VS) – Achieved completely all aspects of most objectives of the normal job and even exceeded in some areas. Consistently demonstrated competency.

71 – 80.99 Satisfactory(SF) – Achieved the essential requirements and attained minimum expectations. Usually demonstrated competency.

70.99 - below Poor (PR) – Fell short of expectations and still needs improvement. Demonstrated little competency and needs skills/capability upgrading.

POLICE COMMISSIONED OFFICER PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT FOR SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT UP (THIRD LEVEL) Rating Period: ________________________________

Annex “A”

PCOPERF 3A (Rating Summary) Form)

Acknowledged: Conformed: Attested:

RATER RATEE REVIEWER

(IF REFERRED TO THE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE)

I certify that this report was referred to the Grievance Committee for review and evaluation.

______________________________ Signature Head, Grievance Committee

1. Ratee’s Name

(Last Name) (Given Name) (Middle Name)

2. Rank

3. Position/Designation

4. Unit Assignment/Station/District

5. Years and Months in Current Position:

PARTS DIMENSIONS PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Point

Allocation

Numerical Rating

Weighted Score

I. Output (25 pts)

a. Quality of work 9.0 x =

b. Timeliness of work 9.0 x =

c. Quantity of work 7.0 x =

II.

C

O

R

E

C

O

M

P

E

T

E

N

C

I

E

S

Job Knowledge

(25 pts)

a. Decision-making 4.0 x =

b. Planning 3.0 x =

c. Implementation of Instructions 3.0 x =

d. Creativity/Resourcefulness 2.0 x =

e. Analytical Ability 3.0 x =

f. Problem Solving/Troubleshooting 3.0 x =

g. Oral and Written Communication 3.0 x =

h. Community Oriented Policing 2.0 x =

i. Law Enforcement and Maintenance of Law and Order 2.0 x =

Supervisory Control

(20 pts)

a. Control of Activities 4.0 x =

b. Cost Control 3.0 x =

c. Records Mgmt and Submission of Reports 3.0 x =

d. Compliance with and Implementation of Policies/SOPs 3.0 x =

e. Sense of Priority 3.0 x =

f. Client Satisfaction/Orientation 2.0 x =

g. Involvement/Presence in Activities 2.0 x =

People Management (10 pts)

a. Motivation 2.0 x =

b. Workgroup Management 2.0 x =

c. Work Organization/Delegation 2.0 x =

d. Interpersonal Relations 2.0 x =

e. Promoting Personnel Development 1.0 x =

f. Training of Subordinates 1.0

Organizational Responsiveness

(10 pts)

a. Housekeeping and Safety/Security Consciousness 3.0 x =

b. Preservation of Unit Properties/Interests 3.0 x =

c. Coordination 4.0 x =

III. Personal Qualities

(10 pts)

Personal Trait Personal Trait

10.0 x

=

Morally Upright Fair & Just

Honest Civic-minded

Loyal to the Organization Well-groomed

Initiates Positive Action(s)

Responsible

Dedicated to Service Courteous/Tactful

Nr of Traits with Check Marks

TOTAL WEIGHTED SCORE (TWS)

NUMERICAL PERFORMANCE RATING (NPR) = TWS ÷ 5

EQUIVALENT ADJECTIVAL PERFORMANCE RATING (APR) (Please refer to NPR-APR Table)

Rater’s Assessment of Ratee: I certify that this report represents my best judgment. [ ] I DO [ ] I DO NOT recommend this personnel be granted (a) promotion (b) designation to higher position (c) relief.

This personnel needs improvement on the following:

Significant/Critical Incident(s)

Rating Table for Performance Indicators Rating Table for Personal Traits

(NOTE: Refer to This Table for Parts I and II) (NOTE: Refer to This Table for

Part III)

NPR-APR Table

(NOTE: Refer to This Table to get the Equivalent APR)

(Extra Space for Significant/Critical Incidents)

Numerical Rating Rating Criteria

5 Exceeds standards

4 Always meets standards

3 Occasionally meets standards

2 Seldom meets standards

1 Never meets standards

Numerical Rating

Number of Traits

5 Nine (9) to Ten (10)

4 Seven (7) to Eight (8)

3 Five (5) to Six (6)

2 Three (3) to Four (4)

1 Two (2) or less

Numerical Performance Rating

(NPR)

Adjectival Performance Rating

(APR)

91 – 100 Outstanding (OS)

81 – 90.99 Very Satisfactory (VS)

71 – 80.99 Satisfactory (SF)

70.99 - below Poor (PR)

PCOPERF 3B (WORKSHEET)

