Research problem - Portland State University

Report
ASSESSING THE
QUALITY OF
CLACKAMAS COUNTY
SHERIFF’S OFFICE CHILD
ABUSE TEAM SERVICES
USING SERVQUAL
Lieutenant Wendi Babst
Portland State University
2010 EMPA Cohort
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.
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)
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
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
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)
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)
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 evidencebased practice assessment of programs (US Department of
Justice, 1999, Mears & Bacon, 2009)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
OVERALL PERCEPTION
Strongly Agree
7
6
5
Neither Agree or Disagree
4
3
2
Strongly Disagree
1
Acceptable 5.6
Tangibles
Reliability
Responsiveness
Assurance
Empathy
PERCEPTION AVERAGE BY AGENCY
Strongly Agree
7.00
6.00
5.00
Neither Agree or Disagree
4.00
3.00
2.00
Strongly Disagree
1.00
Acceptable 5.6
Tangibles
Reliability
Responsiveness
Assurance
Empathy
OVERALL DIMENSION WEIGHTS
Tangibles
Reliability
Responsiveness
Assurance
Empathy
DIMENSIONS BY AGENCY
District
Attorney
DHS-North Clackamas
Medical
Examiner
Tangibles
Reliability
Responsiveness
Assurance
Empathy
DHS-Oregon
City
Children's
Center
OVERALL SERVICE GAP SCORES
Tangibles
Reliability
-0.48
-0.76
Responsiveness
Assurance
Empathy
0.00
-5.00
-0.48
-0.48
-0.76
-3.83
-10.00
-9.93
-15.00
-9.25
-8.33
Unweighted Score
Weighted Score
-20.00
-25.00
-30.00
-31.34
-35.00
TANGIBILITY GAP BY AGENCY
DA
ME
Children's
DHS-OC DHS-NC Center
0.00
-2.00
-4.00
Unweighted Score
-6.00
-8.00
-10.00
-12.00
Weighted Score
RELIABILITY GAP BY AGENCY
DA
ME
Children's
DHS-OC DHS-NC Center
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
Unweighted
Weighted
RESPONSIVENESS GAP BY AGENCY
DA
ME
DHS-OC
DHS-NC
Children's
Center
20
0
-20
-40
Unweighted
Weighted
-60
-80
-100
ASSURANCE GAP BY AGENCY
10.00
DA
ME
DHS-OC
DHS-NC
Children's
Center
0.00
-10.00
-20.00
-30.00
-40.00
-50.00
-60.00
Unweighted
Weighted
EMPATHY GAP BY AGENCY
5.00
DA
ME
DHS-OC
DHS-NC
Children's
Center
0.00
-5.00
-10.00
-15.00
-20.00
-25.00
-30.00
-35.00
-40.00
-45.00
Unweighted
Weighted
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
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)
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.
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.
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 multipleitem 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.
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.

similar documents