LOUISIANA STATE POLICE FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN JULY 1, 2008 - JUNE 30 by pcu17276

VIEWS: 52 PAGES: 274

									 LOUISIANA STATE POLICE
FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN
  JULY 1, 2008 – JUNE 30, 2013
                  OFFICE OF LOUISIANA STATE POLICE
                      FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN
                        JULY 1, 2008 – JUNE 30, 2013


AGENCY VISION

The Louisiana State Police will be a model of an exemplary law enforcement
organization providing service to the public, the law enforcement community,
and allied agencies through impartial enforcement of the laws. Our highly
skilled workforce will serve as a model of forward-thinking leadership and
professionalism.

AGENCY MISSION

The Louisiana State Police is a statutorily mandated, statewide law enforcement
agency charged with ensuring the safety, order, and security of the people in the
state through enforcement, regulation, education, and provision of other
essential public safety services.

VALUES/PHILOSOPHY

The values/philosophy of the Louisiana State Police can be summed up by the
abbreviated acronym for leadership: LDRSHIP.

      LDRSHIP

      Loyalty – Bear true faith and allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, the State
      Police, your unit, and other troopers.

      Duty – Fulfill your obligations.

      Respect – Treat people as they should be treated.

      Selfless Service – Put the welfare of the nation, the State Police, and others
      before your own.

      Honor – Consistently act with the utmost honesty and integrity.

      Integrity – Do what is right – legally and morally.

      Personal Courage – Face fear, danger, or adversity (physical or moral).




                                                                                  2
GOALS

Promote public safety in our state through aggressive traffic enforcement,
criminal investigation, administrative regulation, public education, and
community involvement.

Ensure that the department is adequately staffed, equipped, and trained to
accomplish its mission.

Reduce duplication of effort, enhance interoperability, and promote
communication among federal, state, and local governments, including the areas
of homeland security and emergency response.

Improve and strengthen workforce effectiveness through planning, forecasting,
training, coordination, and accountability.




                                                                            3
LOUISIANA STATE POLICE
TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

MISSION

The Louisiana State Police Traffic Enforcement Program is dedicated to
improving public safety through public education, training, and enforcement of
statutes and regulations. The Program ensures compliance with commercial and
private motor vehicle laws and regulations and administers homeland security
initiatives.

GOAL I.

I. Ensure safety on Louisiana’s highways.

      OBJECTIVE I.1

      I.1 Reduce the number of fatalities/HVMT by 6% per year through June
      30, 2013.

             STRATEGIES

             I.1.1 Establish preventative patrols to deal with specific categories
             of unlawful driving behaviors.

             I.1.2 Continue the implementation of the TrafficStat Program to
             compile annual collision experience data statewide to determine
             assignment of personnel.

             I.1.3 Implement assignment of personnel at the time when and to
             the locations where analyses have shown that a significant number
             of violations and/or collisions involving impaired drivers have
             occurred.

             I.1.4 Work in conjunction with Department of Transportation and
             Development (DOTD) to maximize the capabilities of the Traffic
             Incident Management System.

             I.1.5 Implement selective DWI checkpoints and enforcement.

             I.1.6 Implement selective seatbelt checkpoints and enforcement.

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS



                                                                                4
Effective State coverage by State Police
Current State Trooper patrol strength
Required State Trooper patrol strength per manpower study
Total miles patrolled
Number of fatalities per 100 million miles
Total number of public assists
Number of fatal crashes investigated
Total number of crashes investigated
Number of crashes resulting in arrests
Hours spent in court
Total number of contacts: crashes, tickets, and motorist assists (GPI)
Number of criminal arrests (GPI)
Total number of crashes investigated (GPI)
Number of injury crashes investigated (GPI)
Number of property damage crashes investigated (GPI)
Number of crashes resulting in arrests (GPI)
Number of individuals killed in automobile crashes (GPI)
Number of individuals injured in automobile crashes (GPI)


GOAL II.

II. Enforce the laws and regulations governing motor carriers, motor transport
vehicles, and the drivers who operate them by working in conjunction with other
state and federal law enforcement agencies to advance the cause of safety for the
motoring public.

       OBJECTIVE II.1

       II.I Through the Motor Carrier Safety Program of the Transportation and
       Environmental Safety Section (TESS), hold the number of fatal
       commercial-related crashes to a level no greater than 125 annually
       through June 30, 2013.



              STRATEGIES

              II.1.1 Conduct patrols of high traffic corridors.

              II.1.2 Augment patrols specifically targeting aggressive driving,
              tailgaters, speeders, and other violations.


                                                                               5
             II.1.3 Conduct patrols of construction, work zone, and other
             reduced speed zones.

             II.1.4 Conduct nighttime and off-hour patrols with enforcement
             emphasis on removal of fatigued, impaired, or drugged drivers.

             II.1.5 Establish educational programs and forums focusing on
             sharing highways with commercial vehicles like “No Zone” and
             other United States Department of Transportation sponsored
             educational campaigns.

             II.1.6 Conduct a trend analysis determining fatality rates on rural
             vs. parish and urban roads.


PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Number of fatal commercial-related crashes
Number of Motor Carrier Safety inspections conducted
Number of Motor Carrier Safety audits conducted
Number of Motor Carrier Safety violations cited (GPI)

      OBJECTIVE II.2

      II.2 Increase by 5% the number of weight enforcement contacts per
      enforcement hour by June 30, 2013.

             STRATEGY

             II.2.1 Conduct patrols of state and federal highways with
             enforcement emphasis on detection of overweight commercial
             vehicles.


PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Number of commercial vehicles weighed for overweight violations
Number of weight and size violations cited
Number of manpower hours dedicated to weight enforcement

GOAL III.




                                                                              6
III. Enhance technical resources to promote communication within Louisiana
State Police and among federal, state, and local governments, including the areas
of homeland security and emergency response.

      OBJECTIVE III.1

      III.1 Develop and maintain comprehensive contingency management
      plans for acts of terror or natural disaster by June 30, 2009.

             STRATEGIES

             III.1.1 Provide courses of instruction to selected personnel of the
             State Police and other state, local, and private entities.

             III.1.2 Coordinate with state, local, and private entities with an
             interest in protecting the critical infrastructure.

             III.1.3 Maintain communication with the respective entities and
             update plans of action as needed. Efficiently utilize available
             resources to maximize the goals and objectives of the Information
             Reporting System (IRS).


PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Development of plans
Plans developed




      OBJECTIVE III.2

      III.2 Participate as a member of the Statewide Interoperable Executive
      Committee (SIEC) in the development of a comprehensive interoperability
      plan for the Louisiana emergency services community.


             STRATEGIES

             III.2.1 Increase voice interoperability between Louisiana State
             Police and local law enforcement.




                                                                                  7
             III.2.2 Research, design, and deploy comprehensive interoperability
             technology.

             III.2.3 Participate as a member of the SIEC in the development of a
             permanent statewide plan.

             III.2.4 Participate as a member of the SIEC in the implementation of
             a statewide permanent comprehensive interoperability plan.


PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Will be determined as data becomes available.


GOAL IV.

IV. Efficiently utilize available technology and resources to maximize Traffic
Enforcement Program goals and objectives.

      OBJECTIVE IV.1

      IV.1 Replace 95% of in-car (analog) cameras with digital recording
      systems by June 30, 2013.

             STRATEGIES

             IV.1.1 Identify/seek funding sources for digital in-car cameras.

             IV.1.2 Develop policies on the use of digital in-car cameras.

             IV.1.3 Conduct training for LSP who will be using digital in-car
             cameras.

             IV.1.4 Develop and implement an agency-wide policy for record
             retention of digital images.

      OBJECTIVE IV.2

      IV.2 Conduct a needs assessment /cost analysis to determine feasibility of
      securing and implementing e-citation devices for agency use by June 30,
      2011.




                                                                                8
             STRATEGIES

             IV.2.1 Investigate and identify existing technology for generating e-
             citations.

             IV.2.2 Develop a plan (including funding requirements and
             necessary training) to equip patrol cars with devices enabling
             troopers to generate e-tickets and crash reports.

             IV.2.3 Support national standards for data element definitions to
             enable more effective electronic exchanges of information.

             IV.2.4 Identify mechanisms for other highway safety data to be
             submitted electronically.

             IV.2.5 Determine the feasibility of reporting commercial vehicle
             inspections electronically enabling all troopers to have this
             capability.

             IV.2.6 Develop the methodology to electronically send tickets to
             court.

             IV.2.7 Identify or devise the mechanisms to receive insurance
             information electronically.


PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Number of digital in-car cameras provided
Other performance indicators to be determined as data becomes available




                                                                                9
OFFICE OF LOUISIANA STATE POLICE
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION PROGRAM

MISSION

The Criminal Investigations Program provides Louisiana citizens a safer
community through proactive, professional law enforcement services and
cooperative efforts with allied enforcement entities.

GOAL I.

I. Ensure the detection of criminal activity and apprehension of perpetrators.

      OBJECTIVE I.1

      I.1 Increase by 5% the number of criminal investigations by June 30, 2013.

             STRATEGIES

             I.1.1 Increase education and public awareness by providing
             informational avenues to report criminal activities.

             I.1.2 Increase use of modern technology to enhance criminal
             investigations and the detection of criminal activity.

             I.1.3 Increase educational presentations at reducing the demand of
             illicit drugs.


PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Number of criminal investigations initiated
Number of criminal investigations closed
Number of public awareness presentations delivered (SPI)


GOAL II.

II. Improve the efficiency of criminal investigations and the detection of criminal
activity.




                                                                                 10
      OBJECTIVE II.1

      II.1 Implement the Information Reporting System (IRS) for the entire
      Bureau of Investigations by June 30, 2013.

             STRATEGIES

             II.1.1 Develop a pilot program for implementation of the
             Information Reporting System (IRS).

             II.1.2 Provide investigators with the opportunity to attend
             specialized training courses.


PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Percentage of BOI investigators on the Information Reporting System
Number of specialized training courses attended


GOAL III

III. Enhance and improve communications within Louisiana State Police and
with local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies.

      OBJECTIVE III.1

      III.1 Increase other agency assists by 2% by June 30, 2013.

             STRATEGIES

             III.1.1 Require investigators to increase assistance to other law
             enforcement agencies.

             III.1.2 Increase assistance and cooperation with non-law
             enforcement agencies to include private industry and local, state,
             and federal agencies.

             III.1.3 Enhance capabilities of the Fusion Center as a centralized
             point for compiling all available information sources relating to
             homeland security.




                                                                            11
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Number of other agency assists
Number of assists divided by the number of investigators




                                                           12
OFFICE OF LOUISIANA STATE POLICE
OPERATIONAL SUPPORT PROGRAM

MISSION

Operational Support’s mission is to provide essential functions to support Public
Safety Services and to provide security for Capitol Park/Public Safety facilities,
Crime Lab services and criminal investigations.

GOAL I.

I. The Operational Support Program will develop innovative initiatives through
which the State Police will maintain and improve its effectiveness and quality
through accountability.

      OBJECTIVE I.1

      I.1 Through the Accreditation Unit of the Louisiana State Police, to
      maintain compliance with 100% of the applicable Commission on
      Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies’ (CALEA) standards for
      each accreditation period through June 30, 2013.

             STRATEGIES

             I.1.1 Collect proofs from the various sections within Public Safety
             Services to verify compliance with CALEA requirements.

             I.1.2 Conduct staff assistance visits to educate personnel and ensure
             compliance with CALEA requirements.

             I.1.3 Accreditation Manager initiates a periodic examination of the
             agency to determine its compliance with applicable standards
             required for reaccreditation.

             I.1.4 Prepare for representatives of the Commission who will
             conduct an onsite visit, including panel interviews, to verify the
             agency’s compliance with all applicable standards.

             I.1.5 Submit annual reports to the Commission during the three-
             year accreditation period to attest continued compliance and report
             changes or difficulties experienced during the year.




                                                                               13
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Number of applicable CALEA standards
Number of applicable CALEA standards with which State Police is in
compliance
Percentage of applicable standards with which State Police is in compliance (GPI)
Department awarded reaccreditation
Number of site visits
Number of sites in compliance with CALEA requirements
Percentage of sites in compliance relative to number of site visits

      OBJECTIVE I.2

      I.2 The Crime Laboratory will maintain American Society of Crime
      Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB)
      accreditation to ensure continued quality lab operations through June 30,
      2013.

             STRATEGIES

             I.2.1 Maintain an internal Quality Assurance Unit.

             I.2.2 Renew ASCLD/LAB accreditation every five years.

             I.2.3 Maintain ASCLD/LAB accreditation and seek accreditation if
             new disciplines arise.

             I.2.4 Transition from the current ASCLD/LAB-Legacy Program to
             the new ASCLD/LAB-International (ISO 17025) by June 30, 2010.
             Audit new policies and procedures for compliance.        Issue
             corrective actions. Seek external audits for compliance.



PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Percentage of compliance with ASCLD/LAB accreditation essential criteria met
Percentage of compliance with ASCLD/LAB accreditation important criteria met
Percentage of compliance with ASCLD/LAB accreditation desirable criteria met

      OBJECTIVE I.3




                                                                              14
      I.3 The Crime Laboratory will analyze 95% of requests received for
      analysis for trial purposes at the local, state, and federal level by June 30,
      2013.

             STRATEGIES

             I.3.1 Increase operating space.

             I.3.2 Increase number of personnel.

             I.3.3 Streamline processes to improve efficiency.

             I.3.4 Apply emerging technology to improve efficiency.


PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Number of requests for analysis
Number of requests for analysis completed
Percentage of requests for analysis completed

      OBJECTIVE I.4

      I.4 The Crime Laboratory will reduce DNA analysis average turnaround
      time to 60 calendar days on 85% of requests for analysis received by June
      30, 2013.

             STRATEGIES

             I.4.1 Provide quality DNA analysis to the law enforcement
             agencies. The Crime Lab serves in accordance with the Federal
             Quality Assurance Standards for Forensic DNA Testing
             Laboratories.

             I.4.2 The DNA Unit will incorporate methods, rules, and protocols,
             to reduce the turnaround time and eliminate the current backlog of
             DNA requests for analysis.

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Number of forensic DNA requests for analysis completed within 60 calendar
days
Number of forensic DNA requests for analysis received



                                                                                 15
Percentage of DNA requests for analysis completed within 60 calendar days
Number of DNA convicted offender samples received
Number of DNA arrestee samples received
Number of CODIS (arrestee and convicted offender) samples accessioned
Number of CODIS samples uploaded to National DNA Indexing System (NDIS)
Number of CODIS samples uploaded to State DNA Indexing System (SDIS)

      OBJECTIVE I.5

      I.5 The Bureau of Criminal Identification and Information will ensure that
      90% of the requests received to update criminal history information are
      processed into the Louisiana Computerized Criminal History (LACCH)
      system and electronically available by June 30, 2013.

             STRATEGIES

             I.5.1 The Bureau of Criminal Identification and Information will
             implement electronic disposition reporting.

             I.5.2 Develop new procedures for processing expungements.

             I.5.3 The Bureau of Criminal Identification and Information will
             coordinate a rewrite of the Louisiana Computerized Criminal
             History (LACCH) system.

             I.5.4 Continue to participate in the Interstate Identification Index


PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Percentage of received requests processed
Number of expungements received
Number of arrest dispositions received electronically
Number of arrest dispositions received manually
Number of criminal fingerprint cards received
Number of criminal fingerprint cards processed
Number of expungements processed
Number of arrest dispositions processed electronically
Number of arrest dispositions processed manually

      OBJECTIVE I.6




                                                                                    16
      I.6 The Bureau of Criminal Identification and Information will process
      75% of the requests for applicant criminal history information within 15
      days by June 30, 2013.

             STRATEGIES

             I.6.1 Evaluate and develop new methods for more efficient
             processing.

             I.6.2 Develop a new Applicant Tracking system.

             I.6.3 Identify and implement new technologies.


PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Percentage of requests processed within 15 days
Number of civil applicant requests received
Number of civil applicant requests processed
Number of civil applicant requests processed within 15 days

      OBJECTIVE I.7

      I.7 Distribute 100% of all received information related to sex offender
      registration through June 30, 2013.

             STRATEGIES

             I.7.1 Identify criminal justice and public functional needs for the
             Sex Offender Registry.

             I.7.2 Oversee design, development, and implementation of the
             SOCPR system.


PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Percentage of distributed information of convicted child predator and sex
offenders
Number of new child predator and sex offender registrations received
Number of new child predator and sex offender registrations posted to the
Registry




                                                                             17
GOAL II.

II. Increase proactive patrol efforts and enforcement throughout those properties
constituting the Capitol Park and Public Safety Services facilities, as well as
provide for the safety of the citizens who frequent those properties.

      OBJECTIVE II.1

      II.1 Increase non-vehicular patrol hours in those properties constituting
      the Capitol Park and Department of Public Safety facilities by 5% by June
      30, 2013.

             STRATEGIES

             II.1.1 Increase public awareness through on-site safety seminars.

             II.1.2 Proactively regulate criminal and traffic violators through
             diligent enforcement of state statutes.




PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Number of non-vehicle patrol hours
Number of contacts, arrests, and citations

GOAL III.

III. Create a Program in Operational Development designed to coordinate
organizational program needs with an emphasis on emerging information and
technology systems.

      OBJECTIVE III.1

      III.1 Create an Analytical Program in the Operational Development
      Section to provide executive staff critical and timely information
      regarding emerging law enforcement related technologies and
      management information systems by June 30, 2013.

             STRATEGIES




                                                                                 18
            III.1.1 Identify data sources among all operational functions.

            III.1.2 Conduct an in-depth review of these data sources to identify
            useful information, singularly or in combination, to LSP
            management and budget processes.

            III.1.3 Coordinate development of computerized routines designed
            to extract selected data (sets) from a variety of sources into a useful
            set of information to be used as a basis for producing meaningful
            information reports.

            III.1.4 Identify relevant law enforcement related technologies
            viable for implementation within LSP.

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Development of Program(SPI)
Percent of Program implemented (SPI)
Number of positions created for Program (KPI)
Number of positions filled for Program (SPI)




                                                                                19
OFFICE OF LOUISIANA STATE POLICE
GAMING ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

MISSION

The Gaming Enforcement Program is committed to the proactive regulation and
control of statutorily authorized gaming entities in conjunction with the Gaming
Control Board. The regulation and enforcement of criminal laws promote the
public’s health, safety, and welfare by safeguarding the people of this state
against corrupt and dishonest practices.

GOAL I.

I. Ensure criminal enforcement and the detection of administrative violations.

      OBJECTIVE I.1

      I.1 Increase the number of annual inspections to 95% of enrolled Video
      Gaming establishments by June 30, 2013.

             STRATEGIES

             I.1.1 Conduct town hall meetings or issue advisories in the
             appropriate area of the state to educate the gaming industry about
             regulatory issues.

             I.1.2 Establish and conduct a proactive compliance Video Poker
             inspection program.

             I.1.3 Identify and assess weaknesses in current rules, laws, and
             regulations.


PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Number of Video Gaming compliance inspections completed (GPI)
Number of Video Gaming violations issued (SPI)




                                                                                 20
            OBJECTIVE I.2

            I.2 The Division will inspect each licensed riverboat at least 230 times in a
            fiscal year, each licensed Pari-mutuel live racing facility with slot machine
            gaming 150 times in a fiscal year, and the land-based casino at least 225
            times in a fiscal year.

                                Enforcement Section       Audit Section      Technical Section
Riverboat inspection per boat           82                    120                   28
Pari-mutuel inspections per             55                     75                   20
facility
Land-based inspections                    89                   100                   36


                   STRATEGIES

                   I.2.1 Increase public awareness of gaming industry issues.

                   I.2.2 Identify and assess weaknesses in current rules, laws, and
                   regulations.

                   I.2.3 Conduct inspections in accordance with approved audit plan
                   and audit program pursuant with LA R.S. 27.20.A (1) (a).


     PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

     Number of riverboat inspections completed by Enforcement Section
     Number of riverboat inspections completed by Technical Section
     Number of riverboat inspections completed by Audit Section
     Number of Pari-mutuel inspections completed by Enforcement Section
     Number of Pari-mutuel inspections completed by Technical Section
     Number of Pari-mutuel inspections completed by Audit Section
     Number of land-based inspections completed by Enforcement Section
     Number of land-based inspections completed by Technical Section
     Number of land-based inspections completed by Audit Section
     Number of Casino Gaming violations issued (GPI)
     Number of criminal arrests by Gaming Division (GPI)
     Number of illegal gambling arrests (GPI)
     GOAL II.




                                                                                      21
II. The Gaming Enforcement Program will improve the efficiency of its processes
and the proficiency and knowledge of its investigators and support staff so that it
may better serve the public.

      OBJECTIVE II.1

      II.1 Reduce the number of days a background investigation takes by 5%
      by June 30, 2013.

             STRATEGIES

             II.1.1 Develop a prototype training course for gaming personnel
             designed to increase efficiency of the investigation and a greater
             knowledge of gaming laws and rules.

             II.1.2 The Department will develop a standardized application for
             gaming suitability as it pertains to gaming licensing.

             II.I.3 Improve the efficiency of the application process with new
             computer technology to allow online usage.


PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Number of Casino Gaming new applications received (GPI)
Number of Video Gaming Types 1 and 2 new applications received (GPI)
Number of Casino Gaming new permits issued (GPI)
Number of Casino Gaming applicants processed for denial (GPI)
Number of Types 1 & 2 Video Gaming new applications recommended for
approval (GPI)
Average of days to complete a new Casino Gaming background investigation
Average of days to complete a new Video Gaming Type 1 and 2 application


GOAL III.

III. Inform other sections within the Department of investigative efforts,
responsibilities, and resources unique to the Division.



      OBJECTIVE III.1




                                                                                22
      III.1 Distribute at least four law enforcement bulletins to sections each
      year through June 30, 2013.

             STRATEGY

             III.1.1 Forward law enforcement bulletins via email quarterly to
             other sections.

      OBJECTIVE III.2

      III.2 Attend at least four roll call training meetings with other sections
      each year through June 30, 2013.

             STRATEGY

             III.2.1 Send Gaming Investigators to other sectional meetings at
             least quarterly to relate investigative efforts, responsibilities, and
             resources unique to the Division.


PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Number of bulletins issued
Number of roll call training meetings attended




                                                                                23
OFFICE OF LOUISIANA STATE POLICE
TRAINING ACADEMY

MISSION

The Louisiana State Police Training Academy will employ a contemporary/best-
practice philosophy designed to promote skill enhancement and frequent
dissemination of subject-related information consistent with the identified needs
of the Academy’s clientele.

GOAL I.

I. The Training Academy will be recognized by both the public sector and private
industry for its professionalism and training standards through accreditation by
the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA).

      OBJECTIVE I.1

      I.1 By June 30, 2010, the LSP Training Academy will be in compliance with
      all applicable standards of accreditation as identified by the Commission
      on the Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies.

             STRATEGIES

             I.1.1 Create a schedule to ensure the Training Academy comes into
             compliance with one-third of applicable standards each year until
             July 1, 2010.


PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Percentage of applicable standards in compliance
Training Academy awarded accreditation




                                                                              24
GOAL II

II. The Training Academy will conduct annual training to ensure that each officer
demonstrates the physical and professional competency necessary to perform
his/her assigned duties and responsibilities.