Part I . OUTPUT – (25 pts)

a. QUALITY OF WORK 9.0

RATING CRITERIA NUMERICAL RATING

- Always exceptionally accurate, work is neat and complete in all details, no errors committed

5

- Almost always exceptionally accurate, work is neat and complete in

all details, errors are minimal

4

- Occasionally accurate, work is neat and commits errors 3

- Seldom accurate, work is neat and commits errors 2

- Never accurate and frequently commits errors 1

SIGNIFICANT/CRITICAL INCIDENT/S:

b. TIMELINESS OF WORK 9.0


- Always ahead of the schedule/ deadline 5

- Almost always ahead of the schedule 4

- Occasionally meets the schedule 3

- Seldom meets the schedule 2

- Never meets the schedule 1


c. QUANTITY OF WORK 7.0


- Always exceeds the expected output within the desired time frame 5

- Almost always exceeds the expected output within the desired time frame

4

- Occasionally meets the expected output within the desired time frame

3

- Seldom meets the expected output 2

- Never meets the expected output 1


*Significant (highest rating)/critical incidents (lowest rating) are situations or incidents that the ratee manifested during the rating period that have bearing in the performance of his/her duties.

PART II. CORE COMPETENCIES – (65 pts) This refers to the core competencies which are basic and essential in order to deliver effectively. On the space provided, please cite critical incidents to support extreme rating of each competence.

1. JOB KNOWLEDGE - 25 % (This dimension measures the PCO’s broad understanding of the job, techniques,

principles, technical disciplines, procedures, other professional skills and application to relevant fields of work that contribute significantly to the attainment of the unit’s goals).

a. DECISION-MAKING 4.0


- Exceeds standards/expectations, arrives at sound decisions even on important and complex matters

5

- Always meets standards/expectations, arrives at sound decisions even on important and complex matters

4

- Occasionally arrives at sound decisions generally expected of the job

3

- Seldom makes sound decisions on important and complex matter 2

- Never makes decisions at all 1


b. PLANNING 3.0


- Exceeds standards/expectations, prepares appropriate actions beyond normal expectations

5

- Always meets standards/expectations, prepares appropriate actions beyond normal expectations

4

- Occasionally prepares appropriate action plans as required 3

- Seldom prepares appropriate action plans 2

- Never prepares action plans 1


c. IMPLEMENTATION OF INSTRUCTIONS 3.0


- Exceeds standards/expectations, performs an assigned task with less general instructions

5

- Always meets standards/expectations, performs an assigned task 4

with less general instruction

- Occasionally performs an assigned task with less general instruction

3

- Seldom performs an assigned task given detailed instruction 2

- Never performs an assigned task even when detailed instructions are given

1


d. CREATIVITY/RESOURCEFULLNESS 2.0


- Exceeds standards/expectations, recommends new ideas, methods or improvisation to make the work better even when not required

5

- Always meets standards, recommends new ideas and methods or improvisation to make the work better even when not required

4

- Occasionally recommends new ideas, methods or improvisation to make the work better when required

3

- Seldom recommends new ideas, methods or improvisation to make the work better when required

2

- Never recommends new ideas, methods or improvisation to make work better

1


e. ANALYTICAL ABILITY 3.0


- Exceeds standards/expectations, able to identify problem and causes by seeking out pertinent data and taking all relevant considerations into account.

5

- Always meets standards/expectations, able to identify problem and causes by seeking out pertinent data and taking all relevant considerations into account

4

- Occasionally able to identify problem and its causes 3

- Seldom able to identify problem and its causes 2

- Never able to identify problem and its causes 1


f. PROBLEM SOLVING/TROUBLESHOOTING 3.0


- Exceeds standards/expectations, readily implements the best standards solutions to problems encountered on the job using available facts

5

- Always meets standards/expectations, implements the best standard solutions to problems encountered in the job using available facts

4

- Occasionally implements acceptable standards solutions to problems encountered on the job using available facts

3

- Seldom implements acceptable standard solutions to problems encountered on the job

2

- Never implements acceptable solutions to problems encountered on the job

1


g. ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATION 3.0


- Exceeds standards/expectations, sends and receives accurate, brief and clear ideas thoughts, etc in both oral and written form

5

- Always meets standards/expectations, sends and receives accurate, brief and clear ideas thoughts, etc in both oral and written forms

4

- Occasionally sends and receives accurate, brief and clear ideas, thoughts etc. with a minimum of gestures, bodily movement, audio visual aids, etc.

3

- Seldom sends and receives accurate, brief and clear ideas, thought, etc. in both oral and written form

2.