             OBJECTIVE II.1

             II.1 By June 30, 2013, 95% of officers will attend in-service training
             to receive instruction in contemporary law enforcement topics and
             demonstrate proficiency in the use of firearms and defensive
             tactics.

                    STRATEGIES

                    II.1.1 Training Academy staff will identify courses that will
                    enhance the professional growth of law enforcement officers.

                    II.1.2 Designated staff will stay informed of the various
                    courses of law enforcement training that may be available to
                    personnel.

                    II.1.3 Results of feedback from various forums will be
                    evaluated to determine the training needs of Department
                    personnel.

                    II.1.4 Develop and implement a career development
                    program for key positions within the organization.

                    II.1.5 Develop a mentoring program for command level
                    positions to encourage advancement within the agency.

                    II.1.6 Increase professional skills of key LSP personnel by
                    enabling attendance at work-related conferences and
                    seminars.

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Number of in-service courses delivered
Number of Commissioned Officers attending in-service courses
Percentage of Commissioned Officers attending in-service courses




                                                                                25
      OBJECTIVE II.2

      II.2 The Wellness Program will be continued with 90% annual
      participation by June 30, 2013.

             STRATEGIES

             II.2.1 Training Academy staff will promote the Wellness Program to
             LSP employees.

             II.2.2 Training Academy staff will track the participation in the
             Wellness Program.

             II.2.3 Results of feedback from various forums will be evaluated to
             determine the success of the Wellness Program.


PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Number of Commissioned officers participating in Wellness Program
Percentage of Commissioned officers participating in Wellness Program

GOAL III.

III. Develop recruiting initiatives that expand the ability of State Police to
adequately staff the department by recruiting qualified applicants.

      OBJECTIVE III.1

      III.1 Develop a comprehensive recruiting plan to identify and select
      qualified personnel by July 1, 2009.

             STRATEGIES

             III.1.1 Develop a database to track contacts made by recruiters.

             III.1.2 Maintain networking with military installations,
             college/university career service departments, and other potential
             sources of a qualified candidate.

             III.1.3 Continue to further enhance the Department’s website.




                                                                                26
             III.1.4 Develop a database for a mass mail-out to faith-based
             organizations, non-profit organizations, fraternities, sororities,
             community service organizations, Criminal Justice programs, and
             Louisiana National Guard and Reserve components.

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Number of contacts made
Number of follow-up contacts conducted
Number of new hires resulting from direct recruiting efforts

GOAL IV.

IV. Ensure efficient two-way communication between the Academy staff and its
clientele.

      OBJECTIVES

      IV.1. Conduct an annual evaluation of training with LSP Commanders to
      identify strengths, deficiencies, and training needs each FY through June
      30, 2013.

      IV.2. Conduct post training feedback via a training evaluation program
      that assesses relatedness of content to the participants’ job duties;
      usefulness of the course content for the participants; quality of instructor’s
      delivery; and appropriateness of training mechanism used (i.e., CBT,
      instructor-led, simulator, etc.) for 95% of the training courses provided by
      June 30, 2013.

      IV.3. Conduct biennial surveys to measure training effectiveness through
      June 30, 2013.



             STRATEGIES

             IV.1.1 Utilize course content critiques to revise course content to
             better meet participants’ needs.

             IV.1.2 Utilize instructor delivery ratings to determine strengths and
             weakness of instructors’ delivery style.

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS



                                                                                 27
Average evaluation rating on overall program
Average evaluation rating on instructors


GOAL V.

V. Provide basic training that identifies individual skills proficiency, enforces
survival and tactical competency, and enhances the cognitive capabilities of each
officer to effectively perform his/her duties and responsibilities.

      OBJECTIVE V.1

      V.1. The LSP Training Academy will schedule annually, when provided
      appropriate funding, a minimum of one Basic Police Academy for law
      enforcement agencies that need to have officers POST certified through
      June 30, 2013.

             STRATEGY

             V.1.1 Advertise on LSP Website POST certified training academy
             courses to law enforcement agencies outside of LSP.


PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Number of officers certified in Basic Police Academy conducted by LSP Training
Academy



      OBJECTIVE V.2

      V.2 The LSP Training Academy will annually conduct at least one State
      Police cadet class through June 30, 2013.


PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Number of State Police cadet classes conducted each FY
Number of cadets entering training each FY
Number of cadets successfully completing training each FY




                                                                              28
29
                     OFFICE OF LOUISIANA STATE POLICE
                              STRATEGIC PLAN

                                   APPENDIX


Principal Clients:

The primary client of the Office of State Police (LSP) is the general public. Local
and parish law enforcement agencies, as well as business and industry, are a
major portion of the State Police clientele. Business and industry clients include,
but are not limited to, the gaming industry, the trucking industry, the chemical
industry, the petroleum industry, and motor vehicle inspection stations. These
clients and citizens benefit either directly or indirectly from the services and
expertise provided to improve the safety of the roads and highways of the State
and the general safety and quality of life of the general public.

Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats:

The Office of Louisiana State Police perceives its strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities and threats to be vital components in effectively negotiating the
future direction of the agency. The specific factors relative to this strategic plan
include:

      Strengths:

      Identification of agency strengths allows the Office of LSP to maximize its
      understanding of available tools so that it may create an effective and
      viable strategic plan.

                 •   Committed employees
                 •   Good reputation with the public
                 •   Good relationships with the Executive and Legislative
                     branches of government
                 •   Well-trained staff




      Weaknesses:




                                                                                 30
Recognition of agency weaknesses affords the Office of LSP an
opportunity to adequately prepare for potential risks as a result of its
vulnerabilities.

         •   Lack of necessary equipment in the northern regions of the
             state
         •   Lack of current state-of-the-art technology related to law
             enforcement throughout all areas of the agency
         •   Some supervisors are not always aware of or do not fully
             consider the implications of their decisions on the
             Department
         •   Tasks and responsibilities have been expanded, but there is
             an insufficient TO to handle these duties
         •   Lack of an integrated database accessible to all troopers
         •   Programs or units within the agency have a propensity to
             operate in silos which inhibits the information flow
             throughout the department

Opportunities:

The Office of Louisiana State Police sees several areas of opportunity in
terms of funding sources and in its ability to enhance law enforcement
operations in other state agencies.

         •  Well-maintained facilities
         •  Partnership with other agencies
            The understanding of LSP is that the Louisiana Department
            of Transportation and Development (DOTD) is
            implementing Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), and
            may not have adequate personnel to maintain this system.
            One possibility is to allow police communication personnel
            to man that service on weekends, which would eliminate the
            need for DOTD to hire operators and would provide an
            additional funding source for LSP.
          • Working with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and
             Fisheries to identify activities in which LSP could provide
             (similar to the DOTD item above), which would provide
             additional funding sources for LSP.
          • Consider partnering with GOHSEP. A unified coordination
             system that combines all state agencies using State Police
             operators could help coordinate resources to get when calls
             are received.



                                                                      31
                 •   Consider changing dispatchers to 12-hour shifts to help
                     reduce turnover that results from schedule uncertainties.
      Threats:

      The Office of Louisiana State Police perceives threats – both internal and
      external – as any factors that will impede its efforts to effectively meet
      mandates, enforce statutes and regulations, and elevate its level of service.
      By recognizing and identifying these threats, LSP can be aware of the
      complete operational consequences and anticipate possible future
      impacts.

                 •   Difficulty in identifying and attracting qualified employees
                 •   Agency is understaffed relative to the functions it provides
                 •   Difficulty in attracting applicants for entry-level positions
                 •   Lack of recruitment of communications personnel
                 •   Low pay rates for many of the positions

External Factors Affecting Agency Goals and Objectives:

There are a number of potential external factors which affect the LSP and over
which LSP has little or no control. The population shifts (i.e., the migration of
population from the New Orleans region) resulting from the hurricanes of 2005,
the increased level of commuter traffic into and out of the New Orleans region as
the reconstruction efforts continue, and the continuing change in that
population’s demographics will continue to have an impact on changing rates of
automobile crashes and the crime rate. While LSP can continue to analyze the
crash and crime rates with their associated causes to determine its ability to
create a safer atmosphere for its public, business and industry the agency can not
always adequately plan for unforeseen natural or manmade disasters, Legislative
actions, or mandates and Court rulings.

Also beyond LSP control are legislative and congressional actions reallocating or
reducing funding and the actions of other law enforcement agencies with which
LSP must interact in order to fulfill its mandate.

As stated in the previous paragraph, external factors affecting the law
enforcement and general safety environment of the State fall into several
categories:

      Demographics of Population Growth:

      The U.S. population is predicted to grow by 21 percent by the year 2020.
      The increase in population has increased the number of registered vehicles


                                                                                 32
on the highways of the state by an estimated 3.5% in the past ten years. As
previously noted, some areas of the state have experienced a significant
population increase due to hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Thus, higher
injury and death rates are expected if effective traffic safety and
enforcement programs are not put in place.

Congestion:

It is estimated there will be 280 million registered vehicles in the United
States by 2020 operating on its transportation infrastructure. More
specifically related to Louisiana is the fact that highway congestion on
Interstate 10 continues to increase as New Orleans residents commute to
jobs outside of that region, and as workers involved in the rebuilding
effort commute to and from the region. Congestion reduces productivity
and promotes aggressive driver behavior. Louisiana could witness an
unprecedented increase in unsafe driving behaviors, as well as become
less competitive in the global economy.

Technological Devices/Equipment:

Despite a number of technological advances, the Department continues to
be hampered by the lack or shortage of certain innovative technological
devices within the agency. Several entities, such as federal and local law
enforcement agencies and insurance agencies. rely on timely information
to help alleviate auto-theft, fraud, and identity theft. In their efforts to
reduce traffic fatalities, injuries, and property damage, the U.S.
Department of Transportation, the Louisiana Department of
Transportation and Development, and local law enforcement agencies
also rely on crash records provided by LSP. Timely and accurate crash
records are provided for trend analyses, resource allocation, manpower
deployment, and forecasting and planning.            The need for other
improvements, such as interoperable communication systems, is widely
recognized to be a critical issue and remains a key priority of the
department. LSP delivers quality and timely services while continually
attempting to implement equipment and technological advances with
limited funds for that purpose.

Direct roadside messaging and communications to the patrol troopers can
be provided via technology. Technology provides real time alerts,
photographs, and homeland security information to troopers while they
are on the road. Other states, however, incorporate global positioning
capabilities to locate troopers in an emergency situation and to assist them
in locating remote incidents from related mapping software. The


                                                                         33
technology enables troopers to check driver license, vehicle, and criminal
warrant information from state and federal databases and provides that
information to a computer at the roadside. The information received can
be used to complete enforcement documents or investigations which are
uploaded directly to agency record databases when they are completed.
This information increases the level of officer safety through real time
communications that enhance efficiency and effectiveness. The lack of full
implementation of this technology presents a threat to the individual
trooper’s safety and to the organization’s productivity.

Recruitment, Training and Retention:

As the number of LSP employees reaching retirement age is rising,
succession planning has become increasingly important. Attracting,
retaining, and training quality trooper candidates and civilians continues
to be a challenge for LSP. Salaries and benefits of both commissioned and
civilian employees must be competitive with private industry, other
governmental agencies, and other law enforcement entities. The agency’s
workforce in both law enforcement and civilian personnel will continue to
necessitate employees with high-tech skills. LSP will have to continually
provide current and best-practice training for employees to develop the
knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary to combat the increasing levels
of “high-tech” crime. To maintain a highly skilled workforce, career
development opportunities that benefit both the individual employee and
the agency must be developed, maintained, and, in some cases, mandated
for certain groups of employees.



Services to the Public:

While ensuring public safety remains the core function of the agency,
providing a high level of service to the department’s customers also
presents challenges and opportunities. Enabling the public to more
readily access information on the department’s website will directly
reduce the number of individuals whom the agency must service
individually or face-to-face. The net effect of such an initiative will be the
enablement of agency personnel to address their ever-growing volume of
law enforcement related duties. Investment in a public awareness
campaign and making some documents available for dissemination
/purchase (i.e., accident reports) on-line may require some financial
investment, but the expected return on investment should be significant in
terms of manpower reallocation.


                                                                           34
      Government:

      Because of changing roles and mandates regarding homeland security and
      terrorism, the role of federal, state, and local law enforcement has
      expanded. Congressional and legislative mandates could continue to
      realign roles of interacting law enforcement agencies. The heightened
      requirements for homeland security have affected the department’s roles
      and responsibilities, thereby creating a drain on other agency initiatives.

      Cities and Towns:

      Inherent in informed decision-making is obtaining timely and accurate
      information. Arrest information is provided by local Louisiana law
      enforcement agencies. The State is entirely dependent upon local
      governments to provide accurate arrest data in a timely manner.

      Women in the Workplace:

      For four decades, the number of women entering the workplace grew at a
      rapid pace, fostering a powerful cultural and economic transformation of
      American society. But since the mid-1990's, the growth in the percentage
      of adult women working outside the home has stalled, even slipping
      somewhat in the last five years and leaving it at a rate well below that of
      men.
      At the peak in 2000, some 77 percent of women in the prime ages of 25 to
      54 were in the work force. Today, about 75 percent of women 25 to 54
      years old are either working or actively seeking a job, up from around 40
      percent in the late 1950's. That expansion helped fuel economic growth for
      decades. But the previous trend flattened in the early 1990's. And since
      2000, the participation rate for women has declined somewhat; it remains
      far below the 90 percent rate for men in the same age range. New
      recruiting strategies are needed to help alleviate the worker shortage that
      will result from the pending retirements within state government.

Statutory Requirements:

The Office of State Police is part of the Department of Public Safety and
Corrections. It falls under the Executive Branch of Government, and the
Governor is ultimately responsible for the administration of State Police. The
statutory requirements for the agency’s goals are:




                                                                              35
•   Act 120 of 1922 – in pursuance of Article 229 of the Constitution of 1898,
    and articles amendatory thereof, as repeated and re-adopted in the
    Constitution of 1913; An Act to levy, collect and enforce payment of a
    annual license tax;
•   Act 94 of 1936 – Creating a Department of State Police “State Police Act”;
•   Act 94 of 1966 – R.S. 40: 1424, 1426.1, 1427, 1427.1, To provide that
    employees of the Division of State Police who are members of the State
    Police Retirement System shall be classified employees under the State
    Civil Service System;
•   Act 110 of 1942 – Amendment to the Constitution of 1921, To establish the
    “Department of Public Safety”;
•   Act 216 of 1960 – R.S. 32:373, 379, and 1308, Courts trying traffic violations
    to send records to Director of Public Safety;
•   Act 159 of 1971 –R.S. 40:1312.1 through R.S. 40:1312.27, Department of
    Public Safety; to establish the Organized Crime Intelligence Division;
•   Act 83 of 1977 – R.S. 36:1 through R.S. 36:960, “Executive Reorganization
    Act”;
•   Act 83 of 1979 – R.S. 32:1501 through R.S. 32:1517, Transportation of
    Hazardous Materials;
•   Act 722 of 1979 – R.S. 36:409(F) (4), and all of Title 36 of the Louisiana
    Revised Statutes of 1950, creation and organization of the Bureau of
    Criminal Information in the Department of Public Safety;
•   Act 113 of 1985 – R.S. 32:1501(3), 1502 (1), 1505 (A)(1), 1508 (A), 1509 (A),
    and 1516 (A), R.S.32:1501(4), 1502 (10), and 1513 (C), relative to the
    transportation of hazardous materials;
•   Act 435 of 1985 – R.S. 40:1299.100(A) (2), R.S. 30:1150.61 through 1150.79,
    R.S. 36:409(K) and 40:1846(F), and 1849(D), “Hazardous Material
    Information Development, Preparedness, and Response Act”;
•   Act 941 of 1985 – R.S. 15:587, relative to the Louisiana Bureau of Criminal
    Identification and Information;
•   Act 331 of 1987 – R.S. 40:1379.7, “Special Costs Assessed for Blood and
    Chemical Testing by Office of State Police – Public Safety DWI Testing,
    Maintenance and Training Fund”;
•   Act 443 of 1987 – R.S. 47:7001 through 7006, R.S. 15:31 (A), “Regulation of
    Gaming Equipment”;
•   Act 198 of 1988 - R.S. 32:1306 (C), “Motor Vehicle Inspection Fees –
    Increase; Disposition of Proceeds”;
•   Act 681 of 1988 – R.S. 40:1399, “Protective Services and Transportation—
    Governor and Other Authorized Persons”;
•   Act 522 of 1989 – R.S. 32:1800 through R.S.32:1820, “Motor Vehicle Towing
    and Storage—Licensing and Regulation; Penalties; Fees; Louisiana Towing
    and Storage Fund;



                                                                               36
   •   Act 753 of 1991 –R.S. 4:501 through R.S. 14:90(D), and R.S. 36:409(C)(6),
       “Riverboat Gambling”;
   •   Act 1062 of 1991 – R.S. 26:91(9) and 287 (11) , and R.S. 33:4862.1 through
       4862.19, “Video Draw Poker Devices Law;
   •   Act 388 of 1992 – R.S.15.542, Registration of Sex Offenders;
   •   Act 4 of 1996 – R.S. 40:1379l1(I), 1379.3, 1381, and 1382, “Concealed
       Handguns—Statewide Permits; Negligent Carrying of Concealed
       Handgun”;
   •   Act 1186 of 1997 – R.S. 32:1(93), 2 (C) 3, 388(E) and (F) (1), and 389(A) and
       R.S. 47:718 (B) (1) and (C) (1), 809(a), and 812(C) and to enact R.S. 32:1(99),
       and 2(D), and R.S. 36:408(B)(3) and 409(C)(8) and R.S. 40:1379.8, “Weights
       and Standards Mobile Police—Transfer to Office of State Police; Creation
       of Stationary Scales Inspection Police Force; Fund for Penalty Fines.”
   •   Acts 2004, No. 711, RS 22:3204 Automobile Theft and Insurance Fraud
       Prevention Authority Fund.
   •   R.S.40:975(G)(1) and R.S.44:4.1(B)(24) and to enact Part X-A of Chapter 4 of
       Title 40 of Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950 (Prescription Monitoring
       Program Act).

The Department’s operations are also subject to the guidelines and policies
established by the Louisiana Division of Administration pertaining to
purchasing, contracting, and travel procedures, while the Department of Civil
Service and the State Police Commission provide policies pertaining to Office of
State Police personnel. State Police is also subject to the policies of the
Department of Public Safety and Corrections Policy and Procedures Manual as
well as its own internal Policies and Procedures Manual.

Program Evaluation Used to Develop Objectives and Strategies:

The process of establishing new goals and objectives and validating those in the
LSP Strategic Plan for fiscal years 2005-2010 involved subject matter experts
(SMEs) from within the agency. Nine LSP commissioned officers were selected
as these subject matter experts and met during a three-day Strategic Planning
Workshop in May, 2007 (Major Jim Mitchell; Captain Bobby Osborn; Captain
Ron Whittaker; Captain Tom Madden; Lieutenant Jason Jacob; Lieutenant Bryson
Williams; Lieutenant Terry Chustz; Sergeant Jimmie Hicks; and Sergeant Chuck
McNeal). These SMEs, guided by an outside facilitator, examined the needs and
priorities in support of the mission of the LSP. The group also examined the
current and expected environmental realities and trends that could potentially
impact the roles and responsibilities of LSP.

Goals were established, and objectives and strategies were developed by the LSP
staff through a problem identification process using internal/external


                                                                                   37
assessments, statewide plans, and legislative input. Problem identification
involved the examination of relationships between LSP and the public, agencies,
business, and industries it serves.

The increases in crime and crash rates can be analyzed in terms of time, day, and
month, the deployment of personnel, and other factors relative to specific
activities. The isolation and identification of those factors contributing to
increases in crashes and/or crime rates is a great advantage in planning and
developing strategies. When the contributing factors are identified and corrected,
proper deployment and use of personnel can reduce traffic crash fatalities and
injuries, reduce crime rates and improve the general safety and quality of life for
the citizens served by the LSP. These contributing factors also apply to the
regulatory requirements governing the gaming industry mandated by the
legislature.

The committee presented a draft of the plan to the upper administration of LSP
for review and approval.

Duplication of Effort:

LSP is an agency within the Department of Public Safety & Corrections (DPS&C).
Although the LSP is administratively responsible to the DPS&C, the LSP is a
separate budget unit. The Superintendent of State Police is appointed by the
Governor and reports to the Governor on policy matters. The budget and
program review process provides assurance to the State so that duplication is
avoided. For this reason, no true duplication of effort has been identified
between any two agency programs. However, there is some overlap in functions
between and among programs that are necessary for continuity of LSP services.
Authority for coordinating closely related objectives in two programs has been
placed in the Operational Support Program.

Improving the operational efficiency and effectiveness of the agency was one
intended outcome of the strategic planning activities. The LSP Chief of Staff, Lt.
Colonel Stanley Griffin, identified this as a major component of a successful
strategic planning process for LSP.        The selection of key stakeholders
representing various programs within the department to jointly work on the
strategic plan was one of the methods used to accomplish this task. The strategic
planning process also focused on developing both agency and departmental
goals and objectives, which was a new approach for the agency. This
methodology provided the employees involved with the opportunity to
simultaneously assess the agency’s goals and objectives, as well as the individual
program’s goals and objectives. The strategic planning process generated
collaboration among the various program staff members.


                                                                                 38
The strategic planning process also consisted of practical training in planning
and accountability. The members of the strategic planning team were better able
to grasp the interrelatedness of the departmental functions and processes as a
result of this approach. Obtaining input and feedback from various programs
within the department enabled the team members to examine the core processes,
effectiveness, and efficiency of their individual programs and the agency as a
whole. This was another intended outcome of Lt. Colonel Griffin’s strategic
planning process design. As a result, there are tentative plans to require more
organizational members to attend similar training so that they are also better able
to understand the “big picture” and identify (and reduce or eliminate) areas of
duplication.

Finally, the administrative review phase of the strategic planning process is
designed to serve as a review mechanism for duplication of efforts.

Performance Measure Validity, Reliability, etc:

Performance indicators are used to evaluate the effectiveness of the various
sections. These more detailed indicators will further allow the agency to evaluate
cost effectiveness, the processes used to provide service, and the services
provided.

Children’s Budget Link:

Not applicable.

Human Resource Policies Beneficial to Women and Families Link:

The Office of Louisiana State Police grants flexible work schedules, when
feasible, to accommodate civilian employees with child care or other family
issues. The Department has an Employee Wellness Program and an Employee
Assistance Program, which provides information and guidance for employees
and/or family members. In accordance with federal law, the Department
supports the Family and Medical Leave Law and upholds practices within those
guidelines, supporting employees and families.

Department of State Civil Service workforce planning initiatives:

The Office of Louisiana State Police recognizes the need for a comprehensive
workforce development and succession plan, and offers opportunities for civilian
and non-civilian staff members’ professional development. LSP has also




                                                                                39
developed strategies to proactively recruit new employees.         See table on
subsequent pages for further information.

Hurricane Preparedness and Recovery Initiatives:

The Office of Louisiana State Police actively participates in state hurricane
preparedness and recovery initiatives. See table on pages that follow for further
information.




                                                                              40
                              Links to Vision 2020

         Louisiana State Police                Relates to LA Vision 2020 Goal
TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT GOAL I. Goal 3: To have a standard of living
Ensure safety on Louisiana’s highways. among the top 10 states in America.
                                          Objective 3.5 – To ensure safe, vibrant,
                                          and supportive communities for all
                                          citizens.
TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT GOAL II. Goal 3: To have a standard of living
Enforce the laws and regulations among the top 10 states in America.
governing motor carriers, motor Objective 3.5 – To ensure safe, vibrant,
transport vehicles, and the drivers who and supportive communities for all
operate     them     by     working    in citizens.
conjunction with other state and
federal law enforcement agencies to
advance the cause of safety for the
motoring public.
TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT GOAL Goal 3: To have a standard of living
III. Enhance technical resources to among the top 10 states in America.
promote       communication        within Objective 3.5 – To ensure safe, vibrant,
Louisiana State Police and among and supportive communities for all
federal, state, and local governments citizens.
including the areas of homeland
security and emergency response.
TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT GOAL Goal 3: To have a standard of living
IV.    Efficiently    utilize   available among the top 10 states in America.
technology and resources to maximize Objective 3.5 – To ensure safe, vibrant,
Traffic Enforcement Program goals and and supportive communities for all
objectives.                               citizens.
CRIMINAL             INVESTIGATION Goal 3: To have a standard of living
GOAL I. Ensure the detection of among the top 10 states in America.
criminal activity and apprehension of Objective 3.5 – To ensure safe, vibrant,
perpetrators.                             and supportive communities for all
                                          citizens.
CRIMINAL             INVESTIGATION Goal 3: To have a standard of living
GOAL II. Improve the efficiency of among the top 10 states in America.
criminal     investigations    and    the Objective 3.5 – To ensure safe, vibrant,
detection of criminal activity.           and supportive communities for all
                                          citizens.
CRIMINAL             INVESTIGATION Goal 3: To have a standard of living
GOAL III. Enhance and improve among the top 10 states in America.
communications within Louisiana State Objective 3.5 – To ensure safe, vibrant,
Police and with local, state, and federal and supportive communities for all


                                                                               41
law enforcement agencies.                   citizens.
OPERATIONAL SUPPORT GOAL II.                Goal 3: To have a standard of living
Increase proactive patrol efforts and       among the top 10 states in America.
enforcement       throughout        those   Objective 3.5 – To ensure safe, vibrant,
properties constituting the Capitol Park    and supportive communities for all
and Public Safety Services facilities as    citizens.
well as provide for the safety of the
citizens who frequent those properties.
OPERATIONAL SUPPORT GOAL                    Goal 3: To have a standard of living
III. Organize and facilitate the flow of    among the top 10 states in America.
information among various sections of       Objective 3.5 – To ensure safe, vibrant,
LSP to provide executive staff critical     and supportive communities for all
information regarding LSP functions.        citizens.
GAMING ENFORCEMENT GOAL I.                  Goal 3: To have a standard of living
Ensure criminal enforcement and the         among the top 10 states in America.
detection of administrative violations.     Objective 3.5 – To ensure safe, vibrant,
                                            and supportive communities for all
                                            citizens.
GAMING ENFORCEMENT GOAL                     Goal 3: To have a standard of living
III. Inform other sections within the       among the top 10 states in America.
Department of investigative efforts,        Objective 3.5 – To ensure safe, vibrant,
responsibilities, and resources unique      and supportive communities for all
to the Division.                            citizens.
TRAINING ACADEMY GOAL II.                   Goal 3: To have a standard of living
The Training Academy will conduct           among the top 10 states in America.
annual training to ensure that each         Objective 3.5 – To ensure safe, vibrant,
officer demonstrates the physical and       and supportive communities for all
professional competency necessary to        citizens.
perform his/her assigned duties and
responsibilities.
TRAINING ACADEMY GOAL V.                    Goal 3: To have a standard of living
Provide basic and annual training that      among the top 10 states in America.
identifies skills proficiency, enforces     Objective 3.5 – To ensure safe, vibrant,
survival and tactical competency, and       and supportive communities for all
enhances the cognitive capabilities of      citizens.
each officer to effectively perform
his/her duties and responsibilities.




                                                                                 42
                             Links to Other Initiatives

         Louisiana State Police                     Relates to Other Initiatives
TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT GOAL                     Hurricane preparedness and recovery
III. Enhance technical resources to          initiatives
promote       communication        within
Louisiana State Police and among
federal, state, and local governments
including the areas of homeland
security and emergency response.
CRIMINAL              INVESTIGATION          Hurricane preparedness and recovery
GOAL III. Enhance and improve                initiatives
communications within Louisiana State
Police and with local, state, and federal
law enforcement agencies.
OPERATIONAL SUPPORT GOAL                     Hurricane preparedness and recovery
III. Organize and facilitate the flow of     initiatives
information among various sections of
LSP to provide executive staff critical
information regarding LSP functions.
TRAINING ACADEMY GOAL II.                    Department of Civil Service Workforce
The Training Academy will conduct            Planning initiatives
annual training to ensure that each
officer demonstrates the physical and
professional competency necessary to
perform his/her assigned duties and
responsibilities.
TRAINING ACADEMY GOAL VI.                    Department of Civil Service Workforce
Provide basic and annual training that       Planning initiatives
identifies individual skills proficiency,
enforces     survival     and     tactical
competency,       and    enhances     the
cognitive capabilities of each officer to
effectively perform his/her duties and
responsibilities.




                                                                               43
                PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Traffic Enforcement
Objective: I.1 Reduce the number of fatalities/HVMT by 6% per year through
June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Effective state coverage by State Police
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: 13772

1. Type and Level: Outcome: Level K

2. Rationale: Measures the total number of highway miles patrolled by troopers
as per the State Police Manpower Allocation Study 2007 formulas

3. Use: Assists in determining additional funding, equipment, and T.O. needs

4. Clarity: Not applicable

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Valid, reliable, and accurate

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source:      Office of State Police Human Resources and Daily Activity
                    Report System (DARS)
       Collection: On demand & daily respectively
       Reporting: Fiscal year & quarterly respectively

7. Calculation Methodology: Calculation: Numeric tally
                            Methodology: Standard calculation

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: Accuracy of troop personnel information input

10. Responsible Person: Captain Ron Whittaker; 985-893-6250;
Ron.Whitaker@dps.la.gov; Captain Tom Madden; 318-741-7411;
Tom.Madden@dps.la.gov




                                                                               44
             PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Traffic Enforcement
Objective: I.1 Reduce the number of fatalities/HVMT by 6% per year through
June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Current State Trooper patrol strength
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: 13773

1. Type and Level: Input; Level K

2. Rationale: Measures the number of troop traffic enforcement personnel

3. Use: With the use of the Manpower Allocation Study, it will determine
whether or not needed Table of Organization has been funded and implemented

4. Clarity: Not applicable

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Valid, reliable, and accurate

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source:      Office of State Police Human Resources
       Collection: Upon demand
       Reporting: Fiscal year

7. Calculation Methodology: Calculation: Numeric tally
                            Methodology: Standard calculation

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: Not applicable

10. Responsible Person: Captain Ron Whittaker; 985-893-6250;
Ron.Whitaker@dps.la.gov; Captain Tom Madden; 318-741-7411;
Tom.Madden@dps.la.gov




                                                                           45
      PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Traffic Enforcement
Objective: I.1 Reduce the number of fatalities/HVMT by 6% per year through
June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Required State Trooper patrol strength per manpower study
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: 13774

1. Type and Level: Input: Level K

2. Rationale: Measures number troop traffic enforcement personnel needed
statewide to efficiently perform the assigned mission

3. Use: To determine the T.O. and funding necessary to perform the mandated
mission

4. Clarity: Not Applicable

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Valid, reliable, and accurate

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source:      State Police Manpower Allocation Study 2007
       Collection: On demand
       Reporting: Fiscal year

7. Calculation Methodology: Calculation: As per formulas noted in the
                       Personnel Allocation Model by Northwestern
                       University
                       Methodology: Formulas utilizing variables for miles
                       of roadway, number of calls for assistance, etc.

8. Scope: Disaggregate

9. Caveats: Whether or not the Personnel Allocation Model variables were
accurate

10. Responsible Person: Captain Ron Whittaker; 985-893-6250;
Ron.Whitaker@dps.la.gov; Captain Tom Madden; 318-741-7411;
Tom.Madden@dps.la.gov




                                                                         46
      PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Traffic Enforcement
Objective: I.1 Reduce the number of fatalities/HVMT by 6% per year through
June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Total miles patrolled
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: 10658

1. Type and Level: Output; Level G

2. Rationale: Measures total miles patrolled by troop traffic enforcement
personnel

3. Use: To determine increase or decrease in troop personnel activity and
efficiency

4. Clarity: Not applicable

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Valid, reliable, and accurate

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source:      Troop Daily Activity Report System (DARS)
       Collection: Daily
       Reporting: Quarterly

7. Calculation Methodology: Calculation: Numeric tally
                            Methodology: Standard calculation

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: Accuracy of troop personnel information input

10. Responsible Person: Captain Ron Whittaker; 985-893-6250;
Ron.Whitaker@dps.la.gov; Captain Tom Madden; 318-741-7411;
Tom.Madden@dps.la.gov




                                                                         47
                PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Traffic Enforcement
Objective: I.1 Reduce the number of fatalities/HVMT by 6% per year through
June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of fatalities per 100 million miles
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Output; Level GPI

2. Rationale: Measures total number fatal crashes investigated by troop traffic
enforcement personnel

3. Use: To determine increase or decrease in troop personnel activity and
efficiency

4. Clarity: Public assists – Assistance rendered to disabled or stranded motorists

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Valid, reliable, and accurate

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source:      Troop Daily Activity Report System (DARS)
       Collection: Daily
       Reporting: Quarterly

7. Calculation Methodology: Calculation: Numeric tally
                            Methodology: Standard calculation

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: Accuracy of troop personnel information input

10. Responsible Person: Captain Ron Whittaker; 985-893-6250;
Ron.Whitaker@dps.la.gov; Captain Tom Madden; 318-741-7411;
Tom.Madden@dps.la.gov




                                                                                 48
             PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Traffic Enforcement
Objective: I.1 Reduce the number of fatalities/HVMT by 6% per year through
June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Total number of public assists
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: 13775

1. Type and Level: Output; Level S

2. Rationale: Measures total number public assists by troop traffic enforcement
personnel

3. Use: To determine increase or decrease in troop personnel activity and
efficiency

4. Clarity: Public assists – Assistance rendered to disabled or stranded motorists

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Valid, reliable, and accurate

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source:      Troop Daily Activity Report System (DARS)
       Collection: Daily
       Reporting: Quarterly

7. Calculation Methodology: Calculation: Numeric tally
                            Methodology: Standard calculation

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: Accuracy of troop personnel information input

10. Responsible Person: Captain Ron Whittaker; 985-893-6250;
Ron.Whitaker@dps.la.gov; Captain Tom Madden; 318-741-7411;
Tom.Madden@dps.la.gov




                                                                                 49
                 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Traffic Enforcement
Objective: I.1 Reduce the number of fatalities/HVMT by 6% per year through
June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of fatal crashes investigated
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: 10662

1. Type and Level: Output; Level S

2. Rationale: Measures total number fatal crashes investigated by troop traffic
enforcement personnel

3. Use: To determine increase or decrease in troop personnel activity and
efficiency

4. Clarity: Fatal crash - Vehicle crash resulting in one or more deaths

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Valid, reliable, and accurate

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source:      Troop Daily Activity Report System (DARS)
       Collection: Daily
       Reporting: Quarterly

7. Calculation Methodology: Calculation: Numeric tally
                            Methodology Standard calculation

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: Accuracy of troop personnel information input

10. Responsible Person: Captain Ron Whittaker; 985-893-6250;
Ron.Whitaker@dps.la.gov; Captain Tom Madden; 318-741-7411;
Tom.Madden@dps.la.gov




                                                                            50
      PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Traffic Enforcement
Objective: I.1 Reduce the number of fatalities/HVMT by 6% per year through
June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Total number of crashes investigated
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: 10661

1. Type and Level: Output; Level S

2. Rationale: Measures total number of property damage, injury, and fatal
crashes investigated by troop traffic enforcement personnel

3. Use: To determine increase or decrease in troop personnel activity and
efficiency

4. Clarity: Not applicable

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Valid, reliable, and accurate

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source:      Troop Daily Activity Report System (DARS)
       Collection: Daily
       Reporting: Quarterly

7. Calculation Methodology: Calculation: Numeric tally
                            Methodology: Standard calculation

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: Accuracy of troop personnel information input

10. Responsible Person: Captain Ron Whittaker; 985-893-6250;
Ron.Whitaker@dps.la.gov; Captain Tom Madden; 318-741-7411;
Tom.Madden@dps.la.gov




                                                                         51
                PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Traffic Enforcement
Objective: I.1 Reduce the number of fatalities/HVMT by 6% per year through
June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of crashes resulting in arrests
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: 10665

1. Type and Level: Output; Level S

2. Rationale: Measures total number of crashes which result in the issuance of a
citation by troop traffic enforcement personnel

3. Use: To determine increase or decrease in troop personnel activity and
efficiency

4. Clarity: Not applicable

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Valid, reliable, and accurate

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source:      Troop Daily Activity Report System (DARS)
       Collection: Daily
       Reporting: Quarterly

7. Calculation Methodology: Calculation: Numeric tally
                            Methodology: Standard calculation

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: Accuracy of troop personnel information input

10. Responsible Person: Captain Ron Whittaker; 985-893-6250;
Ron.Whitaker@dps.la.gov; Captain Tom Madden; 318-741-7411;
Tom.Madden@dps.la.gov




                                                                             52
                PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Traffic Enforcement
Objective: I.1 Reduce the number of fatalities/HVMT by 6% per year through
June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Hours spent in court
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Outcome; Level S

2. Rationale: Measures the number of traffic enforcement man-hours lost to court
appearance requirements

3. Use: To determine increase or decrease in troop traffic enforcement personnel
court appearances, and further T.O. and funding needs

4. Clarity: Not applicable

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Valid, reliable, and accurate

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source:      Daily Activity Report System (DARS)
       Collection: Daily
       Reporting: Quarterly

7. Calculation Methodology: Calculation: Numeric tally
                            Methodology: Standard calculation

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: Accuracy of troop personnel information input

10. Responsible Person: Captain Ron Whittaker; 985-893-6250;
Ron.Whitaker@dps.la.gov; Captain Tom Madden; 318-741-7411;
Tom.Madden@dps.la.gov




                                                                             53
      PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Traffic Enforcement
Objective: I.1 Reduce the number of fatalities/HVMT by 6% per year through
June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Total number of contacts: crashes, tickets, and motorist assists
(GPI)
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Output; GPI

2. Rationale: Measures total number of contacts made to include crashes, tickets,
and motorist assists.

3. Use: To determine increase or decrease in troop personnel activity and
efficiency

4. Clarity: N/A

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Valid, reliable, and accurate

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Troop Daily Activity Report System (DARS)
       Collection: Daily
       Reporting: Quarterly


7. Calculation Methodology: Calculation: Numeric tally
                            Methodology: Standard calculation


8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: Accuracy of information provided by Troops

10. Responsible Person: Captain Ron Whittaker; 985-893-6250;
Ron.Whitaker@dps.la.gov; Captain Tom Madden; 318-741-7411;
Tom.Madden@dps.la.gov




                                                                              54
                PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Traffic Enforcement
Objective: I.1 Reduce the number of fatalities/HVMT by 6% per year through
June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of criminal arrests
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: 10660

1. Type and Level: Output; Level G

2. Rationale: Measures total number of criminal arrests made by troop traffic
enforcement personnel

3. Use: To determine increase or decrease in troop personnel activity and
efficiency

4. Clarity: Not applicable

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Valid, reliable, and accurate

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source:      Troop Daily Activity Report System (DARS)
       Collection: Daily
       Reporting: Quarterly

7. Calculation Methodology: Calculation: Numeric tally
                            Methodology: Standard calculation

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: Accuracy of troop personnel information input

10. Responsible Person: Captain Ron Whittaker; 985-893-6250;
Ron.Whitaker@dps.la.gov; Captain Tom Madden; 318-741-7411;
Tom.Madden@dps.la.gov




                                                                            55
                  PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Traffic Enforcement
Objective: I.1 Reduce the number of fatalities/HVMT by 6% per year through
June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Total number of crashes investigated (GPI)
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: 10661

1. Type and Level: Output; GPI

2. Rationale: Measures total number of property damage, injury, and fatal
crashes investigated by troop traffic enforcement personnel

3. Use: To determine increase or decrease in troop personnel activity and
efficiency

4. Clarity: N/A

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Valid, reliable, and accurate

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Troop Daily Activity Report System (DARS)
       Collection: Daily
       Reporting: Quarterly


7. Calculation Methodology: Calculation: Numeric tally
                            Methodology: Standard calculation

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: Accuracy of troop personnel information input

10. Responsible Person: Captain Ron Whittaker; 985-893-6250;
Ron.Whitaker@dps.la.gov; Captain Tom Madden; 318-741-7411;
Tom.Madden@dps.la.gov




                                                                       56
                PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Traffic Enforcement
Objective: I.1 Reduce the number of fatalities/HVMT by 6% per year through
June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of injury crashes investigated (GPI)
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: 10663

1. Type and Level: Output; Level G

2. Rationale: Measures total number of injury crashes investigated by troop
commissioned personnel

3. Use: To determine increase or decrease in troop personnel activity and
efficiency

4. Clarity: Injury Crashes – Crashes in which bodily injury occurs

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Valid, reliable, and accurate

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source:      Troop Daily Activity Report System (DARS)
       Collection: Daily
       Reporting: Quarterly

7. Calculation Methodology: Calculation: Numeric tally
                            Methodology: Standard calculation

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: Accuracy of troop personnel information input

10. Responsible Person: Captain Ron Whittaker; 985-893-6250;
Ron.Whitaker@dps.la.gov; Captain Tom Madden; 318-741-7411;
Tom.Madden@dps.la.gov




                                                                         57
                PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Traffic Enforcement
Objective: I.1 Reduce the number of fatalities/HVMT by 6% per year through
June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of property damage crashes investigated (GPI)
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: 10664

1. Type and Level: Output; GPI

2. Rationale: Measures total number of property damage crashes investigated by
troop enforcement personnel

3. Use: To determine increase in trooper personnel activity and efficiency

4. Clarity: Property damage crashes – Vehicle crash involving no injury to any
party

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Valid, reliable, and accurate

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Troop Daily Activity Report System (DARS)
       Collection: Daily
       Reporting: Quarterly

7. Calculation Methodology: Calculation: Numeric tally
                            Methodology: Standard calculation

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: Accuracy of troop personnel information input

10. Responsible Person: Captain Ron Whittaker; 985-893-6250;
Ron.Whitaker@dps.la.gov; Captain Tom Madden; 318-741-7411;
Tom.Madden@dps.la.gov




                                                                             58
                  PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Traffic Enforcement
Objective: I.1 Reduce the number of fatalities/HVMT by 6% per year through
June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of crashes resulting in arrests (GPI)
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: 10665

1. Type and Level: Output; GPI

2. Rationale: Measures total number of crashes which result in the issuance of
citation by troop traffic enforcement personnel

3. Use: To determine increase or decrease in troop personnel activity and
efficiency

4. Clarity: N/A

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Valid, reliable, and accurate

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Troop Daily Activity Report System (DARS)
       Collection: Daily
       Reporting: Quarterly

7. Calculation Methodology: Calculation: Numeric tally
                            Methodology: Standard calculation

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: Accuracy of troop personnel information input

10. Responsible Person: Captain Ron Whittaker; 985-893-6250;
Ron.Whitaker@dps.la.gov; Captain Tom Madden; 318-741-7411;
Tom.Madden@dps.la.gov




                                                                           59
                  PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Traffic Enforcement
Objective: I.1 Reduce the number of fatalities/HVMT by 6% per year through
June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of individuals killed in automobile crashes (GPI)
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: 1891

1. Type and Level: Input; GPI

2. Rationale: Measures total number of individuals killed in crashes investigated
by troopers

3. Use: To determine effectiveness and efficiency of troopers’ efforts to impact
number of individuals killed in crashes

4. Clarity: N/A

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Valid, reliable, and accurate

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Troop Daily Activity Report System (DARS)
       Collection: Daily
       Reporting: Quarterly

7. Calculation Methodology: Calculation: Numeric tally
                            Methodology: Standard calculation

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: Accuracy of troop personnel information input

10. Responsible Person: Captain Ron Whittaker; 985-893-6250;
Ron.Whitaker@dps.la.gov; Captain Tom Madden; 318-741-7411;
Tom.Madden@dps.la.gov




                                                                              60
                  PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Traffic Enforcement
Objective: I.1 Reduce the number of fatalities/HVMT by 6% per year through
June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of individuals injured in automobile crashes (GPI)
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: 1892

1. Type and Level: Input; GPI

2. Rationale:     Measures total number of individuals injured in crashes
investigated by troopers

3. Use: To determine effectiveness and efficiency of troopers’ efforts to impact
number of individuals injured in crashes

4. Clarity: N/A

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Valid, reliable, and accurate

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Troop Daily Activity Report (DARS)
       Collection: Daily
       Reporting: Quarterly

7. Calculation Methodology: Calculation: Numeric tally
                            Methodology: Standard calculation

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: Accuracy of troop personnel information input

10. Responsible Person: Captain Ron Whittaker; 985-893-6250;
Ron.Whitaker@dps.la.gov; Captain Tom Madden; 318-741-7411;
Tom.Madden@dps.la.gov




                                                                             61
             PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Traffic Enforcement
Objective:   II.1 Through the Motor Carrier Safety Program of the
Transportation and Environmental Safety Section (TESS), hold the number of
fatal commercial-related crashes to a level no greater than 125 annually
through June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of fatal commercial-related crashes
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: 10758

1. Type and Level: Output; Key

2. Rationale: The core mission of MCSAP is the reduction of fatal and serious
crashes involving commercial motor vehicles through an aggressive enforcement
campaign involving roadside inspections of drivers and vehicles. Although
recognized as a key level element, numbers of fatal commercial-related crashes
will be reported annually to increase accuracy based on available data.

3. Use: The indicator is the key component of determining the successes of
MCSAP and will be used to analyze the effectiveness of patrol tactics and
strategies and detection of shifts in the amounts of commercial vehicle traffic
traveling Louisiana roads.

4. Clarity: Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV): Trucks and trailers used for
transportation of goods, services, or people as defined by federal regulation and
state statute.

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: The indicator is valid, reliable, and
accurate to the extent of reporting law enforcement agencies submit Uniform
Crash Reports to the Department of Public Safety and Corrections.

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Department of Public Safety and Corrections; Louisiana Highway
       Safety Commission; Louisiana State University
       Collection: Weekly
       Reporting: TESS – Transportation Safety Services Division

7. Calculation Methodology: Calculation: Standard calculation as to the
                            number reported
                            Methodology: Addition

8. Scope: Aggregate




                                                                              62
9. Caveats: Willingness of reporting agencies to supply data, accuracy of
information submitted, and the raw number of CMV crashes is not being
.compared to miles driven. The number is static and not reflective of changes in
environment and demographics, and lastly, socio-economic activities.