- Never sends and receives accurate, brief and clear ideas… 1


h. COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING 2.0


- Exceeds standards/expectations, involves the community in determining Neighborhood Policing Strategies and tactics which impact on their lives and jointly working with them to solve neighborhood problems

5

- Always meets standards/expectations, involves the community in determining Neighborhood Policing Strategies and Tactics which impact on their lives and jointly working with them to solve neighborhood problems.

4

- Occasionally involves the community in determining Neighborhood Policing Strategies and Tactics which impact on their lives and jointly working with them to solve neighborhood problems

3

- Seldom involves the community in determining Neighborhood Policing Strategies and Tactics which impact on their lives and jointly working with them to solve neighborhood problems

2

- Never involves the community in determining Neighborhood Policing Strategies and Tactics which impact on their lives

1


i. LAW ENFORCEMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF LAW AND ORDER 2.0


- Exceeds standards, able to contribute to effective law enforcement and maintenance of law and order beyond expectations

5

- Always meets standards/expectations, able to contribute to effective law enforcement and maintenance of law and order

4

- Occasionally able to contribute to effective law enforcement and maintenance of law and order

3

- Seldom able to contribute to effective law enforcement and maintenance of law and order

2

- Never able to contribute to effective law enforcement and maintenance of law and order

1


2. SUPERVISORY CONTROL – (20 pts)

(This dimension measures the PCO’s awareness of control procedures in doing the job).

a. CONTROL OF ACTIVITIES 4.0


- Exceeds standards/expectations in closely monitoring activities of subordinates in the AOR

5

- Always closely monitors activities subordinates in the AOR 4

- Occasionally monitors activities of subordinates in the AOR when required

3

- Seldom monitors the activities of subordinates in the AOR 2

- Never monitors the activities of subordinates in the AOR 1


b. COST CONTROL 3.0


- Exceeds standards/expectations in reducing the expenses on supplies and materials used in operations without sacrificing efficiency.

5

- Always reduces the expenses on supplies and materials used in operations without sacrificing efficiency

4

- Occasionally reduces expenses on supplies and materials used in operations

3

- Seldom reduces expenses on supplies and materials used in operations

2

- Never reduces expenses on supplies and materials used in operations

1


c. RECORDS MANAGEMENT AND SUBMISSION OF REPORTS 3.0


- Exceeds standards/expectations in keeping orderly and up-to-date records and/or submits ahead of time, accurate, reliable, complete and neat reports.

5

- Always keeps orderly and up-to-date records and/or submits ahead of time, accurate, reliable, complete and neat reports

4

- Occasionally keeps orderly and up-to-date records and/or submits on time, accurate, reliable, complete and neat reports

3

- Seldom keeps orderly and up-to-date records and/or submitting accurate, reliable, complete and neat reports

2

- Never maintains records and/or submits accurate, reliable, complete and neat reports.

1


d. COMPLIANCE WITH AND IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICIES/SOPs 3.0


- Exceeds standards/expectations in compliance with and implementation of policies and/or SOPs and takes extra step(s) in the dissemination of policies/SOPs

5

- Always complies with and implements policies and SOPs; no policy/SOP is violated

4

- Occasionally complies and commits minor violations of policies and/or SOPs

3

- Seldom complies and commits minor violations of policies and/or SOPs

2

- Never complies nor implements policies and/or SOPs; receives penalties (reprimand, suspension, salary deductions, etc.) for violations of policies and/or SOPs

1


e. SENSE OF PRIORITY 3.0


- Exceeds standards/expectations in prioritizing various tasks and accomplishes these within a given time frame

5

- Always able to prioritize various tasks and always accomplishes these within a given time frame

4

- Occasionally able to prioritize various tasks and occasionally accomplishes these within a given time frame

3

- Seldom able to prioritize various tasks and seldom accomplishes these within a given time frame

2

- Never able to prioritize various tasks and never accomplishes these within a given time frame

1


f. CLIENT SATISFACTION/ORIENTATION 2.0

(Note: This includes the timely resolution of subordinate’s concerns.)


- Exceeds expectations in identifying and satisfying the requirements of clientele (internal and external) beyond the set standards

5

- Always able to identify and satisfy the requirements of clientele (internal and external) based on the set standards

4

- Occasionally able to identify and satisfy the requirements of clientele (internal and external) based on the set standards.

3

- Seldom able to identify and satisfy the requirements of clientele (internal and external) based on the set standards.

2

- Never able to identify and satisfy the requirements of clientele (internal and external) based on the set standards.

1


g. INVOLVEMENT/PRESENCE IN ACTIVITIES 2.0

The PCO should be given a perfect score of 2.0 for the rating period if his attendance during the period is perfect, and deduction of (0.1) point for each of absence. Approved leaves, authorized travel and official meetings outside of office premises shall not be considered an absence.