10. Responsible Person: Lt. Terri Chustz; 225-925-6113, ext. 251.
Terri.Chustz@dps.state.la.gov




                                                                             63
                PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Traffic Enforcement
Objective: II.1 Through the Motor Carrier Safety Program of the
Transportation and Environmental Safety Section (TESS), hold the number of
fatal commercial-related crashes to a level no greater than 125 annually
through June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of Motor Carrier Safety inspections conducted
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: 10675

1. Type and Level: Input; Key

2. Rationale: Roadside safety inspections of commercial vehicles have a
profound effect on promoting voluntary compliance to Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations. Serious safety defects require immediate remedy before such
vehicles may lawfully proceed to their destinations.

3. Use: Greater number of inspections conducted has a positive effect on
increasing a safety environment for the motoring public.

4. Clarity: Clearly identifies what is being measured.

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Has not been audited by the Office of the
Legislative Auditor. The source is reliable and accurate with no hidden agenda.

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Internal database
       Collection: Data reported quarterly
       Reporting: TESS – Transportation Safety Services Division

7. Calculation Methodology: Calculation: Mathematical calculations
                            Methodology: Not applicable

8. Scope: Statewide program involvement

9. Caveats: Not applicable

10. Responsible Person: Lt. Terri Chustz; 225-925-6113, ext. 251.
Terri.Chustz@dps.state.la.gov




                                                                             64
                PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Traffic Enforcement
Objective:   II.1 Through the Motor Carrier Safety Program of the
Transportation and Environmental Safety Section (TESS), hold the number of
fatal commercial-related crashes to a level no greater than 125 annually
through June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of Motor Carrier Safety audits conducted
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: 10677

1. Type and Level: Input; Key

2. Rationale: Compliance Review Audits are an important and necessary tool to
assess the safety posture of motor carriers. Inspection, crash, and other data used
in these audits help identify at-risk carriers and provide a medium to institute
corrective measures to minimize recurrences.           Compliance Reviews are
extremely effective in identifying problem areas in which motor carriers
experience difficulties in maintaining compliance. Coupled with the Compliance
Review Audits is the New Entrant Safety Audit Program. This program is
mandated by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration; it requires that all
new Louisiana-based carriers receive a safety rating within eighteen months of
receiving their operating authorities.

3. Use: To determine by investigator audits of motor carriers, trends to formulate
future enforcement strategies, and the implementation of more strategically
focused campaigns based on data collected from safety audits.

4. Clarity: Clearly identifies what is being measured

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Has not been audited by the Office of the
Legislative Auditor. The source is reliable and accurate with no hidden agenda.

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Internal database
       Collection: Data reported quarterly
       Reporting: TESS – Transportation Safety Services Division

7. Calculation Methodology: Calculation: Mathematical calculation
                            Methodology: Not applicable

8. Scope: Statewide implementation




                                                                                65
9. Caveats: Effectiveness of this performance indicator will be based upon the
number of qualified auditors.

10. Responsible Person: Lt. Terri Chustz; 225-925-6113, ext. 251.
Terri.Chustz@dps.state.la.gov




                                                                           66
                PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Traffic Enforcement
Objective:   II.1 Through the Motor Carrier Safety Program of the
Transportation and Environmental Safety Section (TESS), hold the number of
fatal commercial-related crashes to a level no greater than 125 annually
through June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of Motor Carrier Safety violations cited (GPI)
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: 10714

1. Type and Level: Input; GPI

2. Rationale: The performance indicator indicates the quality of inspection and
the level of compliance of motor carriers and their drivers.

3. Use: Used to track, identify, and correct the regulatory deficiencies of high-
risk carriers and their drivers, and assess program effectiveness.

4. Clarity: Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP)

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: The program was audited from a
financial standpoint relating to duplication of services. The number of MCSAP
violations is reported daily and monthly and housed in a data collection system.
Data is verified through a myriad of internal checks.

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Department of Public Safety and Corrections; Louisiana Highway
       Commission; Louisiana State University
       Collection: Weekly
       Reporting: TESS – Transportation Safety Services Division

7. Calculation Methodology: Calculation: Standard calculation
                            Methodology: Addition

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: Not applicable

10. Responsible Person: Lt. Terri Chustz; 225-925-6113, ext. 251.
Terri.Chustz@dps.state.la.gov




                                                                              67
                PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Traffic Enforcement
Objective: II.2 Increase by 5% the number of weight enforcement contacts per
enforcement hour by June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of commercial vehicles weighed for overweight
violations
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: 13778

1. Type and Level: Input; Key

2. Rationale: This indicator will measure the total number of vehicles weighed
by enforcement officers of the Weights and Standards Unit.

3. Use: This indicator will be used to increase the unit’s effectiveness through
increasing officer efficiency.

4. Clarity: Each contact determines the vehicle compliance.

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Weight Enforcement contacts are
roadside inspections of trucks and trailers for compliance of state weight and size
laws.

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: The program was auditing from a physical standpoint related to
       duplication of services. The number of weights and standards inspections
       is reported daily and monthly and housed in a data collection system.
       Data is verified through a myriad of internal checks.

7. Calculation Methodology: The number of trucks weighed as reported by
officers.

8. Scope: This program is statewide and the compilation is an aggregate of the
work of all officers.

9. Caveats: This system is affected by the accuracy of submitted data.

10. Responsible Person: Lt. Terri Chustz; 225-925-6113, ext. 251.
Terri.Chustz@dps.state.la.gov




                                                                                68
                PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Traffic Enforcement
Objective: II.2 Increase by 5% the number of weight enforcement contacts per
enforcement hour by June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of weight and size violations cited
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: 13779

1. Type and Level: Input; GPI

2. Rationale: This indicator will measure the number of size and weight
violations issued to commercial vehicle traffic.

3. Use: Effectiveness of program.

4. Clarity: Each violation determines the conformity to weight and size
regulations.

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Violations are citations issued to
commercial vehicles which do not conform to state and federal weight and size
standards.

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: The program was audited from a physical standpoint related to
       duplication of services. The number of weights and standards inspections
       is reported daily and monthly and housed in a data collection system.
       Data is verified through a myriad of internal checks.

7. Calculation Methodology: This figure is a total of the number of over gross,
over axle, size violations, and permit violations reported by officers on daily and
monthly reports.

8. Scope: This program is statewide and the compilation is an aggregate of the
work of all officers.

9. Caveats: This system is affected by the accuracy of submitted data. This
indicator will be used to identify the impact of changes in legislation pertaining
to size and weight laws.

10. Responsible Person: Lt. Terri Chustz; 225-925-6113, ext. 251.
Terri.Chustz@dps.state.la.gov




                                                                                69
                PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Traffic Enforcement
Objective: II.2 Increase by 5% the number of weight enforcement contacts per
enforcement hour by June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of manpower hours dedicated to weight enforcement
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Output; Supporting

2. Rationale: This indicator will measure the number of hours weights and
standards officers dedicate to weight and size enforcement.

3. Use: This indicator will be used to identify the number of hours available to
enforce federal and state regulations.

4. Clarity: Indicates the number of hours dedicated to weight and size
enforcement.

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: This measurement is maintained to
determine the amount of time required to inspect and weigh a commercial
vehicle.

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: The program was audited from a standpoint from a physical
       standpoint related to duplication of services. The number of weights and
       standards inspections is reported daily and monthly and housed in a data
       collection system. Data is verified through a myriad of internal checks.

7. Calculation Methodology: Hours are noted by field officers and totaled in the
TARS System.

8. Scope: This program is statewide and the compilation is an aggregate of the
work of all officers.

9. Caveats: This system is affected by the accuracy of submitted data.

10. Responsible Person: Lt. Terri Chustz; 225-925-6113, ext. 251.
Terri.Chustz@dps.state.la.gov




                                                                             70
                PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Traffic Enforcement
Objective:    III.1 Develop and maintain comprehensive contingency
management plans for acts of terror or natural disaster by June 30, 2009.
Indicator Name: Development of plans
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Outcome; Efficiency

2. Rationale: This indicator will determine the amount of plan developed.

3. Use: For internal management purposes.

4. Clarity: Clearly identifies development of plan.

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Development of written plan.

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting: Progress on plan will be reported on
a State Fiscal basis.

7. Calculation Methodology: No calculations needed.

8. Scope: Aggregate.

9. Caveats: None

10. Responsible Person: Major David Staton; 225-925-4551 (phone); 225-925-4769
(fax); David.Staton@dps.la.gov




                                                                            71
                PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Traffic Enforcement
Objective:    III.1 Develop and maintain comprehensive contingency
management plans for acts of terror or natural disaster by June 30, 2009.
Indicator Name: Plans developed
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Outcome; Efficiency

2. Rationale: This indicator will determine the amount of plan developed.

3. Use: For internal management purposes.

4. Clarity: Clearly identifies development of plan.

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Development of written plan.

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting: Progress on plan will be reported on
a State Fiscal basis.

7. Calculation Methodology: No calculations needed.

8. Scope: Aggregate.

9. Caveats: None

10. Responsible Person: Major David Staton; 225-925-4551 (phone); 225-925-
4769 (fax); David.Staton@dps.la.gov




                                                                             72
                PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Traffic Enforcement
Objective: III.2 Participate as a member of the Statewide Interoperable
Executive Committee (SIEC) in the development of a comprehensive
interoperability plan for the Louisiana emergency services community.
Indicator Name: Will be determined as data becomes available.
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Outcome; Efficiency

2. Rationale: This indicator will determine the amount of plan developed.

3. Use: For internal management purposes.

4. Clarity: Clearly identifies development of plan.

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Development of written plan.

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting: Progress on plan will be reported on
a State Fiscal basis.

7. Calculation Methodology: No calculations needed.

8. Scope: Aggregate.

9. Caveats: None

10. Responsible Person: Major David Staton; 225-925-4551 (phone); 225-925-
4769 (fax); David.Staton@dps.la.gov




                                                                            73
                 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Traffic Enforcement
Objective: IV.1 Replace 95% of in-car (analog) cameras with digital recording
systems by June 30, 2013.
IV.2 Conduct a needs assessment / cost analysis to determine feasibility of
securing and implementing e-citation devices for agency use by June 30, 2011.
Indicator Name: Number of digital in-car cameras provided
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Outcome; Efficiency

2. Rationale: This indicator will determine the number of digital in-car cameras
needed.

3. Use: For internal management purposes.

4. Clarity: Clearly identifies need for technology.

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Development of implementation plan.

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting: Progress on plan will be reported on
a State Fiscal basis.

7. Calculation Methodology: No calculations needed.

8. Scope: Aggregate.

9. Caveats: None

10. Responsible Person: Captain Ron Whittaker; 985-893-6250;
Ron.Whitaker@dps.la.gov; Captain Tom Madden; 318-741-7411;
Tom.Madden@dps.la.gov




                                                                             74
                PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Criminal Investigation Program
Objective: I.1 Increase by 5% the number of criminal investigations by June
30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of criminal investigations initiated
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level:
     Type    Output
     Level G

2. Rationale:
     Measures the number of cases opened by all Criminal Investigative Sections

3. Use:
     Case Management/Statistical

4. Clarity:
     N/A

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy:
       Has not been audited by the Office of the Legislative Auditor
       The source is reliable and accurate with no hidden agenda

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source       Files maintained at individual offices
       Collection Monthly Reports
       Reporting    Done on demand

7. Calculation Methodology:
       Calculation Numeric tally
       MethodologyN/A

8. Scope:
       Aggregate

9. Caveats:
      Not Applicable

10. Responsible Person: Lt. Bryson Williams; Bureau of Investigation;
 225-925-4261 (phone); Bryson.Williams@dps.la.gov




                                                                             75
                PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Criminal Investigation Program
Objective: I.1 Increase by 5% the number of criminal investigations by June
30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of criminal investigations closed
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Output; Key

2. Rationale: The indicator can instantly be compared to previous data to
determine whether goals and objectives are being accomplished and to
determine whether or not an inordinate number of cases are going unresolved.

3. Use: Will be used for internal management decisions, as well as performance
based budgeting purposes.

4. Clarity: The indicator clearly identifies what is being measured.

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Has not been audited by the Office of the
Legislative Auditor. The source is reliable and accurate with no hidden agenda.

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting: Monthly reports, files maintained at
individual offices, and reports that are done monthly or on demand.

7. Calculation Methodology: Individual investigators are required to submit
monthly reports which enumerate specific reporting categories, such as number
of criminal investigations closed. The various unit and section supervisors then
forward that information to a central location to be tallied and included in a
computer database.

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: Some criminal investigations are complex, labor/resource intensive
and time consuming, which may bias the final performance indicator number

10. Responsible Person: Lt. Bryson Williams; Bureau of Investigation; 225-925-
4261 (phone); Bryson.Williams@dps.la.gov




                                                                             76
             PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Criminal Investigation Program
Objective: I.1 Increase by 5% the number of criminal investigations by June
30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of public awareness presentations delivered (SPI)
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Input; Supporting

2. Rationale: The indicator can instantly be compared to previous data, tracking
the number of public awareness presentations delivered.

3. Use: Will be used for internal management decisions, as well as performance
based budgeting purposes.

4. Clarity: The indicator clearly identifies what is being measured.

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Valid, reliable, and accurate.

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting: Monthly reports, files maintained at
individual offices and reports that are done monthly or on demand.

7. Calculation Methodology:       The number of completed public awareness
presentations presented.

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: Some presentations will have more participants than others.

10. Responsible Person: Lt. Bryson Williams; Bureau of Investigation; 225-925-
4261 (phone); Bryson.Williams@dps.la.gov




                                                                             77
                  PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Criminal Investigation Program
Objective: II.1 Implement the Information Reporting System (IRS) for the
entire Bureau of Investigations by June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name:      Percentage of BOI investigators on the Information
Reporting System
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Input; Key

2. Rationale: The indicator can be used to measure the progress regarding
investigators on the IRS.

3. Use: Will be used for internal management decisions, as well as performance
based budgeting purposes.

4. Clarity: The indicator clearly identifies what is being measured.

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Valid, reliable, and accurate.

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting: Monthly reports, files maintained at
individual offices, and reports that are done monthly or on demand.

7. Calculation Methodology: The number of investigators now in BOI versus
previous numbers.

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: N/A

10. Responsible Person: Lt. Bryson Williams; Bureau of Investigation; 225-925-
4261 (phone); Bryson.Williams@dps.la.gov




                                                                            78
                PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Criminal Investigation Program
Objective: II.1 Implement the Information Reporting System (IRS) for the
entire Bureau of Investigations by June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of specialized training courses attended
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Input; Supporting

2. Rationale: The indicator can be used to measure the number of specialized
training courses attended by LSP personnel.

3. Use: Will be used for internal management decisions, as well as performance
based budgeting purposes.

4. Clarity: The indicator clearly identifies what is being measured.

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Valid, reliable, and accurate.

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting: Monthly reports, files maintained at
individual offices and reports that are done monthly or on demand.

7. Calculation Methodology: The number of completed specialized training
courses, the number of created specialized training courses, and attendance at
specialized training courses.

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: Some training courses will have more participants than others.

10. Responsible Person: Lt. Bryson Williams; Bureau of Investigation; 225-925-
4261 (phone); Bryson.Williams@dps.la.gov




                                                                             79
                  PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Criminal Investigation Program
Objective: III.I Increase other agency assists by 2% by June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of other agency assists
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Output; Level G

2. Rationale: Measures the actual number of times investigators assist other law
enforcement agencies

3. Use: Sharing of information and resources

4. Clarity: N/A

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Has not been audited by the Office of t he
Legislative Auditor. The source is reliable with no hidden agenda.

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source:      Files maintained at individual offices
       Collection: Monthly reports
       Reporting: On demand

7. Calculation Methodology: Calculation: Actual number of other agency assists
                            Methodology: N/A

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: Not applicable

10. Responsible Person: Lt. Bryson Williams; Bureau of Investigation; 225-925-
4261 (phone); Bryson.Williams@dps.la.gov




                                                                              80
                  PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Criminal Investigation Program
Objective: III.1 Increase other agency assists by 2% by June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of assists divided by the number of investigators
Indicator LaPAS PI Code:

1. Type and Level: Output; Key

2. Rationale: Measures the actual number of times investigators assist other law
enforcement agencies versus the number of investigators

3. Use: Sharing of information and resources

4. Clarity: N/A

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Valid, reliable, and accurate

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source:      Files maintained at individual offices
       Collection: Monthly reports
       Reporting: On demand

7. Calculation Methodology: Number of agency assists divided by number of
investigators.

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: Assists are generated when LSP is contacted by other agencies for
assistance.

10. Responsible Person: Lt. Bryson Williams; Bureau of Investigation; 225-925-
4261 (phone); Bryson.Williams@dps.la.gov




                                                                             81
                  PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Operational Support Program
Objective: I.1 Through the Accreditation Unit of the Louisiana State Police, to
comply with 100% of the applicable Commission on Accreditation for Law
Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) standards by June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of applicable CALEA standards.
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: 14173

1. Type and Level: Outcome; Supporting

2. Rationale: Maintain compliance with applicable Accreditation for Law
Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) standards.

3. Use:     To determine compliance to standards and those needed for
reaccreditation.

4. Clarity:   CALEA (Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement
Agencies)

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Self assessment/proof of compliance
concluded with CALEA final report and reaccreditation.

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: CALEA
       Collection: 36 months
       Reporting: 36 months

7. Calculation Methodology: Calculation: Proof of compliance with standards
                            Methodology: Not applicable

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: N/A

10. Responsible Person: Lt. Dennis Stewart; Research Unit; 225-925-6200
(phone); 225-925-3717 (fax); Dennis.Stewart@dps.la.gov




                                                                            82
                  PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Operational Support Program
Objective: I.1 Through the Accreditation Unit of the Louisiana State Police, to
comply with 100% of the applicable Commission on Accreditation for Law
Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) standards June 30, 2013..
Indicator Name: Number of applicable CALEA standards with which State
Police is in compliance.
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: 14173

1. Type and Level: Outcome; Supporting

2. Rationale: Maintain compliance with applicable Accreditation for Law
Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) standards.

3. Use:     To determine compliance to standards and those needed for
reaccreditation.

4. Clarity:   CALEA (Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement
Agencies)

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Self assessment/proof of compliance
concluded with CALEA final report and reaccreditation.

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: CALEA
       Collection: 36 months
       Reporting: 36 months

7. Calculation Methodology: Calculation: Proof of compliance with standards
                            Methodology: Not applicable

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: N/A

10. Responsible Person: Lt. Dennis Stewart; Research Unit; 225-925-6200
(phone); 225-925-3717 (fax); Dennis.Stewart@dps.la.gov




                                                                            83
                  PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Operational Support Program
Objective: I.1 Through the Accreditation Unit of the Louisiana State Police, to
comply with 100% of the applicable Commission on Accreditation for Law
Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) standards.
Indicator Name: Percentage of applicable standards with which State Police is
in compliance (GPI)
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: 14173

1. Type and Level: Outcome; Supporting

2. Rationale: Become Commissioned on Accreditation for Law Enforcement
Agencies (CALEA) reaccredited by June 30, 2013.

3. Use:     To determine compliance to standards and those needed for
reaccreditation.

4. Clarity:   CALEA (Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement
Agencies)

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Self assessment/proof of compliance
concluded with CALEA final report and reaccreditation.

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: CALEA
       Collection: 36 months
       Reporting: 36 months

7. Calculation Methodology: Calculation: Proof of compliance with standards
                            Methodology: Not applicable

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: N/A

10. Responsible Person: Lt. Dennis Stewart; Research Unit; 225-925-6200
(phone); 225-925-3717 (fax); Dennis.Stewart@dps.la.gov




                                                                            84
                PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Operational Support Program
Objective: I.1 Through the Accreditation Unit of the Louisiana State Police, to
comply with 100% of the applicable Commission on Accreditation for Law
Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) standards.
Indicator Name: Department awarded accreditation
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Outcome; Level G

2. Rationale: Become commissioned on Accreditation for Law Enforcement
Agencies (CALEA) reaccredited by June 30, 2013.

3. Use: To determine compliance to standards and those needed for
reaccreditation

4. Clarity: CALEA (Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement
Agencies)

 5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Self assessment/proof of compliance
concluded with CALEA final report and reaccreditation

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source:      CALEA
       Collection: 36 months
       Reporting: 36 months

7. Calculation Methodology: Calculation: Proof of compliance with standards
                           Methodology: Not applicable

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: Not applicable

10. Responsible Person: Lt. Dennis Stewart; Research Unit; 225-925-6200
(phone); 225-925-3717 (fax); Dennis.Stewart@dps.la.gov




                                                                              85
                  PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Operational Support Program
Objective: I.1 Through the Accreditation Unit of the Louisiana State Police, to
comply with 100% of the applicable Commission on Accreditation for Law
Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) standards.
Indicator Name: Number of site visits
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Input; Supporting

2. Rationale: Actual site visits by CALEA.

3. Use: Accreditation

4. Clarity: N/A

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Valid, reliable, and accurate

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source:      Files maintained at individual offices
       Collection: Monthly reports
       Reporting: On demand

7. Calculation Methodology: Number of completed site visits.

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: Not applicable

10. Responsible Person: Lt. Dennis Stewart; Research Unit; 225-925-6200
(phone); 225-925-3717 (fax); Dennis.Stewart@dps.la.gov




                                                                             86
                  PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Operational Support Program
Objective: I.1 Through the Accreditation Unit of the Louisiana State Police, to
comply with 100% of the applicable Commission on Accreditation for Law
Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) standards.
Indicator Name: Number of sites in compliance with CALEA requirements
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Output; Key

2. Rationale: Actual site visits by CALEA.

3. Use: Accreditation

4. Clarity: N/A

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Valid, reliable, and accurate

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source:      Files maintained at individual offices
       Collection: Monthly reports
       Reporting: On demand

7. Calculation Methodology: Number sites in compliance with CALEA
requirements.

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: Not applicable

10. Responsible Person: Lt. Dennis Stewart; Research Unit; 225-925-6200
(phone); 225-925-3717 (fax); Dennis.Stewart@dps.la.gov




                                                                            87
                  PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Operational Support Program
Objective: I.1 Through the Accreditation Unit of the Louisiana State Police, to
comply with 100% of the applicable Commission on Accreditation for Law
Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) standards.
Indicator Name: Percentage of sites in compliance relative to number of site
visits
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Output; Key

2. Rationale: Actual site visits by CALEA.

3. Use: Accreditation

4. Clarity: N/A

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Valid, reliable, and accurate

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source:      Files maintained at individual offices
       Collection: Monthly reports
       Reporting: On demand

7. Calculation Methodology: Number sites in compliance with CALEA
requirements.

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: Not applicable

10. Responsible Person: Lt. Dennis Stewart; Research Unit; 225-925-6200
(phone); 225-925-3717 (fax); Dennis.Stewart@dps.la.gov




                                                                            88
                PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Operational Support Program
Objective: I.2 The Crime Laboratory will maintain American Society of Crime
Laboratory      Directors/Laboratory  Accreditation     Board    (ASCLS/LAB)
accreditation to ensure continued quality lab operations through June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Percentage of compliance with ASCLD/LAB accreditation
essential criteria met
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: 6621

1. Type and Level: Outcome; Key

2. Rationale: Compliance with ASCLD/LAB-Legacy standards is necessary to
maintain accreditation.

3. Use: To determine compliance with standards to maintain accreditation.

4. Clarity: ASCLD/LAB – American Society of Crime Lab Director’s/Laboratory
Accreditation Board

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Indicator was audited. Indicator is being
revised to clarify that only those accreditation criteria audited each quarter will
be reported.

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Internal audit reports maintained by Lab Quality Control
       Manager
       Collection: As internal lab audits are completed
       Reporting: Annually

7. Calculation Methodology: Calculation: Self-assessments for proof of
                            compliance
                            Methodology: Divide the number of essential
                            accreditation criteria met by the total number of
                            essential accreditation criteria evaluated

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: N/A

10. Responsible Person: Captain Jerry Patrick; 225-925-6216 (phone); 225-925-
6217 (fax); Jerry.Patrick@dps.la.gov




                                                                                89
                PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Operational Support Program
Objective: I.2 The Crime Laboratory will maintain American Society of Crime
Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB)
accreditation to ensure continued quality lab operations through June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Percentage of compliance with ASCLD/LAB accreditation
important criteria met
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: 6622

1. Type and Level: Outcome; Key

2. Rationale: Compliance with ASCLD/LAB-Legacy standards is necessary to
maintain accreditation

3. Use: To determine compliance with standards to maintain accreditation

4. Clarity: ASCLD/LAB – American Society of Crime Lab Director’s /
Laboratory Accreditation Board

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Indicator was audited. Indicator is being
reviews to clarify that only those accreditation criteria audited each quarter will
be reported.

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Internal audit reports maintained by Lab Quality Control
       Manager
       Collection: As internal lab audits are completed
       Reporting: Annually

7. Calculation Methodology: Calculation: Self-assessments for proof of
                            compliance
                            Methodology: Divide the number of important
                            accreditation criteria met by the total number of
                            important accreditation criteria evaluated

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: N/A

10. Responsible Person: Captain Jerry Patrick; 225-925-6216 (phone); 225-925-
6217 (fax); Jerry.Patrick@dps.la.gov




                                                                                90
                  PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Operational Support Program
Objective: I.2 The Crime Laboratory will maintain American Society of Crime
Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB)
accreditation to ensure continued quality lab operations through June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Percentage of compliance with ASCLD/LAB accreditation
desirable criteria met
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: 6623

1. Type and Level: Outcome; Key

2. Rationale: Compliance with ASCLD/LAB-Legacy standards is necessary to
maintain accreditation

3. Use: To determine compliance with standards to maintain accreditation.

4. Clarity: ASCLD/LAB – American Society of Crime Lab Director’s /
Laboratory Accreditation Board

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Indicator was audited. Indicator is being
revised to clarify that only those accreditation criteria audited each quarter will
be reported.

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Internal audit reports maintained by Lab Quality Control
       Manager
       Collection: As internal lab audits are completed
       Reporting: Annually


7. Calculation Methodology: Calculation: Self-assessments for proof of
                            compliance
                            Methodology: Divide the number of desirable
                            accreditation criteria met by the total number of
                            desirable accreditation criteria evaluated


8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: N/A




                                                                                91
10. Responsible Person: Captain Jerry Patrick; 225-925-6216 (phone); 225-925-
6217 (fax); Jerry.Patrick@dps.la.gov




                                                                            92
                  PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Operational Support
Objective: I.3 The Crime Laboratory will analyze 95% of requests received for
analysis for trial purposes at the local, state, and federal level by June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of requests for analysis
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: 6626

1. Type and Level: Input Level K

2. Rationale: Use of Justicetrax LIMS system to measure caseload statistics

3. Use: Track caseload increase to possibly seek additional resources to maintain
timely analysis

4. Clarity: NA

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Indicator has been audited

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source:      Input into Justicetrax
       Collection: Upon entry into Justicetrax
       Reporting: Quarterly

7. Calculation Methodology: Calculation: Simple count of requests into system
                           Methodology: Simple count

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: N/A

10. Responsible Person: Captain Jerry Patrick; 225-925-6216 (phone); 225-925-
6217 (fax); Jerry.Patrick@dps.la.gov




                                                                                 93
                  PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Operational Support
Objective: I.3 The Crime Laboratory will analyze 95% of requests received for
analysis for trial purposes at the local, state, and federal level by June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of requests for analysis completed
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: 6627

1. Type and Level: Output; Key

2. Rationale:   Use of Justicetrax LIMS system to measure request workload
output

3. Use: Track requests worked to possibly seek additional resources to maintain
timely analysis

4. Clarity: N/A

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Indicator has been audited

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Internal database (Justicetrax)
       Collection: Upon entry into Justicetrax
       Reporting: Quarterly

7. Calculation Methodology: Calculation: Simple counts of requests entered
                            into system
                            Methodology: Tabulate the number of requests
                            for analysis completed

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: N/A

10. Responsible Person: Captain Jerry Patrick; 225-925-6216 (phone); 225-925-
6217 (fax); Jerry.Patrick@dps.la.gov




                                                                                  94
                  PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Operational Support
Objective: I.3 The Crime Laboratory will analyze 95% of requests received for
analysis for trial purposes at the local, state, and federal level by June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Percentage of requests for analysis completed
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Outcome; GPI

2. Rationale: Use of Justicetrax system to determine the percentage of lab
requests analyzed

3. Use: Tool to help determine if lab resources need increasing or re-distribution
based on percentage of lab requests analyzed per discipline

4. Clarity: N/A

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: New. Entries into Justicetrax system

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Internal database (Justicetrax)
       Collection: Upon entry into Justicetrax
       Reporting: Quarterly

7. Calculation Methodology: Calculation: Simple percentage of requests
                            analyzed
                            Methodology: Divide the total number of requests
                            completed by the total number of requests received

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: N/A

10. Responsible Person: Captain Jerry Patrick; 225-925-6216 (phone); 225-925-
6217 (fax); Jerry.Patrick@dps.la.gov




                                                                                 95
                  PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Operational Support Program
Objective: I.4 The Crime Laboratory will reduce DNA analysis average
turnaround time to 60 calendar days on 85% of requests for analysis received
by June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of forensic DNA requests for analysis completed
within 60 calendar days
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Input; Supporting

2. Rationale: DNA samples for analysis completed within 60 calendar days LA
R.S. 14:601-620

3. Use: Measure the effectiveness of the DNA forensic analysis program.

4. Clarity: N/A

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Indicator has been audited

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Count from Laboratory Information System (LIMS) database.
       Collection: System reports.
       Reporting: Annually and semi-annually

7. Calculation Methodology:
       Calculation: Report in Laboratory Information System (LIMS) database.
       Methodology: Tabulation of the number of DNA requests for analysis
       processed within a specific interval during reporting period.

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: N/A

10. Responsible Person: Captain Jerry Patrick; 225-925-6216 (phone); 225-925-
6217 (fax); Jerry.Patrick@dps.la.gov.




                                                                           96
                  PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Operational Support Program
Objective: I.4 The Crime Laboratory will reduce DNA analysis average
turnaround time to 60 calendar days on 85% of requests for analysis received
by June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of forensic DNA requests for analysis received
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Input; Supporting

2. Rationale: DNA samples for analysis received.

3. Use: Measure the effectiveness of the DNA forensic analysis program

4. Clarity: N/A

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Indicator has been audited

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Count from Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS)
       database.
       Reporting: Annually and semi-annually

7. Calculation Methodology:
       Calculation: Report in Laboratory Information Management System
       (LIMS) database.
       Methodology: Tabulation of the number of DNA requests for analysis
       received during reporting period.

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: N/A

10. Responsible Person: Captain Jerry Patrick; 225-925-6216 (phone); 225-925-
6217 (fax); Jerry.Patrick@dps.la.gov




                                                                          97
                  PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Operational Support Program
Objective: I.4 The Crime Laboratory will reduce DNA analysis average
turnaround time to 60 calendar days on 85% of requests for analysis received
by June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Percentage of DNA requests for analysis completed within 60
calendar days
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Outcome; Supporting

2. Rationale: Percentage of DNA samples completed within 60 calendar days LA
R.S. 14:601-620.

3. Use: Measure the effectiveness of the DNA forensic analysis program

4. Clarity: N/A

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Indicator has been audited

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Calculation based on information from Laboratory Information
       Management System (LIMS).
       Reporting: Annually and semi-annually

7. Calculation Methodology:
       Calculation: Simple
       Methodology: Divide the number of requests for DNA analysis processed
       within reporting interval by number of requests for DNA analysis
       received within reporting interval.

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: N/A

10. Responsible Person: Captain Jerry Patrick; 225-925-6216 (phone); 225-925-
6217 (fax); Jerry.Patrick@dps.la.gov.




                                                                          98
                  PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Operational Support Program
Objective: I.4 The Crime Laboratory will reduce DNA analysis average
turnaround time to 60 calendar days on 85% of requests for analysis received
by June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of DNA convicted offender samples received
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: 15551

1. Type and Level: Output; Supporting

2. Rationale: Calculate the number of DNA convicted offender samples collected
pursuant to LA R.S. 14:601-620

3. Use: Measure the effectiveness of the DNA Combined DNA Indexing System
(CODIS) program

4. Clarity: N/A

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Indicator has been audited

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: DOC and Probation and Parole personnel who collect samples
       Collection: Every time a DOC inmate enters a DOC facility who qualifies
       for a DNA sample collection and every time a DOC facility has a backlog
       of inmates that need to be collected. Collections also occur by Probation
       and Parole every time a probationer presents himself at his local Probation
       and Parole office.
       Reporting: Annually and semi-annually

7. Calculation Methodology: Calculation: Internal database (LaCATS)
                            Methodology: Tabulation of the number of DNA
                            convicted offender samples collected

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: N/A

10. Responsible Person: Captain Jerry Patrick; 225-925-6216 (phone); 225-925-
6217 (fax); Jerry.Patrick@dps.la.gov




                                                                               99
                  PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Operational Support Program
Objective: I.4 The Crime Laboratory will reduce DNA analysis average
turnaround time to 60 calendar days on 85% of requests for analysis received
by June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of DNA arrestee samples received
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: 15552

1. Type and Level: Output; Supporting

2. Rationale: Calculate the number of DNA arrestee samples collected pursuant
to LA R.S. 14:601-620

3. Use: Assess the effectiveness of DNA Combined DNA Indexing System
(CODIS) program

4. Clarity: N/A

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Indicator has been audited

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Local law enforcement agencies that collect DNA samples
       Collection: Daily
       Reporting: Annually and semi-annually

7. Calculation Methodology: Calculation: Internal database (LaCATS)
                            Methodology: Tabulate the number of DNA
                            arrestee samples collected

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: N/A

10. Responsible Person: Captain Jerry Patrick; 225-925-6216 (phone); 225-925-
6217 (fax); Jerry.Patrick@dps.la.gov




                                                                         100
                 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Operational Support
Objective: I.4 The Crime Laboratory will reduce DNA analysis average
turnaround time to 60 calendar days on 85% of requests for analysis received
by June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of CODIS samples accessioned
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: 15554

1. Type and Level: Output; Level K

2. Rationale: Locate the number of CODIS samples accessioned for outsourcing
analysis of samples

3. Use: Assess the effectiveness of the DNA accessioning program

4. Clarity: NA

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Indicator has been audited

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source:      Crime Lab DNA Administrative Staff
       Collection: Daily
       Reporting: Quarterly and annually

7. Calculation Methodology:
       Calculation: Internal Crime Lab software (LACATS)
       Methodology: Standard

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: NA

10. Responsible Person: Captain Jerry Patrick; 225-925-6216 (phone); 225-925-
6217 (fax); Jerry.Patrick@dps.la.gov




                                                                         101
                 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Operational Support
Objective: I.4 The Crime Laboratory will reduce DNA analysis average
turnaround time to 60 calendar days on 85% of requests for analysis received
by June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of CODIS samples uploaded to NDIS
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: 15553

1. Type and Level: Output; Level K

2. Rationale: Calculate the number of CODIS samples uploaded to NDIS

3. Use: Assess the number of analyzed DNA profiles uploaded to NDIS

4. Clarity: NA

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Indicator has been audited

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source:      National DNA database operated by software called CODIS
       Collection: Every Thursday
       Reporting: Quarterly and annually

7. Calculation Methodology Calculation: National database operated by CODIS
                           software
                           Methodology: Standard

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: NA

10. Responsible Person: Captain Jerry Patrick; 225-925-6216 (phone); 225-925-
6217 (fax); Jerry.Patrick@dps.la.gov




                                                                                102
                 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Operational Support
Objective: I.4 The Crime Laboratory will reduce DNA analysis average
turnaround time to 60 calendar days on 85% of requests for analysis received
by June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of CODIS samples uploaded to SDIS
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Output; Level New

2. Rationale: Calculate the number of CODIS samples uploaded to the SDIS

3. Use: Assess the number of analyzed DNA profiles uploaded to SDIS

4. Clarity: NA

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Based upon entries into the State DNA
database

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source:      State DNA database operated by software called CODIS
       Collection: Every time a DNA analyst reports a scientific analysis report
                    which contains a profile requiring to be uploaded
       Reporting: Quarterly and annually

7. Calculation Methodology:
       Calculation: State DNA database operated by software called CODIS
       Methodology: Standard

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: NA

10. Responsible Person: Captain Jerry Patrick; 225-925-6216 (phone); 225-925-
6217 (fax); Jerry.Patrick@dps.la.gov




                                                                               103
                  PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Operational Support Program
Objective: 1.5 The Bureau of Criminal Identification and Information will
ensure that 90% of the requests received to update criminal history
information are processed into the Louisiana Computerized Criminal History
(LACCH) system and electronically available by June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Percentage of received requests processed
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Outcome; Supporting

2. Rationale: Provides a percentage of the work processed to the work received.

3. Use: Identifies the need for additional resources or changes in workflow.

4. Clarity: Yes

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: No

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Work reports
       Collection: Daily
       Reporting: Monthly

7. Calculation Methodology: Calculation: Numeric
                            Methodology: Divide total number of requests
                            processed by total number of requests received

8. Scope: Total processed

9. Caveats: None

10. Responsible Person: Christine Langlois; Criminal Records Analyst 5;
Criminal     Records;      225-925-1737 (phone);    225-925-7005  (fax);
Christine.Langlois@dps.la.gov




                                                                               104
                  PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Operational Support Program
Objective: 1.5 The Bureau of Criminal Identification and Information will
ensure that 90% of the requests received to update criminal history
information are processed into the Louisiana Computerized Criminal History
(LACCH) system and electronically available by June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of expungements received
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: 10991

1. Type and Level: Input; Supporting

2. Rationale: It identifies the amount of requests so the agency can determine the
need associated with performing the service.

3. Use: Provide need for personnel and justify the need for electronic submission

4. Clarity: Yes

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: No

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Mail
       Collection: Daily
       Reporting: Monthly

7. Calculation Methodology: Calculation: Numeric
                            Methodology: Manually tally of all expungements
                            received

8. Scope: Total received statewide

9. Caveats: None

10. Responsible Person: Christine Langlois; Criminal Records Analyst 5;
Criminal Records; 225-925-1737 (phone); 225-925-7005 (fax);
Christine.Langlois@dps.la.gov




                                                                              105
       PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Operational Support Program
Objective: 1.5 The Bureau of Criminal Identification and Information will
ensure that 90% of the requests received to update criminal history
information are processed into the Louisiana Computerized Criminal History
(LACCH) system and electronically available by June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of arrest dispositions received electronically
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: 14205

1. Type and Level: Input; Level S

2. Rationale: Provide number of dispositions reported electronically

3. Use: To identify personnel needs and to justify the need for the capability of
electronic submission

4. Clarity: Yes

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: No issues relating to validity, reliability,
and/or accuracy.

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source:      Electronic
       Collection: Daily
       Reporting: Data processing

7. Calculation Methodology: Calculation: Numeric
                            Methodology: Electronic          report    from   Data
                            Processing

8. Scope: Total number of dispositions received electronically statewide

9. Caveats: None

10. Responsible Person: Dennis Weber; Data Processing; 225-922-2980(phone);
225-95-4019; (fax) Dennis.Weber@dps.la.gov




                                                                               106
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Operational Support Program
Objective: 1.5 The Bureau of Criminal Identification and Information will
ensure that 90% of the requests received to update criminal history
information are processed into the Louisiana Computerized Criminal History
(LACCH) system and electronically available by June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of arrest dispositions received manually
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: 14207

1. Type and Level: Input; Level S

2. Rationale: Provide number of dispositions received manually

3. Use: To identify personnel needs and to justify the need for capability of
electronic submission

4. Clarity: Yes

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: No

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source:      Mail
       Collection: Daily
       Reporting: Incoming mail

7. Calculation Methodology: Calculation: Numeric
                           Methodology:     Manual tally of dispositions
received

8. Scope: Total received statewide

9. Caveats: None

10. Responsible Person: Christine Langlois; Criminal Records Analyst 5;
Criminal     Records;      225-925-1737 (phone);    225-925-7005  (fax);
Christine.Langlois@dps.la.gov




                                                                         107
                  PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Operational Support Program
Objective: 1.5 The Bureau of Criminal Identification and Information will
ensure that 90% of the requests received to update criminal history
information are processed into the Louisiana Computerized Criminal History
(LACCH) system and electronically available by June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of criminal fingerprint cards received
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: 10988

1. Type and Level: Input; Level S

2. Rationale: Provide number of criminal cards received manually

3. Use: Identify need for personnel and equipment

4. Clarity: Yes

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: No

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source:      Mail
       Collection: Daily
       Reporting: Monthly

7. Calculation Methodology: Calculation: Numeric
                            Methodology: Manual tally of criminal fingerprint
                            cards received

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: None

10. Responsible Person: Christine Langlois; Criminal Records Analyst 5;
Criminal     Records;      225-925-1737 (phone);    225-925-7005  (fax);
Christine.Langlois@dps.la.gov




                                                                          108
                  PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Operational Support Program
Objective: 1.5 The Bureau of Criminal Identification and Information will
ensure that 90% of the requests received to update criminal history
information are processed into the Louisiana Computerized Criminal History
(LACCH) system and electronically available by June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of criminal fingerprint cards processed
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: 10990

1. Type and Level: Output; Level S

2. Rationale: Provide the number of criminal fingerprint cards processed
manually

3. Use: Identify the need for personnel and equipment

4. Clarity: Yes

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: No issues with validity, reliability and/or
accuracy

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source:      Work reports
       Collection: Daily
       Reporting:    Monthly

7. Calculation Methodology: Calculation: Numeric
                            Methodology: Manual tally of criminal cards

8. Scope: Total processed

9. Caveats: None

10. Responsible Person: Christine Langlois; Criminal Records Analyst 5;
Criminal Records; 225-925-1737 (phone); 225-925-7005 (fax);
Christine.Langlois@dps.la.gov




                                                                               109
       PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Operational Support Program
Objective: 1.5 The Bureau of Criminal Identification and Information will
ensure that 90% of the requests received to update criminal history
information are processed into the Louisiana Computerized Criminal History
(LACCH) system and electronically available by June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of expungements processed
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: 10992

1. Type and Level: Output; Level S

2. Rationale: Provide the number of expungements processed

3. Use: Identify the need for personnel and funding

4. Clarity: Yes

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: No issues with validity, reliability and/or
accuracy.

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source:      Work reports
       Collection: Daily
       Reporting:    Monthly

7. Calculation Methodology: Calculation: Numeric
                           Methodology: Manual tally of expungements

8. Scope: Total processed

9. Caveats: None

10. Responsible Person: Christine Langlois; Criminal Records Analyst 5;
Criminal Records; 225-925-1737 (phone); 225-925-7005 (fax);
Christine.Langlois@dps.la.gov




                                                                               110
                  PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Operational Support Program
Objective: 1.5 The Bureau of Criminal Identification and Information will
ensure that 90% of the requests received to update criminal history
information are processed into the Louisiana Computerized Criminal History
(LACCH) system and electronically available by June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of arrest dispositions processed electronically
 Indicator LaPAS PI Code: 14206

1. Type and Level: Output; Level S

2. Rationale: Provide the number of dispositions electronically processed

3. Use: To determine program enhancements and functionality as needed

4. Clarity: Yes

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: No issues relative to validity, reliability,
and accuracy

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source:      Data processing
       Collection: Daily
       Reporting: Monthly

7. Calculation Methodology: Calculation: Numeric
                            Methodology: Electronic

8. Scope: Total processed

9. Caveats: None

10. Responsible Person: John Aranyosi; IMC Supervisor; Data Processing; 225-
925-6546 (phone); 225-925-4019 (fax); John.Aranyosi@dps.la.gov




                                                                                 111
                  PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Operational Support Program
Objective: 1.5 The Bureau of Criminal Identification and Information will
ensure that 90% of the requests received to update criminal history
information are processed into the Louisiana Computerized Criminal History
(LACCH) system and electronically available by June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of arrest dispositions processed manually
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: 14208

1. Type and Level: Output; Level S

2. Rationale: Provide the number of dispositions processed manually

3. Use: Identify the need for personnel and funding

4. Clarity: Yes

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: There are no issues relating to the validity,
reliability, and accuracy.

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source:      Work reports
       Collection: Daily
       Reporting: Monthly

7. Calculation Methodology: Calculation: Numeric
                            Methodology: Manual tally of arrest dispositions
processed

8. Scope: Total processed

9. Caveats: None

10. Responsible Person: Christine Langlois; Criminal Records Analyst 5;
Criminal Records; 225-925-1737 (phone); 225-925-7005 (fax);
Christine.Langlois@dps.la.gov




                                                                                112
       PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Operational Support Program
Objective: 1.6 The Bureau of Criminal Identification and Information will
process 75% of the requests for applicant criminal history information within
15 days by June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Percentage of requests processed within 15 days
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Outcome; Level S

2. Rationale: Provide the percentage of applicants processed within 15 days

3. Use: To identify personnel and equipment and personnel needs

4. Clarity: Yes

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: There are no validity, reliability, or
accuracy issues.