RATING CRITERIA NUMIERCIAL RATING

- Exceeds the standards in his/her involvement/presence in unit/office activities

5

- Always involved/present in unit/office activities 4

- Occasionally involved/present in unit/office activities 3

- Seldom involved/present in unit/office activities 2

- Never involved/present in unit/office activities 1

3. PEOPLE MANAGEMENT - (10 pts) (This dimension measures the manner by which a PCO accomplished his work

through other people).

a. MOTIVATION 2.0


- Exceeds standards/expectations in encouraging and inspiring subordinates to give their best in their job.

5

- Always encourages and inspires subordinates to give their best in their job.

4

- Occasionally encourages and inspires subordinates to give their best in their job as required.

3

- Seldom encourages and inspires subordinates to give their best in their job.

2

- Never inspires and encourages subordinates. 1


b. WORKGROUP MANAGEMENT 2.0


- Exceeds standards/expectations in maintaining a high degree of teamwork among subordinates

5

- Always maintains a high degree of teamwork among subordinates

4

- Occasionally maintains teamwork among subordinates as expected

3

- Seldom maintains teamwork among subordinates 2

- Never maintains teamwork among subordinates 1


c. WORK ORGANIZATION/DELEGATION 2.0


- Exceeds standards/expectations in assigning or delegating major portion of his work to subordinates who can do the job well

5

- Always assigns or delegates major portion of his work to subordinates who can do the job well

4

- Occasionally assigns or delegates major portion of his work to subordinates who can do the job well

3

- Seldom assigns or delegates major portion of his work to subordinates

2

- Never assigns or delegates work to subordinates 1


d. INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS 2.0


- Exceeds standards/expectations in maintaining a highly harmonious or friendly relations with superiors, peers and subordinates

5

- Always maintains a harmonious or friendly relations with superiors, peers and subordinates

4

- Occasionally maintains harmonious or friendly relations with superiors, subordinates and peers.

3

- Seldom maintains harmonious or friendly relations with superiors, peers and subordinates

2

- Never maintains harmonious or friendly relations with superiors, peers and subordinates

1


e. PROMOTING PERSONNEL DEVELOPMENT 1.0


- Exceeds standards/expectations in seeking activities appropriate for personnel development as in job rotation assignments, mentoring/coaching, participation in committees/tasks forces, etc.

5

- Always seeks for activities appropriate for personnel development as in job rotation assignments, mentoring/coaching, participation in committees/tasks forces, etc.

4

- Occasionally seeks for activities appropriate for personnel development as in job rotation assignments, mentoring/coaching, participation in committees/tasks forces, etc.

3

- Seldom seeks for activities appropriate for personnel development as in job rotation assignments, mentoring/coaching, participation in committees/tasks forces, etc.

2

- Never seeks for activities appropriate for personnel development

1


f. TRAINING OF SUBORDINATES 1.0


- Exceeds standards/expectations in providing subordinates training required for the job and for career advancement and development

5

- Always provides subordinates training beyond what is required for the job

4

- Occasionally provides subordinates training for them to be able to do the job

3

- Seldom provides subordinates training required for the job 2

- Never provides subordinates training required for the job 1


4. ORGANIZATIONAL RESPONSIVENESS - (10 pts)

(This dimension measures the extent by which a PCO relates his personal goals with that of the units’ objectives)

a. HOUSEKEEPING AND SAFETY/SECURITY CONSCIOUSNESS 3.0


- Exceeds standards/expectations in observing and implementing safety/security measures within work AOR

5

- Always observes and implements safety/security measures within work AOR

4

- Occasionally observes and implements safety/security measures within work AOR

3

- Seldom observes and implements safety/security measures within work AOR

2

- Never follows safety/security measures 1


b. PRESERVATION OF UNIT PROPERTIES/INTERESTS 3.0


- Exceeds standards/expectations in safeguarding and preserving unit properties/interests

5

- Always safeguards, protects and preserves assigned/issued unit properties/interests

4

- Occasionally safeguards, protects and preserves unit properties/interests

3

- Seldom safeguards and preserves unit properties/interests 2

- Never safeguards and preserves unit properties/interests 1


c. COORDINATION 4.0


- Exceeds standards/expectations in coordinating with other units/agencies to promote the interest and welfare of all concerned parties/offices

5

- Always coordinates with other units/agencies to promote the interest and welfare of all concerned parties/offices

4

- Occasionally coordinates with other units/agencies to promote 3

the interest and welfare of all concerned parties/offices

- Seldom coordinates with other units/agencies to promote the interest and welfare of all concerned parties/offices

2

- Never coordinates with other units/agencies to promote the interest and welfare of all concerned parties/offices

1


PART III. PERSONAL QUALITIES - 10%

(This refers to PCO’s personal characteristics or traits which enhance his performance) INSTRUCTIONS: Listed below are traits that a PCO is expected to possess. If during the evaluation period a PCO exhibited any of the traits listed below, place a check mark corresponding to the trait exhibited. Rate the PCO according to the rating scale found at the bottom part of this page. If he/she exhibited good/desirable traits not included in the list, write them inside the box provided (Note: avoid listing down synonym traits –i.e. courteous – polite, etc.)