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source:      Mail/electronically
       Collection: Daily/monthly
       Reporting: Monthly

7. Calculation Methodology: Calculation: Numeric
                           Methodology: The number of civil applicant
                          requests processed within 15 days, divided by the
                          total number of civil applicants received

8. Scope: Provides percentage of applicant requests processed within 15 days

9. Caveats: None

10. Responsible Person: Christine Langlois; Criminal Records Analyst 5;
Criminal Records; 225-925-1737 (phone); 225-925-7005 (fax);
Christine.Langlois@dps.la.gov




                                                                                113
             PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Operational Support Program
Objective: 1.6 The Bureau of Criminal Identification and Information will
process 75% of the requests for applicant criminal history information within
15 days by June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of civil applicant requests received
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: 14215

1. Type and Level: Output; Level S

2. Rationale: Provide the number of Civil Applicants received

3. Use: To identify personnel and equipment needs

4. Clarity: Yes

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: No

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source:      Mail and electronically
       Collection: Daily/monthly
       Reporting: Monthly

7. Calculation Methodology: Calculation: Numeric
                            Methodology: Sum of cards received manually and
electronically

8. Scope: Statewide figures categorized by statute requirements

9. Caveats: None

10. Responsible Person: Christine Langlois; Criminal Records Analyst 5;
Criminal Records; 225-925-1737 (phone); 225-925-7005 (fax);
Christine.Langlois@dps.la.gov




                                                                           114
             PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Operational Support Program
Objective: 1.6 The Bureau of Criminal Identification and Information will
process 75% of the requests for applicant criminal history information within
15 days by June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of civil applicant requests processed
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Output; Level S

2. Rationale: Provide the number of Civil Applicant Requests processed

3. Use: To identify personnel and equipment needs

4. Clarity: Yes

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: N/A

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source:      Manual
       Collection: Daily/Monthly
       Reporting: Monthly

7. Calculation Methodology: Calculation: Numeric
                            Methodology: Sum of applicants processes

8. Scope: Tally of applicant cards processed from statewide agencies by
statutory requirement

9. Caveats: None

10. Responsible Person: Christine Langlois; Criminal Records Analyst 5;
Criminal Records; 225-925-1737 (phone); 225-925-7005 (fax);
Christine.Langlois@dps.la.gov




                                                                           115
                  PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Operational Support Program
Objective: 1.6 The Bureau of Criminal Identification and Information will
process 75% of the requests for applicant criminal history information within
15 days by June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of civil applicant requests processed within 15 days
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: 14216

1. Type and Level: Output; Supporting

2. Rationale: Shows the amount of work performed within a certain time frame

3. Use: Identifies the need for additional resources or changes in workflow or
processes to reduce the response time

4. Clarity: Yes

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: N/A

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Manual
       Collection: Daily/Monthly
       Reporting: Monthly

7. Calculation Methodology: Calculation: Numeric
                            Methodology:       Sum of           applicant   requests
                            processed in 15 days or less

8. Scope: Statistics for applicant cards processed in 15 days or less

9. Caveats: None

10. Responsible Person: Christine Langlois; Criminal Records Analyst 5;
Criminal Records; 225-925-1737 (phone); 225-925-7005 (fax);
Christine.Langlois@dps.la.gov




                                                                                116
                  PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Operational Support Program
Objective: 1.7 Distribute 100% of all received information related to sex
offender registration through June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Percentage of distributed information of convicted child
predators and sex offenders
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Outcome; Key

2. Rationale: Information distributed on convicted child predators and sex
offenders

3. Use: Raise public awareness

4. Clarity: N/A

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Valid, reliable, and accurate

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting: Internal database

7. Calculation Methodology: Divide the number of new child predator and sex
offender registrations posted by those registrations received.

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: N/A

10. Responsible Person: Christine Langlois; Criminal Records Analyst 5;
Criminal Records; 225-925-1737 (phone); 225-925-7005 (fax);
Christine.Langlois@dps.la.gov




                                                                          117
                  PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Operational Support Program
Objective: 1.7 Distribute 100% of all received information related to sex
offender registration through June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of new child predator and sex offender registrations
received
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New


1. Type and Level: Input; Supporting

2. Rationale: To determine child predator and sex offender registrations received

3. Use: Measure increase in numbers of offenders

4. Clarity: N/A

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Valid, reliable, and accurate

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting: Internal database

7. Calculation Methodology: Measure number of new offenders in calendar
year versus previous years

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: N/A

10. Responsible Person: Christine Langlois; Criminal Records Analyst 5;
Criminal Records; 225-925-1737 (phone); 225-925-7005 (fax);
Christine.Langlois@dps.la.gov




                                                                              118
                  PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Operational Support Program
Objective: 1.7 Distribute 100% of all received information related to sex
offender registration through June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of new child predator and sex offender registrations
posted to the Registry
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Output; Supporting

2. Rationale: To determine child predator and sex offender registrations input
into the Registry

3. Use: Measure registrations posted to the Registry

4. Clarity: N/A

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Valid, reliable, and accurate

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting: Internal database

7. Calculation Methodology:      Measure number of offenders posted to the
Registry

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: N/A

10. Responsible Person: Christine Langlois; Criminal Records Analyst 5;
Criminal Records; 225-925-1737 (phone); 225-925-7005 (fax);
Christine.Langlois@dps.la.gov




                                                                          119
                  PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Operational Support Program
Objective: II.1 Increase non-vehicular patrol hours in those properties
constituting the Capitol Park and Department of Public Safety facilities by 5%
by June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of non-vehicle patrol hours
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New


1. Type and Level: Output; Supporting

2. Rationale: To determine the number of hours patrolled, excluding the hours
spent in the car

3. Use: Number of hours on post, on foot patrol and on bicycle patrol

4. Clarity: N/A

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Valid, reliable, and accurate

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting: Internal database

7. Calculation Methodology: Simple count of hours entered in database

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: N/A

10. Responsible Person: Captain Virginia Holmes; 225-219-4410 (phone; 225
219-4413 (fax); Virginia.Holmes@dps.la.gov




             PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Operational Support Program



                                                                          120
Objective: II.1 Increase non-vehicular patrol hours in those properties
constituting the Capitol Park and Department of Public Safety facilities by 5%
by June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of contacts, arrests, and citations
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Output; Supporting

2. Rationale: Measure number of contacts, arrests, and citations made

3. Use: To determine the number of contacts, arrest, and citations made

4. Clarity: N/A

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Valid, reliable, and accurate

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting: Internal database

7. Calculation Methodology: Simple count of the number of contacts, arrests,
and citations entered in database.

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: N/A

10. Responsible Person: Captain Virginia Holmes; 225-219-4410 (phone; 225
219-4413 (fax); Virginia.Holmes@dps.la.gov




                                                                          121
                  PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Operational Support Program
Objective: III.1 Create an Analytical Program in the Operational Development
Section to provide executive staff critical and timely information regarding
emerging law enforcement related technologies and management information
systems by June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Development of program
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Output; Supporting

2. Rationale: Program developed

3. Use: N/A

4. Clarity: N/A

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Valid, reliable, and accurate

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting: Internal database

7. Calculation Methodology: Amount of program developed

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: N/A

10. Responsible Person: Lieutenant Jason Jacob; 225-925-6198 (phone); 225-925-
6217 (fax); Jason.Jacob@dps.la.gov




                                                                            122
                  PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Operational Support Program
Objective: III.1 Create an Analytical Program in the Operational Development
Section to provide executive staff critical and timely information regarding
emerging law enforcement related technologies and management information
systems by June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Percent of Program implemented
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Output; Supporting

2. Rationale: Percent of program developed

3. Use: N/A

4. Clarity: N/A

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Valid, reliable, and accurate

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting: Internal database

7. Calculation Methodology: Percent of program developed

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: N/A

10. Responsible Person: Lieutenant Jason Jacob; 225-925-6198 (phone); 225-925-
3717 (fax); Jason.Jacob@dps.la.gov




                                                                          123
                  PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Operational Support Program
Objective: III.1 Create an Analytical Program in the Operational Development
Section to provide executive staff critical and timely information regarding
emerging law enforcement related technologies and management information
systems by June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of positions created for program
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Input; Key

2. Rationale: A minimum of two FTE’s will be required to accomplish the duties
and responsibilities associated with researching emerging law enforcement
technologies and management information systems.

3. Use: For budget and internal management purposes

4. Clarity: N/A

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Valid, reliable, and accurate

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting: Internal database

7. Calculation Methodology: Numeric tally

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: N/A

10.Responsible Person: Lieutenant Jason Jacob;225-925-6198 (phone); 225-925-
3717 (fax); Jason.Jacob@dps.la.gov




                                                                           124
             PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Operational Support Program
Objective: III.1 Create an Analytical Program in the Operational Development
Section to provide executive staff critical and timely information regarding
emerging law enforcement related technologies and management information
systems by June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of positions filled for Program
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Output; Supporting

2. Rationale: Number of filled positions will serve as an indicator for the
percentage of implementation of program

3. Use: For budget and internal management purposes

4. Clarity: N/A

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Valid, reliable, and accurate

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting: Internal database

7. Calculation Methodology: Numeric tally

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: N/A

10.Responsible Person: Lieutenant Jason Jacob; 225-925-6198 (phone); 225-925-
3717 (fax); Jason.Jacob@dps.la.gov




                                                                         125
             PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Gaming Enforcement Program
Objective: I.1 Increase the number of annual inspections to 95% of enrolled
Video Gaming establishments by June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of Video Gaming compliance inspections completed
(GPI)
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: 11023

1. Type and Level: Input; Key

2. Rationale: Measures the number of Video Gaming compliance inspections
conducted and completed at all gaming establishments

3. Use: For budget and internal Division management purposes

4. Clarity: Performance indicator clearly defines and identifies what is being
measured.

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Reports are maintained by the Division’s
internal reporting procedures. All inspections are documented in the Licensed
Establishment Inspection Database.

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Inspections are documented through an internal Lotus Notes
       database.
       Collection: Inspections are documented on a daily basis or on completion
       of an inspection.
       Reporting: Inspections are reported on a quarterly basis.

7. Calculation Methodology: All Video Gaming field offices are required to
input all compliance inspections into a Lotus Notes database. The database files
each compliance inspection in the appropriate quarter’s folder. The compliance
inspections are totaled electronically by district office. All district’s totals are
added to get the total for the Section.

8. Scope: Indicators are collected and aggregated statewide. However, internal
procedures provide the capability to break down performance indicator by
region, office, location, investigator, etc…

9. Caveats: N/A

10. Responsible Person: Sgt. Chuck McNeal; 225-922-2825 (phone); 225-925-4671;
Chuck.McNeal@dps.la.gov


                                                                                126
                PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Gaming Enforcement Program
Objective: I.1 Increase the number of annual inspections to 95% of enrolled
Video Gaming establishments by June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of Video Gaming violations issued (SPI)
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Output; Key

2. Rationale: Measures the number of Video Gaming compliance violations
issued

3. Use: For budget and internal Division management purposes

4. Clarity: Performance indicator clearly defines and identifies what is being
measured.

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Reports are maintained by the Division’s
internal reporting procedures. All violation reports are documented by the
Department’s main data system’s reporting procedures and requirements.

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Violations are documented by Violation/Inspection reports
       issued.
       Collection: Violation/Inspection reports are documented through the
       Division’s Licensed Establishment Inspection Database upon completion
       of a compliance inspection.
       Reporting: The total number of violations is reported quarterly through
       the Division’s internal database.

7. Calculation Methodology: All Video Gaming violations issued are entered
into the Department’s main computer program and into an Excel spreadsheet by
the Section’s Accounting staff. A total report of Video Gaming violations issued
is run at the end of the reporting quarter.

8. Scope: Indicators are collected and aggregated statewide. However, internal
procedures provide the capability to break down performance indicator by
region, office, location, investigator, etc.

9. Caveats: N/A




                                                                            127
10. Responsible Person: Sgt. Chuck McNeal; 225-922-2825 (phone); 225-925-4671;
Chuck.McNeal@dps.la.gov




                                                                          128
                PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Gaming Enforcement Program
Objective: I.2 The Division will inspect each licensed riverboat at least 230
times in a fiscal year, each licensed Pari-mutuel live racing facility with slot
machine gaming 150 times in a fiscal year, and the land-based casino at least
225 times a fiscal year.
Indicator Name: Number of riverboat inspections completed by Enforcement
Section
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Output; Key

2. Rationale: Measures the number of riverboat inspections completed by
Enforcement Section

3. Use: For budget and internal Division management purposes

4. Clarity: Performance indicator clearly defines and identifies what is being
measured.

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Reports are maintained by the Division’s
internal reporting procedures. All inspection reports are documented by the
Department’s main data system’s reporting procedures and requirements.

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Inspections are documented by Violation/Inspection reports
       issued.
       Collection: Inspection reports are documented through the Division’s
       Licensed Establishment Inspection Database upon completion of a
       compliance inspection.
       Reporting: The total number of inspections is reported quarterly through
       the Division’s internal database.

7. Calculation Methodology: All riverboat inspections are entered into the
Department’s main computer program and into an Excel spreadsheet by the
Section’s Accounting staff. A total report of riverboat inspections is run at the
end of the reporting quarter.

8. Scope: Indicators are collected and aggregated statewide. However, internal
procedures provide the capability to break down performance indicator by
region, office, location, investigator, etc.

9. Caveats: N/A


                                                                             129
10. Responsible Person: Sgt. Chuck McNeal; 225-922-2825 (phone); 225-925-4671;
Chuck.McNeal@dps.la.gov




                                                                          130
                PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Gaming Enforcement Program
Objective: I.2 The Division will inspect each licensed riverboat at least 230
times in a fiscal year, each licensed Pari-mutuel live racing facility with slot
machine gaming 150 times in a fiscal year, and the land-based casino at least
225 times a fiscal year.
Indicator Name: Number of riverboat inspections completed by Technical
Sections
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Output; Key

2. Rationale: Measures the number of riverboat inspections completed by
Technical Section

3. Use: For budget and internal Division management purposes

4. Clarity: Performance indicator clearly defines and identifies what is being
measured.

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Reports are maintained by the Division’s
internal reporting procedures. All inspection reports are documented by the
Department’s main data system’s reporting procedures and requirements.

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Inspections are documented by Violation/Inspection reports
       issued.
       Collection: Inspection reports are documented through the Division’s
       Licensed Establishment Inspection Database upon completion of a
       compliance inspection.
       Reporting: The total number of inspections is reported quarterly through
       the Division’s internal database.

7. Calculation Methodology: All riverboat inspections are entered into the
Department’s main computer program and into an Excel spreadsheet by the
Section’s Accounting staff. A total report of riverboat inspections is run at the
end of the reporting quarter.

8. Scope: Indicators are collected and aggregated statewide. However, internal
procedures provide the capability to break down performance indicator by
region, office, location, investigator, etc.

9. Caveats: N/A


                                                                             131
10. Responsible Person: Sgt. Chuck McNeal; 225-922-2825 (phone); 225-925-4671;
Chuck.McNeal@dps.la.gov




                                                                          132
                PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Gaming Enforcement Program
Objective: I.2 The Division will inspect each licensed riverboat at least 230
times in a fiscal year, each licensed Pari-mutuel live racing facility with slot
machine gaming 150 times in a fiscal year, and the land-based casino at least
225 times a fiscal year.
Indicator Name: Number of riverboat inspections completed by Audit Section
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Output; Key

2. Rationale: Measures the number of riverboat inspections completed by Audit
Section

3. Use: For budget and internal Division management purposes

4. Clarity: Performance indicator clearly defines and identifies what is being
measured.

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Reports are maintained by the Division’s
internal reporting procedures. All inspection reports are documented by the
Department’s main data system’s reporting procedures and requirements.

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Inspections are documented by Violation/Inspection reports
       issued.
       Collection: Inspection reports are documented through the Division’s
       Licensed Establishment Inspection Database upon completion of a
       compliance inspection.
       Reporting: The total number of inspections are reported quarterly
       through the Division’s internal database.

7. Calculation Methodology: All riverboat inspections are entered into the
Department’s main computer program and into an Excel spreadsheet by the
Section’s Accounting staff. A total report of riverboat inspections is run at the
end of the reporting quarter.

8. Scope: Indicators are collected and aggregated statewide. However, internal
procedures provide the capability to break down performance indicator by
region, office, location, investigator, etc.

9. Caveats: N/A



                                                                             133
10. Responsible Person: Sgt. Chuck McNeal; 225-922-2825 (phone); 225-925-
4671; 225; Chuck.McNeal@dps.la.gov




                                                                     134
                PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Gaming Enforcement Program
Objective: I.2 The Division will inspect each licensed riverboat at least 230
times in a fiscal year, each licensed Pari-mutuel live racing facility with slot
machine gaming 150 times in a fiscal year, and the land-based casino at least
225 times a fiscal year.
Indicator Name: Number of Pari-mutuel inspections completed by the
Enforcement Section
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Output; Key

2. Rationale: Measures the number of Pari-mutuel inspections completed by
Enforcement Section

3. Use: For budget and internal Division management purposes

4. Clarity: Performance indicator clearly defines and identifies what is being
measured.

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Reports are maintained by the Division’s
internal reporting procedures. All inspection reports are documented by the
Department’s main data system’s reporting procedures and requirements.

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Inspections are documented by Violation/Inspection reports
       issued.
       Collection: Inspection reports are documented through the Division’s
       Licensed Establishment Inspection Database upon completion of a
       compliance inspection.
       Reporting: The total number of inspections is reported quarterly through
       the Division’s internal database.

7. Calculation Methodology: All Pari-mutuel inspections are entered into the
Department’s main computer program and into an Excel spreadsheet by the
Section’s Accounting staff. A total report of Pari-mutuel inspections is run at the
end of the reporting quarter.

8. Scope: Indicators are collected and aggregated statewide. However, internal
procedures provide the capability to break down performance indicator by
region, office, location, investigator, etc.

9. Caveats: N/A


                                                                               135
10. Responsible Person: Sgt. Chuck McNeal; 225-922-2825 (phone); 225-925-
4671;Chuck.McNeal@dps.la.gov




                                                                     136
                PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Gaming Enforcement Program
Objective: I.2 The Division will inspect each licensed riverboat at least 230
times in a fiscal year, each licensed Pari-mutuel live racing facility with slot
machine gaming 150 times in a fiscal year, and the land-based casino at least
225 times a fiscal year.
Indicator Name: Number of Pari-mutuel inspections completed by the
Technical Section
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Output; Key

2. Rationale: Measures the number of Pari-mutuel inspections completed by
Technical Section

3. Use: For budget and internal Division management purposes

4. Clarity: Performance indicator clearly defines and identifies what is being
measured.

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Reports are maintained by the Division’s
internal reporting procedures. All inspection reports are documented by the
Department’s main data system’s reporting procedures and requirements.

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Inspections are documented by Violation/Inspection reports
       issued.
       Collection: Inspection reports are documented through the Division’s
       Licensed Establishment Inspection Database upon completion of a
       compliance inspection.
       Reporting: The total number of inspections is reported quarterly through
       the Division’s internal database.

7. Calculation Methodology: All Pari-mutuel inspections are entered into the
Department’s main computer program and into an Excel spreadsheet by the
Section’s Accounting staff. A total report of Pari-mutuel inspections is run at the
end of the reporting quarter.

8. Scope: Indicators are collected and aggregated statewide. However, internal
procedures provide the capability to break down performance indicator by
region, office, location, investigator, etc.

9. Caveats: N/A


                                                                               137
10. Responsible Person: Sgt. Chuck McNeal; 225-922-2825 (phone); 225-925-4671;
Chuck.McNeal@dps.la.gov




                                                                          138
                PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Gaming Enforcement Program
Objective: I.2 The Division will inspect each licensed riverboat at least 230
times in a fiscal year, each licensed Pari-mutuel live racing facility with slot
machine gaming 150 times in a fiscal year, and the land-based casino at least
225 times a fiscal year.
Indicator Name: Number of Pari-mutuel inspections completed by the Audit
Section
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Output; Key

2. Rationale: Measures the number of Pari-mutuel inspections completed by
Audit Section

3. Use: For budget and internal Division management purposes

4. Clarity: Performance indicator clearly defines and identifies what is being
measured.

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Reports are maintained by the Division’s
internal reporting procedures. All inspection reports are documented by the
Department’s main data system’s reporting procedures and requirements.

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Inspections are documented by Violation/Inspection reports
       issued.
       Collection: Inspection reports are documented through the Division’s
       Licensed Establishment Inspection Database upon completion of a
       compliance inspection.
       Reporting: The total number of inspections is reported quarterly through
       the Division’s internal database.

7. Calculation Methodology: All Pari-mutuel inspections are entered into the
Department’s main computer program and into an Excel spreadsheet by the
Section’s Accounting staff. A total report of Pari-mutuel inspections is run at the
end of the reporting quarter.

8. Scope: Indicators are collected and aggregated statewide. However, internal
procedures provide the capability to break down performance indicator by
region, office, location, investigator, etc.

9. Caveats: N/A


                                                                               139
10. Responsible Person: Sgt. Chuck McNeal; 225-922-2825 (phone); 225-922-4671;
Chuck.McNeal@dps.la.gov




                                                                          140
                PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Gaming Enforcement Program
Objective: I.2 The Division will inspect each licensed riverboat at least 230
times in a fiscal year, each licensed Pari-mutuel live racing facility with slot
machine gaming 150 times in a fiscal year, and the land-based casino at least
225 times a fiscal year.
Indicator Name: Number of land-based inspections completed by the
Enforcement Sections
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Output; Key

2. Rationale: Measures the number of land-based inspections completed by
Enforcement Section

3. Use: For budget and internal Division management purposes

4. Clarity: Performance indicator clearly defines and identifies what is being
measured.

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Reports are maintained by the Division’s
internal reporting procedures. All inspection reports are documented by the
Department’s main data system’s reporting procedures and requirements.

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Inspections are documented by Violation/Inspection reports
       issued.
       Collection: Inspection reports are documented through the Division’s
       Licensed Establishment Inspection Database upon completion of a
       compliance inspection.
       Reporting: The total number of inspections is reported quarterly through
       the Division’s internal database.

7. Calculation Methodology: All land-based inspections are entered into the
Department’s main computer program and into an Excel spreadsheet by the
Section’s Accounting staff. A total report of land-based inspections is run at the
end of the reporting quarter.

8. Scope: Indicators are collected and aggregated statewide. However, internal
procedures provide the capability to break down performance indicator by
region, office, location, investigator, etc.

9. Caveats: N/A


                                                                              141
10. Responsible Person: Sgt. Chuck McNeal; 225-922-2825 (phone); 225-925-4671
(fax); Chuck.McNeal@dps.la.gov




                                                                         142
                PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Gaming Enforcement Program
Objective: I.2 The Division will inspect each licensed riverboat at least 230
times in a fiscal year, each licensed Pari-mutuel live racing facility with slot
machine gaming 150 times in a fiscal year, and the land-based casino at least
225 times a fiscal year.
Indicator Name: Number of land-based inspections completed by the
Technical Sections
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Output; Key

2. Rationale: Measures the number of land-based inspections completed by
Technical Section

3. Use: For budget and internal Division management purposes

4. Clarity: Performance indicator clearly defines and identifies what is being
measured.

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Reports are maintained by the Division’s
internal reporting procedures. All inspection reports are documented by the
Department’s main data system’s reporting procedures and requirements.

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Inspections are documented by Violation/Inspection reports
       issued.
       Collection: Inspection reports are documented through the Division’s
       Licensed Establishment Inspection Database upon completion of a
       compliance inspection.
       Reporting: The total number of inspections is reported quarterly through
       the Division’s internal database.

7. Calculation Methodology: All land-based inspections are entered into the
Department’s main computer program and into an Excel spreadsheet by the
Section’s Accounting staff. A total report of land-based inspections is run at the
end of the reporting quarter.

8. Scope: Indicators are collected and aggregated statewide. However, internal
procedures provide the capability to break down performance indicator by
region, office, location, investigator, etc.

9. Caveats: N/A


                                                                              143
10. Responsible Person: Sgt. Chuck McNeal; 225-922-2825 (phone); 225-925-4671
(fax); Chuck.McNeal@dps.la.gov




                                                                         144
                PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Gaming Enforcement Program
Objective: I.2 The Division will inspect each licensed riverboat at least 230
times in a fiscal year, each licensed Pari-mutuel live racing facility with slot
machine gaming 150 times in a fiscal year, and the land-based casino at least
225 times a fiscal year.
Indicator Name: Number of land-based inspections completed by the Audit
Section
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Output; Key

2. Rationale: Measures the number of land-based inspections completed by
Audit Section

3. Use: For budget and internal Division management purposes

4. Clarity: Performance indicator clearly defines and identifies what is being
measured.

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Reports are maintained by the Division’s
internal reporting procedures. All inspection reports are documented by the
Department’s main data system’s reporting procedures and requirements.

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Inspections are documented by Violation/Inspection reports
       issued.
       Collection: Inspection reports are documented through the Division’s
       Licensed Establishment Inspection Database upon completion of a
       compliance inspection.
       Reporting: The total number of inspections is reported quarterly through
       the Division’s internal database.

7. Calculation Methodology: All land-based inspections are entered into the
Department’s main computer program and into an Excel spreadsheet by the
Section’s Accounting staff. A total report of land-based inspections is run at the
end of the reporting quarter.

8. Scope: Indicators are collected and aggregated statewide. However, internal
procedures provide the capability to break down performance indicator by
region, office, location, investigator, etc.

9. Caveats: N/A


                                                                              145
10. Responsible Person: Sgt. Chuck McNeal; 225-922-2825 (phone); 225-925-4671
(fax); Chuck.McNeal@dps.la.gov




                                                                         146
                PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Gaming Enforcement Program
Objective: I.2 The Division will inspect each licensed riverboat at least 230
times in a fiscal year, each licensed Pari-mutuel live racing facility with slot
machine gaming 150 times in a fiscal year, and the land-based casino at least
225 times a fiscal year.
Indicator Name: Number of Casino Gaming violations issued (GPI)
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Output; Key

2. Rationale: Measures the number of casino gaming compliance violations
issued

3. Use: For budget and internal Division management purposes

4. Clarity: Performance indicator clearly defines and identifies what is being
measured.

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Reports are maintained by the Division’s
internal reporting procedures. All violation reports are documented by
Significant Action and Case Report reporting procedures and requirements.

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Violations are documented by case reports and Significant Action
       Reports.
       Collection: Case Reports and Significant Action Reports are submitted on
       completion of violation investigation or on completion of a compliance
       inspection.
       Reporting: Case Report and Significant Action Report numbers are issued
       on an as needed basis and are documented on a Significant Action Report
       Log.

7. Calculation Methodology: All casino gaming field offices are required to
submit monthly reports which enumerate specific reporting categories, such as
the number of casino violations issued. The field office supervisors then forward
that information to the main headquarters office to be tallied and calculated into
an Excel database system.

8. Scope: Indicators are collected and aggregated statewide. However, internal
procedures provide the capability to break down performance indicator by
region, office, location, investigator, etc.



                                                                              147
9. Caveats: Indicator will not include compliance inspection violations relating
to the Indian Gaming Unit, due to Indian Casinos requiring adherence to Federal
Tribal Compact Laws.

10. Responsible Person: Sgt. Chuck McNeal; 225-922-2825 (phone); 225-925-4671
(fax); Chuck.McNeal@dps.la.gov




                                                                            148
                PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Gaming Enforcement Program
Objective: I.2 The Division will inspect each licensed riverboat at least 230
times in a fiscal year, each licensed Pari-mutuel live racing facility with slot
machine gaming 150 times in a fiscal year, and the land-based casino at least
225 times a fiscal year.
Indicator Name: Number of criminal arrests by the Gaming Division (GPI)
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Output; S

2. Rationale: Measures the number of criminal arrests by the Gaming Division

3. Use: For budget and internal Division management purposes

4. Clarity: Performance indicator clearly defines and identifies what is being
measured.

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Reports are maintained by the Division’s
internal reporting procedures. All reports are documented by the Department’s
main data system’s reporting procedures and requirements.

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Reports issued
       Collection: Reports
       Reporting: Monthly

7. Calculation Methodology: Number of criminal arrests

8. Scope: Indicators are collected and aggregated statewide. However, internal
procedures provide the capability to break down performance indicator by
region, office, location, investigator, etc.

9. Caveats: N/A

10. Responsible Person: Sgt. Chuck McNeal; 225-922-2825 (phone); 225-925-4671
(fax); Chuck.McNeal@dps.la.gov




                                                                            149
                PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Gaming Enforcement Program
Objective: I.2 The Division will inspect each licensed riverboat at least 230
times in a fiscal year, each licensed Pari-mutuel live racing facility with slot
machine gaming150 times in a fiscal year, and the land-based casino at least
225 times a fiscal year.
Indicator Name: Number of illegal gambling arrests (GPI)
Indicator LaPAS PI Code : New

1. Type and Level: Output; S

2. Rationale: Measures the number of illegal gambling arrests

3. Use: For budget and internal Division management purposes

4. Clarity: Performance indicator clearly defines and identifies what is being
measured.

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Reports are maintained by the Division’s
internal reporting procedures. All reports are documented by the Department’s
main data system’s reporting procedures and requirements.

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Reports issued
       Collection: Reports
       Reporting: Monthly

7. Calculation Methodology: Number of illegal gambling arrests

8. Scope: Indicators are collected and aggregated statewide. However, internal
procedures provide the capability to break down performance indicator by
region, office, location, investigator, etc.

9. Caveats: N/A

10. Responsible Person: Sgt. Chuck McNeal; 225-922-2825 (phone); 225-925-4671
(fax); Chuck.McNeal@dps.la.gov




                                                                            150
                PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Gaming Enforcement Program
Objective: II.1 Reduce the number of days a background investigation takes
5% by June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of Casino Gaming new applications received (GPI)
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Input; GPI

2. Rationale: To measure the number of new casino gaming applications
received by the Division

3. Use: For internal Division management purposes

4. Clarity: Performance indicator clearly defines and identifies what is being
measured.

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Reports are maintained by the Division’s
internal reporting procedures and by the Department’s main computer database
system

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: All new applications processed are documented through the
       Department’s main computer database system.
       Collection: Reports are generated by the main computer database system.
       Reporting: Reports are submitted on a monthly application processing
       report.

7. Calculation Methodology: All Licensing field offices are required to submit
monthly reports which enumerate specific reporting categories, such as the
number of casino gaming new applications received. The field office supervisors
then forward the information to the main headquarters office to be tallied and
calculated into an Excel database system.

8. Scope: Indicators are collected statewide. However, internal procedures
provide the capability of a breakdown of indicators by region, office, location,
investigator, etc.

9. Caveats: Indicator will not include information relating to the Indian Gaming
Unit, due to Indian Casinos' adherence to Federal and Tribal Law Compacts




                                                                            151
10. Responsible Person: Sgt. Chuck McNeal; 225-922-2825 (phone); 225-925-4671
(fax); Chuck.McNeal@dps.la.gov




                                                                         152
               PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Gaming Enforcement Program
Objective: II.1 Reduce the number of days a background investigation takes
5% by June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of Video Gaming Types 1 and 2 new applications
received (GPI)
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Input; GPI

2. Rationale: To measure the number of new Video Gaming applications
received by the Division

3. Use: For internal Division management purposes

4. Clarity: Performance indicator clearly defines and identifies what is being
measured.

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Reports are maintained by the Division’s
internal reporting procedures and by the Department’s main computer database
system.

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: All new applications processed are documented through the
       Department’s main computer database system.
       Collection: Reports are generated by the main computer database system.
       Reporting: Reports are submitted on a monthly application processing
       report.

7. Calculation Methodology: All new Video Gaming Type 1 and Type 2
applications are entered into the Department’s internal database system. At the
end of each reporting quarter, entries are added together to get the total.

8. Scope: Indicators are collected statewide. However, internal procedures
provide the capability to breakdown indicators by region, office, location,
investigator, etc.

9. Caveats: N/A

10. Responsible Person: Sgt. Chuck McNeal; 225-922-2825 (phone); 225-925-4671
(fax); Chuck.McNeal@dps.la.gov




                                                                           153
                PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Gaming Enforcement Program
Objective: II.1 Reduce the number of days a background investigation takes
5% by June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of Casino Gaming new permits issued (GPI)
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: 14241

1. Type and Level: Output; GPI

2. Rationale: To measure the number of newly issued permits from the Division

3. Use: For internal Division management purposes

4. Clarity: Indicator clearly defines and identifies what is being measured.

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Reports are maintained by the Division’s
internal reporting procedures and by the Department’s main computer database
system.

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: All issued permits are documented through the Department’s
       main computer database system.
       Collection: Reports are generated by the main computer database, using
       period parameters.
       Reporting: Reports are submitted on a monthly application processing
       report.

7. Calculation Methodology: All Licensing field offices are required to submit
monthly reports which enumerate specific reporting categories, such as the
number of casino gaming new permits issued. The field office supervisors then
forward this information to the main headquarters office to be tallied and
calculated into an Excel database.

8. Scope: Indicators are collected statewide. However, internal procedures
provide the capability to breakdown the numbers by region, office, location,
agent, etc.

9. Caveats: Indicator will not include information relating to Indian Gaming
Unit, due to Indian Casino adherence to Federal and Tribal Law Compacts.

10. Responsible Person: Sgt. Chuck McNeal; 225-922-2825 (phone); 225-925-4671
(fax); Chuck.McNeal@dps.la.gov



                                                                               154
                PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Gaming Enforcement Program
Objective: II.1 Reduce the number of days a background investigation takes
5% by June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of Casino Gaming applications processed for denial
(GPI)
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Output; GPI

2. Rationale: To measure the number of employee applications the Division has
denied

3. Use: For internal Division management purposes

4. Clarity: Indicator clearly defines and identifies what is being measured.

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Reports are maintained by the Division’s
internal reporting procedures and by the Department’s main computer database
system.

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: All denied employee applications are documented through the
       Department’s main computer database system.
       Collection: All reports are generated by the main computer database
       system.
       Reporting: Reports are submitted on a monthly application processing
       report.

7. Calculation Methodology: All Licensing field offices are required to submit
monthly reports which enumerate specific reporting categories, such as the
number of casino gaming applications processed for denial. The field office
supervisors then forward this information to the main headquarters office to be
tallied and calculated in an Excel database.

8. Scope: Indicators are collected statewide. However, internal procedures
provide the capability to breakdown numbers by region, office, location, agent,
etc.

9. Caveats: Indicator will not include information relations to the Indian
Gaming Unit, due to Indian Casinos’ adherence to Federal and Tribal Law
Compacts.



                                                                               155
10. Responsible Person: Sgt. Chuck McNeal; 225-922-2825 (phone); 225-925-4671
(fax); Chuck.McNeal@dps.la.gov




                                                                         156
                PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Gaming Enforcement Program
Objective: II.1 Reduce the number of days a background investigation takes
5% by June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of Types 1 and 2 Video Gaming new applications
recommended for approval (GPI)
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Output; GPI

2. Rationale: To measure the number of new applications recommended for
approval by the Division

3. Use: For internal Division management purposes

4. Clarity: Indicator clearly defines and identifies what is being measured.

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Reports are maintained by the Division’s
internal reporting procedures and by the Department’s main computer database
system.

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: All approval recommendations are documented through the
       Division’s internal database.
       Collection: Reports are generated by the Division’s internal database.
       Reporting: Reports are submitted on a quarterly application processing
       report.

7. Calculation Methodology: Each new Video Gaming Type 1 and Type 2
application recommended for approval is entered into an individual log when it
is forwarded to the Gaming Control Board. These logs are gathered at the end of
the reporting quarter and tallied to get the total.

8. Scope: Indicators are collected statewide. However, internal procedures
provide the capability to breakdown the numbers by region, office, location,
agent, etc.

9. Caveats: N/A

10. Responsible Person: Sgt. Chuck McNeal; 225-922-2825 (phone); 225-925-4671
(fax); Chuck.McNeal@dps.la.gov




                                                                               157
                PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Gaming Enforcement Program
Objective: II.1 Reduce the number of days a background investigation takes
5% by June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Average of days to complete a new Casino Gaming
background investigation
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Efficiency; Supporting

2. Rationale: To measure the number of days to complete a new Casino gaming
background investigation

3. Use: For internal Division management purposes

4. Clarity: Indicator clearly defines and identifies what is being measured

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Reports are maintained by the Division’s
internal reporting procedures and by the Department’s main computer database
system.

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: All applications are documented through the Department’s main
       computer database system.
       Collection: All reports are generated by the main computer database
       system.
       Reporting: Reports are submitted on a monthly application processing
       report.

7. Calculation Methodology: Average number of days to complete a new casino
gaming background is calculated from the date the application is received and
entered in a pending status in the Department’s main computer database system,
through the date the status of the application is modified in the Department’s
main computer database system.

8. Scope: Indicators are collected statewide. However, internal procedures
provide the capability to breakdown the numbers by region, office, location,
agent, etc.

9. Caveats: Indicator will not include information relating to the Indian Gaming
Unit, due to the Indian Casinos adherence to Federal and Tribal Law Compacts.




                                                                               158
10. Responsible Person: Sgt. Chuck McNeal; 225-922-2825 (phone); 225-925-4671
(fax); Chuck.McNeal@dps.la.gov




                                                                         159
                  PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Gaming Enforcement Program
Objective: II.1 Reduce the number of days a background investigation takes
5% by June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Average of days to complete a new Video Gaming Type 1 and
2 application
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Efficiency; Key

2. Rationale: Measures the Division’s efficiency of internal processing of Type 1
and Type 2 Video Gaming new applications

3. Use: For internal Division management purposes

4. Clarity: Indicator clearly defines and identifies what is being measured.

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Reports are maintained by the Division’s
internal reporting procedures and by the Division’s Case Management database
system.

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: All applications are documented through the Division’s Case
       Management database system.
       Collection: All reports are generated by the Case Management database
       system.
       Reporting: Reports are submitted on a quarterly application processing
       report.

7. Calculation Methodology: Average number of days to complete a new Video
Gaming Type 1 and Type 2 application is calculated from the date the
application is received through the date the application is completed by the
Section.

8. Scope: Indicators are collected statewide. However, internal procedures
provide the capability to breakdown numbers by region, office, location, agent,
etc.

9. Caveats: N/A

10. Responsible Person: Sgt. Chuck McNeal; 225-922-2825 (phone); 225-925-4671
(fax); Chuck.McNeal@dps.la.gov



                                                                               160
                PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Gaming Enforcement Program
Objective: III.1 Distribute at least four law enforcement bulletins to sections
each year through June 30, 2013.
III.2 Attend at least four roll call training meetings with other sections each
year through June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of bulletins issued
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Output; Key

2. Rationale: Measures the number of bulletins issued

3. Use: For budget and internal Division management purposes

4. Clarity: Performance indicator clearly defines and identifies what is being
measured.

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Reports are maintained by the Division’s
internal reporting procedures. All reports are documented by the Department’s
main data system’s reporting procedures and requirements.

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Reports issued
       Collection: Reports
       Reporting: Monthly

7. Calculation Methodology: Number of bulletins issued

8. Scope: Indicators are collected and aggregated statewide. However, internal
procedures provide the capability to break down performance indicator by
region, office, location, investigator, etc.

9. Caveats: N/A

10. Responsible Person: Sgt. Chuck McNeal; 225-922-2825 (phone); 225-925-4671
(fax); Chuck.McNeal@dps.la.gov




                                                                           161
                PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Gaming Enforcement Program
Objective: III.1 Distribute at least four law enforcement bulletins to sections
each year through June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of roll call training meetings attended
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Output; Key

2. Rationale: Measures the number of roll call training meetings attended

3. Use: For budget and internal Division management purposes

4. Clarity: Performance indicator clearly defines and identifies what is being
measured.

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Reports are maintained by the Division’s
internal reporting procedures. All reports are documented by the Department’s
main data system’s reporting procedures and requirements.

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Reports issued
       Collection: Reports
       Reporting: Monthly

7. Calculation Methodology: Number of roll call training meetings attended

8. Scope: Indicators are collected and aggregated statewide. However, internal
procedures provide the capability to break down performance indicator by
region, office, location, investigator, etc.

9. Caveats: N/A

10. Responsible Person: Sgt. Chuck McNeal; 225-922-2825 (phone); 225-925-4671
(fax); Chuck.McNeal@dps.la.gov




                                                                             162
             PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Training Academy
Objective: I.1 By June 30, 2010, the LSP Training Academy will be in
compliance with all applicable standards of accreditation as identified by the
Commission on the Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies.
Indicator Name: Percentage of applicable standards in compliance
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Output; Key

2. Rationale: Measures the number of percentage of standards in compliance

3. Use: For internal Division management purposes

4. Clarity: Performance indicator clearly defines and identifies what is being
measured.

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Valid, reliable, and accurate

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Reports issued
       Collection: Reports
       Reporting: Monthly

7. Calculation Methodology: Number of percentage of standards in compliance
versus those in non-compliance

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: N/A

10. Responsible Person: Captain Bobby Osborn; Training Academy; 225-925-
6131 (phone); 225-925-6106 (fax); Bobby.Osborn@dps.la.gov




                                                                             163
             PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION


Program: Training Academy
Objective: I.1 By June 30, 2010, the LSP Training Academy will be in
compliance with all applicable standards of accreditation as identified by the
Commission on the Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies.
Indicator Name: Training Academy awarded Accreditation
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Output; Key

2. Rationale: For the department to be awarded reaccreditation

3. Use: For internal Division management purposes

4. Clarity: Performance indicator clearly defines and identifies what is being
measured

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Valid, reliable, and accurate

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Reports issued
       Collection: Reports
       Reporting: Monthly

7. Calculation Methodology:      Whether or not the department gets awarded
reaccreditation

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: N/A

10. Responsible Person: Captain Bobby Osborn; Training Academy; 225-925-
6131 (phone); 225-925-6106 (fax); Bobby.Osborn@dps.la.gov




                                                                          164
             PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION


Program: Training Academy
Objective: II.1 By June 30, 2013, 95% of officers will attend in-service training
to receive instruction in contemporary law enforcement topics and
demonstrate proficiency in the use of firearms and defensive tactics by June
30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of in-service courses delivered
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Output; Key

2. Rationale: Measures the number of in-service courses delivered

3. Use: For internal Division management purposes

4. Clarity: Performance indicator clearly defines and identifies what is being
measured.

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Valid, reliable, and accurate

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Reports issued
       Collection: Reports
       Reporting: Monthly

7. Calculation Methodology: Number of in-service courses delivered versus
those not delivered

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: N/A

10. Responsible Person: Captain Bobby Osborn; Training Academy; 225-925-
6131 (phone); 225-925-6106 (fax); Bobby.Osborn@dps.la.gov




                                                                             165
                PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Training Academy
Objective: II.1 By June 30, 2013, 95% of officers will attend in-service training
to receive instruction in contemporary law enforcement topics and
demonstrate proficiency in the use of firearms and defensive tactics by June
30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of Commissioned officers attending in-service
courses.
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Output; Key

2. Rationale:   Measures the number of staff members attending in-service
courses

3. Use: For internal Division management purposes

4. Clarity: Performance indicator clearly defines and identifies what is being
measured

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Valid, reliable, and accurate

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Reports issued
       Collection: Reports
       Reporting: Monthly

7. Calculation Methodology: Number of staff members attending in-service
courses versus those not attending

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: N/A

10. Responsible Person: Captain Bobby Osborn; Training Academy; 225-925-
6131 (phone); 225-925-6106 (fax); Bobby.Osborn@dps.la.gov




                                                                             166
                PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Training Academy
Objective: II.1 By June 30, 2013, 95% of officers will attend in-service training
to receive instruction in contemporary law enforcement topics and
demonstrate proficiency in the use of firearms and defensive tactics by June
30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Percentage of Commissioned officers attending in-service
courses
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Output; Key

2. Rationale: Measures the percentage of staff members attending in-service
courses

3. Use: For internal Division management purposes

4. Clarity: Performance indicator clearly defines and identifies what is being
measured

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Valid, reliable, and accurate.

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Reports issued
       Collection: Reports
       Reporting: Monthly

7. Calculation Methodology: The percentage of staff members attending in-
service courses versus those not attending

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: N/A

10. Responsible Person: Captain Bobby Osborn; Training Academy; 225-925-
6131 (phone); 225-925-6106 (fax); Bobby.Osborn@dps.la.gov




                                                                             167
                PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Training Academy
Objective: II.2 The Wellness Program, will be continued with 90% annual
participation each FY through June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of Commissioned officers participating in Wellness
Program
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Output; Key

2. Rationale: Measures the number of staff members participating in Wellness
Program

3. Use: For internal Division management purposes

4. Clarity: Performance indicator clearly defines and identifies what is being
measured

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Valid, reliable, and accurate

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Reports issued
       Collection: Reports
       Reporting: Monthly

7. Calculation Methodology: The number of staff members participating in
Wellness Program versus those not participating

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: N/A

10. Responsible Person: Captain Bobby Osborn; Training Academy; 225-925-
6131 (phone); 225-925-6106 (fax); Bobby.Osborn@dps.la.gov




                                                                          168
                PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Training Academy
Objective: II.2 The Wellness Program will be continued with 90% annual
participation each FY through June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Percentage of Commissioned officers participating in
Wellness Program
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Output; Key

2. Rationale: Measures the percentage of staff members participating in
Wellness Program

3. Use: For internal Division management purposes

4. Clarity: Performance indicator clearly defines and identifies what is being
measured

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Valid, reliable, and accurate

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Reports issued
       Collection: Reports
       Reporting: Monthly

7. Calculation Methodology: The percentage of staff members participating in
Wellness Program versus those not participating

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: N/A

10. Responsible Person: Captain Bobby Osborn; Training Academy; 225-925-
6131 (phone); 225-925-6106 (fax); Bobby.Osborn@dps.la.gov




                                                                          169
       PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Training Academy
Objective: III.1 Develop a comprehensive recruiting plan to identify and select
qualified personnel by July 1, 2009.
Indicator Name: Number of contacts made
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Output; Key

2. Rationale: Measures the number of contacts made

3. Use: For internal Division management purposes

4. Clarity: Performance indicator clearly defines and identifies what is being
measured.

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Valid, reliable, and accurate

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Reports issued
       Collection: Reports
       Reporting: Monthly

7. Calculation Methodology: Numeric tally of contacts

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: N/A

10. Responsible Person: Captain Bobby Osborn; Training Academy; 225-925-
6131 (phone); 225-925-6106 (fax); Bobby.Osborn@dps.la.gov




                                                                           170
             PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION


Program: Training Academy
Objective: III.1 Develop a comprehensive recruiting plan to identify and select
qualified personnel by July 1, 2009.
Indicator Name: Number of follow-up contacts conducted
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Output; Key

2. Rationale: Measures the number of follow-up contacts conducted

3. Use: For internal Division management purposes

4. Clarity: Performance indicator clearly defines and identifies what is being
measured

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Valid, reliable, and accurate

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Reports issued
       Collection: Reports
       Reporting: Monthly

7. Calculation Methodology: Numeric tally of follow-up contacts

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: N/A

10. Responsible Person: Captain Bobby Osborn; Training Academy; 225-925-
6131 (phone); 225-925-6106 (fax); Bobby.Osborn@dps.la.gov




                                                                           171
             PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION


Program: Training Academy
Objective: III.1 Develop a comprehensive recruiting plan to identify and select
qualified personnel by July 1, 2009.
Indicator Name: Number of new hires resulting from direct recruiting efforts
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Output; Key

2. Rationale: Measures the number of new hires resulting from direct recruiting
efforts

3. Use: For internal Division management purposes

4. Clarity: Performance indicator clearly defines and identifies what is being
measured.

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Valid, reliable, and accurate

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Reports issued
       Collection: Reports
       Reporting: Monthly

7. Calculation Methodology: The number of new hires resulting from direct
recruiting efforts versus those new hires coming without recruiting efforts.