Personal Traits Check Mark

1. Morally Upright

2. Honest

3. Loyal

4. Initiates Positive Action(s)

5. Dedicated to Service

6. Fair and Just

7. Civic-minded

8. Well-groomed

9. Responsible

10. Courteous

RATING CRITERIA:

Numerical Rating Number of Traits

5 9-10

4 7-8

3 5-6

2 3-4

1 2 or less

ASSESSMENT OF RATEE

I certify that this report represents my best judgment. [ ] I DO [ ] I DO NOT recommend this personnel be granted (a) promotion

(b) designation to higher position (c) relief. This personnel needs improvement on the following:____________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT/COMMENTS

ACKNOWLEDGED:

SIGNATURE: ___________________________________________________________

RANK/NAME: ___________________________________________________________

(LAST) (FIRST) (MIDDLE)

DESIGNATION: _________________________________________________________

DATE ACCOMPLISHED: __________________________________________________

COMMENTS: __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________

CONFORMED:

SIGNATURE: ____________________________________________________________

RANK/NAME: ___________________________________________________________


DESIGNATION: _________________________________________________________


COMMENTS: _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________

ATTESTED:

SIGNATURE: ___________________________________________________________

NAME: ________________________________________________________________ (LAST) (FIRST) (MIDDLE)

DESIGNATION: _________________________________________________________


COMMENTS:

_________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________


PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATING FORMS (PCOPERF) 2A & 2B FOR CHIEF INSPECTOR TO SUPERINTENDENT (SECOND LEVEL)

This Police Officer Performance Evaluation Rating form has three (3) major

parts, namely: Part I –Output; Part II - Core Competencies; and Part III - Personal Qualities. Parts I and II are divided into dimensions and indicators. Part III is a checklist of PCO’s personal qualities.

Using the PCOPERF 2A or the rating summary form as guide, read carefully the dimensions and their respective indicators. For Parts I and II, rate the PCO by placing in the box/blank space provided in the PCOPERF 2B or worksheet the numerical rating for every performance indicator. On the space provided, please cite the significant/critical incident/s to support extreme rating (highest or lowest) on a specific performance indicator. For Part III, check in the box the trait(s) exhibited by the PCO.




adjectival performance rating (APR), please be guided of the conversion table below.


NPR

APR

91 – 100 Outstanding (OS) – Achieved exceptional performance clearly higher than competent peers. Exceeded all or most objectives and added value beyond the scope of the normal job.




POLICE COMMISSIONED OFFICER PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT FOR CHIEF INSPECTOR TO SUPERINTENDENT (SECOND LEVEL)

Rating Period: ________________________________

Annex “B”

PCOPERF 2A (Rating Summary Form)


RATER RATEE REVIEWER

(IF REFERRED TO THE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE)

I certify that this report was referred to the Grievance Committee for review and evaluation. ______________________________ Signature Head, Grievance Committee

2. Ratee’s Name (Last Name) (Given Name) (Middle Name)

2. Rank





Allocation

Numerical Rating

Weighted

Score

I. Output (20 pts)

d. Quality of work 7.0 x =

e. Timeliness of work 7.0 x =

f. Quantity of work 6.0 x =

II.

C

O

R

E

C

O

M

P

E

T

E

N

C

I

E

S

Job Knowledge (25 pts)

j. Decision-making 3.0 x =

k. Planning 3.0 x =

l. Implementation of Instructions 3.0 x =

m. Creativity/Resourcefulness 2.0 x =

n. Analytical Ability 3.0 x =

o. Problem Solving/Troubleshooting 3.0 x =

p. Oral and Written Communication 3.0 x =

q. Community Oriented Policing 3.0 x =

r. Law Enforcement and Maintenance of Law and Order 2.0 x =

Supervisory Control

(25 pts)

d. Control of Activities 4.0 x =

e. Cost Control 3.0 x =

f. Records Mgmt and Submission of Reports 4.0 x =


h. Sense of Priority 4.0 x =

i. Client Satisfaction/Orientation 3.0 x =

j. Involvement/Presence in Activities 3.0 x =


d. Motivation 2.0 x =

e. Workgroup Management 2.0 x =

f. Work Organization/Delegation 2.0 x =



g. Training of Subordinates 1.0


(10 pts)


d. Preservation of Unit Properties/Interests 3.0 x =

e. Coordination 4.0 x =


(10 pts)


10.0 x

=


Honest Civic-minded


Initiates Positive Action(s) Responsible






Rater’s Assessment of Ratee: I certify that this report represents my best judgment . [ ] I DO [ ] I DO NOT recommend this personnel be granted (a) promotion

(b) designation to higher position (c) relief.




(NOTE: Refer to This Table for Parts I and II) (NOTE: Refer to This Table for Part

III)

NPR-APR Table

(NOTE: Refer to This Table to get the Equivalent APR)



5 Exceeds standards





Numerical Rating

Number of Traits





1 Two (2) or less


(NPR)


(APR)









- Exceeds standards/expected quality of work, work is neat and complete in all details, no errors committed

5

- Always meets the standards/expected quality of work, work is

neat and complete in all details, errors are minimal

4

- Occasionally meets the standards/expected quality of work 3

- Seldom meets the standards/expected quality of work 2

- Never meets the standards/expected quality of work and frequently commits errors

1

*SIGNIFICANT/CRITICAL INCIDENT/S:



- Exceeds standards/expectations, submits output ahead of the schedule/ deadline

5

- Always meets standards/expectations, submits output on schedule/deadline

4

- Occasionally meets the schedule/deadline 3

- Seldom meets the schedule/deadline 2

- Never meets the schedule/deadline 1




- Exceeds the expected output within the desired time frame 5

- Always meets the expected output within the desired time frame 4


3





PART II. CORE COMPETENCIES – (70 pts) (This refers to the core competencies which are basic and essential in order to deliver effectively. On the space provided, please cite critical incidents to support extreme rating of each competence).

1. JOB KNOWLEDGE - 25 pts (This dimension measures the PCO’s broad understanding of the job, techniques,

principles, technical disciplines, procedures, other professional skills and application to relevant fields of work that contribute significantly to the attainment of the unit’s goals).




5


4


3

- Seldom makes sound decisions on important and complex matter

2



b. PLANNING 3.0



5


4








5

- Always meets standards/expectations, performs an assigned task with less general instruction

4


3



1


d. CREATIVITY/RESOURCEFULLNESS 2.0



5


4


3


2


1





5


4








5


4


3


2


1





5


4


3


2.






5


4


3


2


1





5


4


3


2


1


2. SUPERVISORY CONTROL – (25 pts) (This dimension measures the PCO’s awareness of control procedures in doing the

job).




5



3




b. COST CONTROL 3.0



5


4


3


2


1





5


4


3


2


1





5


4


3


2


1





5


4


3

- Seldom able to prioritize various tasks and seldom 2

accomplishes these within a given time frame


1






5


4


3


2


1





- Exceeds the standards in his involvement/presence in unit/office activities

5






3. PEOPLE MANAGEMENT - (10 pts) (This dimension measures the manner by which a PCO accomplished his work


e. MOTIVATION 2.0



5


4


3


2



f. WORKGROUP MANAGEMENT 2.0



5


4


3




g. WORK ORGANIZATION/DELEGATION 2.0



5


4


3


2



h. INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS 2.0



5


4


3


2


1




- Exceeds standards/expectations in seeking activities appropriate for personnel development as in job rotation assignments, mentoring/coaching, participation in

5

committees/tasks forces, etc.


4


3


2


1





5


4


3









5


4


3


2






5


4


3




c. COORDINATION 4.0



5


4

- Occasionally coordinates with other units/agencies to promote the interest and welfare of all concerned parties/offices

3


2


1


PART III. PERSONAL QUALITIES - (10 pts)



1. Morally Upright

2. Honest

3. Loyal



6. Fair and Just

7. Civic-minded

8. Well-groomed

9. Responsible

10. Courteous

RATING CRITERIA:


5 9-10

4 7-8

3 5-6

2 3-4

1 2 or less

ASSESSMENT OF RATEE

I certify that this report represents my best judgment.

[ ] I DO [ ] I DO NOT recommend this personnel be granted (a) promotion (b) designation to higher position (c) relief. This personnel needs improvement on the following: ______________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________


ACKNOWLEDGED:

SIGNATURE: ___________________________________________________________

RANK/NAME: ___________________________________________________________


DESIGNATION: _________________________________________________________


COMMENTS: __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________

CONFORMED:

SIGNATURE: ____________________________________________________________

RANK/NAME: ____________________________________________________________ (LAST) (FIRST) (MIDDLE)

DESIGNATION: __________________________________________________________


COMMENTS: _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________

ATTESTED:

SIGNATURE: ___________________________________________________________

NAME: ________________________________________________________________ ( LAST) (FIRST) (MIDDLE)

DESIGNATION: _________________________________________________________


COMMENTS:

_________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________


PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATING FORMS (PCOPERF) 1A & 1B FOR INSPECTOR TO SENIOR INSPECTOR (FIRST LEVEL)

This Police Officer Performance Evaluation Rating form has three (3) major parts, namely: Part I –Output; Part II - Core Competencies; and Part III - Personal Qualities. Parts I and II are divided into dimensions and indicators. Part III is a checklist of PCO’s personal qualities.

Using the PCOPERF 1A or the rating summary form as guide, read carefully the dimensions and their respective indicators. For Parts I and II, rate the PCO by placing in the box/blank space provided in the PCOPERF 1B or worksheet the numerical rating for every performance indicator . On the space provided, please cite the significant/critical incident/s to support extreme rating on a specific performance indicator. For Part III, check in the box the trait(s) exhibited by the PCO.




adjectival performance rating (APR), please be guided of the conversion table below .


NPR APR

91 - 100 Outstanding (OS) – Achieved exceptional performance clearly higher than competent peers. Exceeded all or most objectives and added value beyond the scope of the normal job.




POLICE COMMISSIONED OFFICER PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT FOR INSPECTOR TO SENIOR INSPECTOR (FIRST LEVEL)

Rating Period: ________________________________

Annex “C”

PCOPERF 1A (Rating Summary Form)


RATER RATEE REVIEWER (IF REFERRED TO THE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE)

I certify that this report was referred to the Grievance Committee for review and evaluation.

__________________________________

Signature Head, Grievance Committee

3. Ratee’s Name

(Last Name) (Given Name) (Middle Name)

2. Rank





Allocation

Numerical Rating

Weighted

Score

I. Output (15 pts)

g. Quality of work 5.0 x =

h. Timeliness of work 5.0 x =

i. Quantity of work 5.0 x =

II.

C

O

R

E

C

O

M

P

E

T

E

N

C

I

E

S

Job Knowledge (15 pts)

s. Decision-making 2.0 x =

t. Planning 2.0 x =

u. Implementation of Instructions 2.0 x =

v. Creativity/Resourcefulness 1.0 x =

w. Analytical Ability 1.0 x =

x. Problem Solving/Troubleshooting 1.0 x =

y. Oral and Written Communication 1.0 x =

z. Community Oriented Policing 3.0 x =

aa. Law Enforcement and Maintenance of Law and Order 2.0 x =

Supervisory Control

(25 pts)

g. Control of Activities 4.0 x =

h. Cost Control 3.0 x =

i. Records Mgmt and Submission of Reports 4.0 x =


k. Sense of Priority 4.0 x =

l. Client Satisfaction/Orientation 3.0 x =

m. Involvement/Presence in Activities 3.0 x =


g. Motivation 5.0 x =

h. Workgroup Management 4.0 x =

i. Work Organization/Delegation 4.0 x =



h. Training of Subordinates 4.0


(10 pts)


b. Preservation of Unit Properties/Interests 3.0 x =

c. Coordination 4.0 x =


(10 pts)


10.0 x

=


Honest Civic-minded


Initiates Positive Action(s) Responsible






Rater’s Assessment of Ratee: I certify that this report represents my best judgment. [ ] I DO [ ] I DO NOT recommend this personnel be granted (a) promotion (b) designation to higher position (c) relief.




(NOTE: Refer to This Table for Parts I and II)

(Note: Refer to This Table for Part III)

NPR-APR Table (NOTE: Refer to This Table to get the Equivalent APR)



5 Exceeds standards





Numerical Rating

Number of Traits





1 Two (2) or less


(NPR)


(APR)








- Exceeds standards/expected quality of work, work is neat and complete in all details, no errors committed

5

- Always meets the standards/expected quality of work, work is neat

and complete in all details, errors are minimal

4

- Occasionally meets the standards/expected quality of work 3

- Seldom meets the standards/expected quality of work 2

- Never meets the standards/expected quality of work and frequently commits errors

1

*SIGNIFICANT/CRITICAL INCIDENT/S:



- Exceeds standards/expectations, submits output ahead of the schedule/ deadline

5

- Always meets standards/expectations, submits output on schedule/deadline

4

- Occasionally meets the schedule/deadline 3

- Seldom meets the schedule/deadline 2

- Never meets the schedule/deadline 1




- Exceeds the expected output within the desired time frame 5

- Always meets the expected output within the desired time frame 4


3






PART II. CORE COMPETENCIES – (75 pts)

This refers to the core competencies which are basic and essential in order to deliver effectively. On the space provided, please cite critical incidents to support extreme rating of each competence.

1. JOB KNOWLEDGE - (15 pts)

(This dimension measures the PCO’s broad understanding of the job, techniques, principles, technical disciplines, procedures, other professional skills and application to relevant fields of work that contribute significantly to the attainment of the unit’s goals).




5


4


3

- Seldom makes sound decisions on important and complex matter

2



b. PLANNING 2.0



5


4








5

- Always meets standards/expectations, performs an assigned task with less general instruction

4


3



1


d. CREATIVITY/RESOURCEFULNESS 1.0



5


4


3


2


1





5


4








5


4


3


2


1





5


4


3


2.






5


4


3


2


1





5


4


3


2


1


2. SUPERVISORY CONTROL – (25 pts) (This dimension measures the PCO’s awareness of control procedures in doing the

job).




5



3




b. COST CONTROL 3.0



5


4


3


2


1





5


4


3


2


1





5


4


3


2


1





5


4


3

- Seldom able to prioritize various tasks and seldom accomplishes these within a given time frame

2


1






5


4


3


2


1





- Exceeds the standards in his involvement/presence in unit/office activities

5






3. PEOPLE MANAGEMENT - (25 pts) (This dimension measures the manner by which a PCO accomplished his/her work


i. MOTIVATION 5.0



5


4


3


2



j. WORKGROUP MANAGEMENT 4.0



5


4


3




k. WORK ORGANIZATION/DELEGATION 4.0



5


4


3


2



l. INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS 4.0



5


4


3


2


1




- Exceeds standards/expectations in seeking activities appropriate for personnel development as in job rotation assignments, mentoring/coaching, participation in committees/tasks forces, etc.

5


4


3


2


1





5


4


3









5


4


3


2






5


4


3




c. COORDINATION 4.0



5


4

- Occasionally coordinates with other units/agencies to promote the interest and welfare of all concerned parties/offices

3


2


1


PART III. PERSONAL QUALITIES (10 pts)



1. Morally Upright

2. Honest

3. Loyal



6. Fair and Just

7. Civic-minded

8. Well-groomed

9. Responsible

10. Courteous

RATING CRITERIA:


5 9-10

4 7-8

3 5-6

2 3-4

1 2 or less

ASSESSMENT OF RATEE

I certify that this report represents my best judgment.

[ ] I DO [ ] I DO NOT recommend this personnel be granted (a) promotion (b) designation to higher position (c) relief. This personnel needs improvement on the following:____________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


ACKNOWLEDGED:

SIGNATURE: __________________________________________________

RANK/NAME:__________________________________________________


DESIGNATION: ________________________________________________

DATE ACCOMPLISHED: _________________________________________

COMMENTS:

________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________

CONFORMED:

SIGNATURE: ____________________________________________________

RANK/NAME:____________________________________________________


DESIGNATION:___________________________________________________ DATE ACCOMPLISHED: ___________________________________________ COMMENTS:

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________

ATTESTED:

SIGNATURE: ____________________________________________________

NAME: _________________________________________________________


DESIGNATION: __________________________________________________

DATE ACCOMPLISHED: ___________________________________________

COMMENTS:

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________

REFERENCES

1. Republic Act 6975, otherwise known as the “Department of the Interior and Local Government Act of 1990 as amended”

2. Republic Act 8551, otherwise known as the “Philippine National Police

Reform and Reorganization Act of 1998”

3. NAPOLCOM Memo Circular No. 93-019 “Amendment to MC No. 92-102 dated Nov 12, 1992, entitled “PNP Performance Evaluation System”

4. NAPOLCOM Memo Circular No. 93-022 “Establishing A Complaints And

Grievance Machinery For PNP Uniformed Personnel”

5. PNP Medium Term-Development Plan (MTDP 2001-2004)

6. PNP Circular Nr DPL 001-95 “Providing for the Specific Authority Delegated to the D-Staff “

7. PNP Staffing Pattern

8. O.N.E. PNP Action Plan for CY 2003

9. PNP Aviation Security Group Manual ( PNPM-D-O-3-1-99 [ASG] )

10. PNP Manual on Summary Proceedings

11. Civil Service Commission 1999 Revised Policies on Performance Evaluation System

12. Numerical Designation for PNP Manuals dated 26 December 1994

13. Style Guide of the Asian Institute of Journalism and Communication

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE - DPRM Website - Home€¦ · · 2017-06-23An essential element of...

Documents

Transcript of PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE - DPRM Website - Home€¦ · · 2017-06-23An essential element of...