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: N/A

10. Responsible Person: Captain Bobby Osborn; Training Academy; 225-925-
6131 (phone); 225-925-6106 (fax); Bobby.Osborn@dps.la.gov




                                                                           172
                PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Training Academy
Objective: IV.1 Conduct an annual evaluation of training with LSP
Commanders to identify strengths, deficiencies, and training needs each FY
through June 30, 2013.
IV.2 Conduct post training feedback via a training evaluation program that
assesses relatedness of content to the participants’ job duties; usefulness of the
course content for the participants; quality of instructor’s delivery; and
appropriateness of training mechanism used (i.e. CBT, instructor-led,
simulator, etc.) for 95% of the training courses provided through June 30, 2013.
IV.3 Conduct biennial surveys to measure training effectiveness through June
30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Average evaluation rating on overall program
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Output; Key

2. Rationale: Measures the average evaluation rating on overall program

3. Use: For internal Division management purposes

4. Clarity: Performance indicator clearly defines and identifies what is being
measured.

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Valid, reliable, and accurate

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Reports issued
       Collection: Reports
       Reporting: Monthly

7. Calculation Methodology: Average of the overall evaluation of program

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: N/A

10. Responsible Person: Captain Bobby Osborn; Training Academy; 225-925-
6131 (phone); 225-925-6106 (fax); Bobby.Osborn@dps.la.gov




                                                                              173
             PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Training Academy
Objective: IV.1 Conduct an annual evaluation of training with LSP
Commanders to identify strengths, deficiencies, and training needs each FY
through June 30, 2013.
IV.2 Conduct post training feedback via a training evaluation program that
assesses relatedness of content to the participants’ job duties; usefulness of the
course content for the participants; quality of instructor’s delivery; and
appropriateness of training mechanism used (i.e. CBT, instructor-led,
simulator, etc.) for 95% of the training courses provided through June 30, 2013.
IV.3 Conduct biennial surveys to measure training effectiveness through June
30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Average evaluation rating on instructors
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Output; Key

2. Rationale: Measure average evaluation rating on instructors

3. Use: For internal Division management purposes

4. Clarity: Performance indicator clearly defines and identifies what is being
measured.

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Valid, reliable, and accurate

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Reports issued
       Collection: Reports
       Reporting: Monthly

7. Calculation Methodology:        Average evaluation rating on instructional
delivery.

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: N/A

10. Responsible Person: Captain Bobby Osborn; Training Academy; 225-925-
6131 (phone); 225-925-6106 (fax); Bobby.Osborn@dps.la.gov




                                                                              174
             PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Training Academy
Objective: V.1 The LSP Training Academy will schedule annually, when
provided appropriate funding, a minimum of one Basic Police Academy for
law enforcement agencies that need to have officers POST certified through
June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of officers certified in Basic Police Academy
conducted by LSP Training Academy
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Output; Key

2. Rationale: Measures the number officers being certified

3. Use: For internal Division management purposes

4. Clarity: Performance indicator clearly defines and identifies what is being
measured

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Valid, reliable, and accurate

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Reports issued
       Collection: Reports
       Reporting: Monthly

7. Calculation Methodology: Numeric tally of the number of officers attending
the basic Police Academy Programs for POST

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: N/A

10. Responsible Person: Captain Bobby Osborn; Training Academy; 225-925-
6131 (phone); 225-925-6106 (fax); Bobby.Osborn@dps.la.gov




                                                                          175
             PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Training Academy
Objective: V.2 The LSP Training Academy will annually conduct at least one
State Police cadet class through June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of State Police cadet classes conducted each FY
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Output; Key

2. Rationale: Measures the number of State Police cadet classes conducted each
FY

3. Use: For internal Division management purposes

4. Clarity: Performance indicator clearly defines and identifies what is being
measured.

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Valid, reliable, and accurate

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Reports issued
       Collection: Reports
       Reporting: Monthly

7. Calculation Methodology: The number of State Police cadet classes
conducted each FY in relation to those conducted in previous years

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: N/A

10. Responsible Person: Captain Bobby Osborn; Training Academy; 225-925-
6131 (phone); 225-925-6106 (fax); Bobby.Osborn@dps.la.gov




                                                                          176
                PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Training Academy
Objective: V.2 The LSP Training Academy will annually conduct at least one
State Police cadet class through June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of cadets entering training each FY
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Output; Key

2. Rationale: Measures the number of cadets entering training each FY

3. Use: For internal Division management purposes

4. Clarity: Performance indicator clearly defines and identifies what is being
measured.

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Valid, reliable, and accurate

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Reports issued
       Collection: Reports
       Reporting: Monthly

7. Calculation Methodology: The number cadets entering training each FY
versus those entering in previous fiscal years

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: N/A

10. Responsible Person: Captain Bobby Osborn; Training Academy; 225-925-
6131 (phone); 225-925-6106 (fax); Bobby.Osborn@dps.la.gov




                                                                          177
                PERFORMANCE INDICATOR DOCUMENTATION

Program: Training Academy
Objective: V.2 The LSP Training Academy will annually conduct at least one
State Police cadet class through June 30, 2013.
Indicator Name: Number of cadets successfully completed training each FY
Indicator LaPAS PI Code: New

1. Type and Level: Output; Key

2. Rationale: Measures the number cadets successfully completed training each
FY

3. Use: For internal Division management purposes

4. Clarity: Performance indicator clearly defines and identifies what is being
measured

5. Validity, Reliability and Accuracy: Valid, reliable, and accurate

6. Data Source, Collection and Reporting:
       Source: Reports issued
       Collection: Reports
       Reporting: Monthly

7. Calculation Methodology: The number of cadets successfully completing
training each FY versus those in previous fiscal years

8. Scope: Aggregate

9. Caveats: N/A

10. Responsible Person: Captain Bobby Osborn; Training Academy; 225-925-
6131 (phone); 225-925-6106 (fax); Bobby.Osborn@dps.la.gov




                                                                          178
                     STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                    TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

Strategy I.1.1: Establish preventative patrols to deal with specific categories of
unlawful driving behaviors.
    Analysis                                  Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                               Other Analysis Used
                                            Impact on Other Strategies
                                         Considered

    Authorization                           Authorization Exists
                                              Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                     Needed Structural or Procedural
                                              Change(s) Identified
                                              Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                                Already Ongoing
                                              New Startup Date Estimated
                                              Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                             Impact on Operating Budget
                                              Impact on Capital Outlay
                                               Means of Finance Identified




                                                                                179
                     STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                    TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

Strategy I.1.2: Continue the implementation of the TrafficStat Program to
compile annual collision experience data statewide to determine assignment of
personnel.
     Analysis                               Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                           Other Analysis Used
                                           Impact on Other Strategies
                                       Considered

    Authorization                           Authorization Exists
                                           Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                  Needed Structural or Procedural
                                           Change(s) Identified
                                           Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                              Already Ongoing
                                           New Startup Date Estimated
                                           Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                           Impact on Operating Budget
                                           Impact on Capital Outlay
                                            Means of Finance Identified




                                                                             180
                     STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                    TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

Strategy I.1.3: Implement assignment of personnel at the time when and to the
locations where analyses have shown that a significant number of violations
and/or collisions involving impaired drivers have occurred.
     Analysis                                Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                           Other Analysis Used
                                           Impact on Other Strategies
                                       Considered

    Authorization                           Authorization Exists
                                           Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                  Needed Structural or Procedural
                                           Change(s) Identified
                                           Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                              Already Ongoing
                                           New Startup Date Estimated
                                           Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                           Impact on Operating Budget
                                           Impact on Capital Outlay
                                            Means of Finance Identified




                                                                             181
                     STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                    TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

Strategy I.1.4: Work in conjunction with DOTD to maximize the capabilities of
the Traffic Incident Management System.
     Analysis                              Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                            Other Analysis Used
                                            Impact on Other Strategies
                                        Considered

    Authorization                           Authorization Exists
                                           Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                  Needed Structural or Procedural
                                           Change(s) Identified
                                           Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                              Already Ongoing
                                           New Startup Date Estimated
                                           Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                           Impact on Operating Budget
                                           Impact on Capital Outlay
                                            Means of Finance Identified




                                                                             182
                     STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                    TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

Strategy I.1.5: Implement selective DWI checkpoints and enforcement.
     Analysis                               Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                           Other Analysis Used
                                           Impact on Other Strategies
                                       Considered

    Authorization                           Authorization Exists
                                           Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                  Needed Structural or Procedural
                                           Change(s) Identified
                                           Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                              Already Ongoing
                                           New Startup Date Estimated
                                           Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                           Impact on Operating Budget
                                           Impact on Capital Outlay
                                            Means of Finance Identified




                                                                             183
                     STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                    TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

Strategy I.1.6: Implement selective seatbelt checkpoints and enforcement.
     Analysis                                  Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                             Other Analysis Used
                                             Impact on Other Strategies
                                         Considered

    Authorization                             Authorization Exists
                                             Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                    Needed Structural or Procedural
                                             Change(s) Identified
                                             Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                                Already Ongoing
                                             New Startup Date Estimated
                                             Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                             Impact on Operating Budget
                                             Impact on Capital Outlay
                                              Means of Finance Identified




                                                                               184
                     STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                    TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

Strategy II.1.1: Conduct patrols of high traffic corridors.
     Analysis                                   Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                             Other Analysis Used
                                             Impact on Other Strategies
                                         Considered

    Authorization                             Authorization Exists
                                             Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                    Needed Structural or Procedural
                                             Change(s) Identified
                                             Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                                Already Ongoing
                                             New Startup Date Estimated
                                             Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                            Impact on Operating Budget
                                             Impact on Capital Outlay
                                              Means of Finance Identified




                                                                               185
                     STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                    TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

Strategy II.1.2: Augment patrols specifically targeting aggressive driving,
tailgaters, speeders, and other violations.
     Analysis                                  Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                             Other Analysis Used
                                             Impact on Other Strategies
                                         Considered

    Authorization                             Authorization Exists
                                             Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                    Needed Structural or Procedural
                                             Change(s) Identified
                                             Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                                Already Ongoing
                                             New Startup Date Estimated
                                             Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                             Impact on Operating Budget
                                             Impact on Capital Outlay
                                              Means of Finance Identified




                                                                               186
                     STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                    TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

Strategy II.1.3: Conduct patrols of construction and work zone and other
reduced speed zones.
     Analysis                             Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                           Other Analysis Used
                                           Impact on Other Strategies
                                      Considered

    Authorization                        Authorization Exists
                                         Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                Needed Structural or Procedural
                                         Change(s) Identified
                                         Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                           Already Ongoing
                                         New Startup Date Estimated
                                         Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                        Impact on Operating Budget
                                         Impact on Capital Outlay
                                          Means of Finance Identified




                                                                           187
                     STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                    TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

Strategy II.1.4: Conduct nighttime and off-hour patrols with enforcement
emphasis on removal of fatigued, impaired, or drugged drivers.
     Analysis                               Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                          Other Analysis Used
                                          Impact on Other Strategies
                                      Considered

    Authorization                         Authorization Exists
                                          Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                 Needed Structural or Procedural
                                          Change(s) Identified
                                          Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                            Already Ongoing
                                          New Startup Date Estimated
                                          Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                         Impact on Operating Budget
                                          Impact on Capital Outlay
                                           Means of Finance Identified




                                                                            188
                     STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                    TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

Strategy II.1.5: Establish educational programs and forums focusing on sharing
highways with commercial vehicles like “No Zone” and other United States
Department of Transportation sponsored educational campaigns.
     Analysis                                Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                           Other Analysis Used
                                           Impact on Other Strategies
                                       Considered

    Authorization                           Authorization Exists
                                           Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                  Needed Structural or Procedural
                                           Change(s) Identified
                                           Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                              Already Ongoing
                                           New Startup Date Estimated
                                           Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                           Impact on Operating Budget
                                           Impact on Capital Outlay
                                            Means of Finance Identified




                                                                             189
                      STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                     TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

Strategy II.1.6: Conduct a trend analysis determining fatality rates on rural vs.
parish and urban roads.
     Analysis                               Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                             Other Analysis Used
                                              Impact on Other Strategies
                                         Considered

    Authorization                            Authorization Exists
                                             Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                     Needed Structural or Procedural
                                             Change(s) Identified
                                             Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                               Already Ongoing
                                             New Startup Date Estimated
                                             Lifetime of Strategy Identified

     Fiscal Impact                             Impact on Operating Budget
                                             Impact on Capital Outlay
                                             Means of Finance Identified




                                                                               190
                     STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                    TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

Strategy II.2.1: Conduct patrols of state and federal highways with enforcement
emphasis on detection of overweight commercial vehicles.
     Analysis                                  Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                            Other Analysis Used
                                             Impact on Other Strategies
                                         Considered

    Authorization                            Authorization Exists
                                             Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                    Needed Structural or Procedural
                                             Change(s) Identified
                                             Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                               Already Ongoing
                                             New Startup Date Estimated
                                             Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                            Impact on Operating Budget
                                             Impact on Capital Outlay
                                             Means of Finance Identified




                                                                               191
                     STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                    TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

Strategy III.1.1: Provide courses of instruction to selected personnel of the State
Police and other state, local, and private entities.
     Analysis                                    Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                              Other Analysis Used
                                              Impact on Other Strategies
                                          Considered

    Authorization                              Authorization Exists
                                              Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                     Needed Structural or Procedural
                                              Change(s) Identified
                                              Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                                Already Ongoing
                                              New Startup Date Estimated
                                              Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                              Impact on Operating Budget
                                              Impact on Capital Outlay
                                               Means of Finance Identified




                                                                                192
                      STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                     TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

Strategy III.1.2: Coordinate with state, local, and private entities with an interest
in protecting the critical infrastructure.
     Analysis                                   Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                               Other Analysis Used
                                               Impact on Other Strategies
                                           Considered

     Authorization                              Authorization Exists
                                               Authorization Needed

     Organization Capacity                     Needed Structural or Procedural
                                               Change(s) Identified
                                               Resource Needs Identified

     Time Frame                                Already Ongoing
                                               New Startup Date Estimated
                                               Lifetime of Strategy Identified

     Fiscal Impact                              Impact on Operating Budget
                                               Impact on Capital Outlay
                                                Means of Finance Identified




                                                                                 193
                     STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                    TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

Strategy III.1.3: Maintain communication with the respective entities and
update plans of action as needed. Efficiently utilize available resources to
maximize the goals and objectives of IRS.
     Analysis                             Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                          Other Analysis Used
                                          Impact on Other Strategies
                                      Considered

    Authorization                          Authorization Exists
                                          Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                 Needed Structural or Procedural
                                          Change(s) Identified
                                          Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                            Already Ongoing
                                          New Startup Date Estimated
                                          Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                          Impact on Operating Budget
                                          Impact on Capital Outlay
                                           Means of Finance Identified




                                                                            194
                     STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                    TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

Strategy III.2.1: Increase voice interoperability between Louisiana State Police
and local law enforcement.
     Analysis                                 Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                               Other Analysis Used
                                               Impact on Other Strategies
                                         Considered

    Authorization                            Authorization Exists
                                             Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                   Needed Structural or Procedural
                                            Change(s) Identified
                                            Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                               Already Ongoing
                                             New Startup Date Estimated
                                             Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                            Impact on Operating Budget
                                             Impact on Capital Outlay
                                              Means of Finance Identified




                                                                               195
                     STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                    TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

Strategy III.2.2: Research, design, and deploy comprehensive interoperability
technology.
     Analysis                               Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                            Other Analysis Used
                                            Impact on Other Strategies
                                        Considered

    Authorization                           Authorization Exists
                                           Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                  Needed Structural or Procedural
                                           Change(s) Identified
                                           Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                             Already Ongoing
                                           New Startup Date Estimated
                                           Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                           Impact on Operating Budget
                                           Impact on Capital Outlay
                                            Means of Finance Identified




                                                                             196
                     STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                    TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

Strategy III.2.3: Participate as a member of the SIEC in the development of a
permanent statewide plan.
     Analysis                               Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                             Other Analysis Used
                                             Impact on Other Strategies
                                        Considered

    Authorization                           Authorization Exists
                                           Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                  Needed Structural or Procedural
                                           Change(s) Identified
                                           Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                             Already Ongoing
                                           New Startup Date Estimated
                                           Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                           Impact on Operating Budget
                                           Impact on Capital Outlay
                                            Means of Finance Identified




                                                                             197
                     STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                    TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

Strategy III.2.4: Participate as a member of the SIEC in the implementation of a
statewide permanent comprehensive interoperability plan.
     Analysis                                 Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                            Other Analysis Used
                                            Impact on Other Strategies
                                        Considered

    Authorization                             Authorization Exists
                                             Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                   Needed Structural or Procedural
                                            Change(s) Identified
                                            Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                               Already Ongoing
                                             New Startup Date Estimated
                                             Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                            Impact on Operating Budget
                                             Impact on Capital Outlay
                                              Means of Finance Identified




                                                                               198
                      STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                     TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

Strategy IV.1.1: Identify/seek funding sources for digital in-car cameras.
     Analysis                                Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                            Other Analysis Used
                                            Impact on Other Strategies
                                        Considered

     Authorization                          Authorization Exists
                                            Authorization Needed

     Organization Capacity                  Needed Structural or Procedural
                                            Change(s) Identified
                                            Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                              Already Ongoing
                                            New Startup Date Estimated
                                            Lifetime of Strategy Identified

   Fiscal Impact                            Impact on Operating Budget
                                            Impact on Capital Outlay
                                            Means of Finance Identified




                                                                              199
                      STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                     TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

Strategy IV.1.2: Develop policies on the use of digital in-car cameras.
     Analysis                                 Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                             Other Analysis Used
                                           Impact on Other Strategies
                                        Considered

     Authorization                          Authorization Exists
                                            Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                   Needed Structural or Procedural
                                            Change(s) Identified
                                             Resource Needs Identified

   Time Frame                               Already Ongoing
                                            New Startup Date Estimated
                                            Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                             Impact on Operating Budget
                                            Impact on Capital Outlay
                                            Means of Finance Identified




                                                                              200
                      STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                     TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

Strategy IV.1.3:    Conduct training for LSP who will be using digital in-car
cameras.
     Analysis                              Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                             Other Analysis Used
                                             Impact on Other Strategies
                                        Considered

    Authorization                            Authorization Exists
                                            Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                    Needed Structural or Procedural
                                            Change(s) Identified
                                            Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                              Already Ongoing
                                             New Startup Date Estimated
                                            Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                             Impact on Operating Budget
                                            Impact on Capital Outlay
                                            Means of Finance Identified




                                                                              201
                     STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                    TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

Strategy IV.1.4: Develop and implement an agency-wide policy for record
retention of digital images.
     Analysis                          Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                        Other Analysis Used
                                        Impact on Other Strategies
                                   Considered

    Authorization                       Authorization Exists
                                       Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity               Needed Structural or Procedural
                                       Change(s) Identified
                                       Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                         Already Ongoing
                                        New Startup Date Estimated
                                       Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                       Impact on Operating Budget
                                       Impact on Capital Outlay
                                       Means of Finance Identified




                                                                         202
                     STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                    TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

Strategy IV.2.1: Investigate and identify existing technology for generating e-
citations.
      Analysis                              Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                             Other Analysis Used
                                           Impact on Other Strategies
                                        Considered

   Authorization                             Authorization Exists
                                            Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                   Needed Structural or Procedural
                                            Change(s) Identified
                                            Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                               Already Ongoing
                                            New Startup Date Estimated
                                            Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                            Impact on Operating Budget
                                            Impact on Capital Outlay
                                            Means of Finance Identified




                                                                              203
                     STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                    TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

Strategy IV.2.2: Develop a plan (including funding requirements and necessary
training) to equip patrol cars with devices enabling troopers to generate e-tickets
and crash reports.
    Analysis                                  Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                               Other Analysis Used
                                               Impact on Other Strategies
                                          Considered

   Authorization                               Authorization Exists
                                              Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                      Needed Structural or Procedural
                                              Change(s) Identified
                                              Resource Needs Identified

     Time Frame                               Already Ongoing
                                              New Startup Date Estimated
                                              Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                              Impact on Operating Budget
                                              Impact on Capital Outlay
                                              Means of Finance Identified




                                                                                204
                      STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                     TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

Strategy IV.2.3: Support national standards for data element definitions to
enable more effective electronic exchanges of information.
     Analysis                                 Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                            Other Analysis Used
                                          Impact on Other Strategies
                                       Considered

     Authorization                          Authorization Exists
                                           Authorization Needed

     Organization Capacity                  Needed Structural or Procedural
                                           Change(s) Identified
                                           Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                             Already Ongoing
                                            New Startup Date Estimated
                                           Lifetime of Strategy Identified

     Fiscal Impact                          Impact on Operating Budget
                                           Impact on Capital Outlay
                                           Means of Finance Identified




                                                                             205
                     STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                    TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

Strategy IV.2.4: Identify mechanisms for other highway safety data to be
submitted electronically.
     Analysis                            Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                           Other Analysis Used
                                       Impact on Other Strategies
                                    Considered

    Authorization                        Authorization Exists
                                        Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                Needed Structural or Procedural
                                        Change(s) Identified
                                        Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                          Already Ongoing
                                         New Startup Date Estimated
                                        Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                        Impact on Operating Budget
                                        Impact on Capital Outlay
                                        Means of Finance Identified




                                                                          206
                      STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                     TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

Strategy IV.2.5: Determine the feasibility of reporting commercial vehicle
inspections electronically enabling all troopers to have this capability.
     Analysis                                  Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                           Other Analysis Used
                                           Impact on Other Strategies
                                       Considered

     Authorization                           Authorization Exists
                                           Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                   Needed Structural or Procedural
                                           Change(s) Identified
                                           Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                             Already Ongoing
                                           New Startup Date Estimated
                                           Lifetime of Strategy Identified

     Fiscal Impact                          Impact on Operating Budget
                                           Impact on Capital Outlay
                                           Means of Finance Identified




                                                                             207
                      STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                     TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

Strategy IV.2.6: Develop the methodology to electronically send tickets to court.
     Analysis                               Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                               Other Analysis Used
                                               Impact on Other Strategies
                                          Considered

     Authorization                             Authorization Exists
                                              Authorization Needed

     Organization Capacity                     Needed Structural or Procedural
                                              Change(s) Identified
                                              Resource Needs Identified

     Time Frame                               Already Ongoing
                                               New Startup Date Estimated
                                              Lifetime of Strategy Identified

     Fiscal Impact                             Impact on Operating Budget
                                              Impact on Capital Outlay
                                              Means of Finance Identified




                                                                                208
                     STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                    TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

Strategy IV.2.7: Identify or devise the mechanisms to receive insurance
information electronically.
     Analysis                           Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                         Other Analysis Used
                                       Impact on Other Strategies
                                    Considered

    Authorization                        Authorization Exists
                                       Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity               Needed Structural or Procedural
                                       Change(s) Identified
                                       Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                           Already Ongoing
                                       New Startup Date Estimated
                                       Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                        Impact on Operating Budget
                                       Impact on Capital Outlay
                                       Means of Finance Identified




                                                                         209
                   STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                 CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION PROGRAM

Strategy I.1.1: Increase education and public awareness by providing
informational avenues to report criminal activities.
     Analysis                                 Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                           Other Analysis Used
                                           Impact on Other Strategies
                                       Considered

    Authorization                           Authorization Exists
                                           Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                  Needed Structural or Procedural
                                           Change(s) Identified
                                           Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                             Already Ongoing
                                           New Startup Date Estimated
                                           Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                           Impact on Operating Budget
                                           Impact on Capital Outlay
                                            Means of Finance Identified




                                                                             210
                   STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                 CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION PROGRAM

Strategy I.1.2: Increase use of modern technology to enhance criminal
investigations and the detection of criminal activity.
     Analysis                                  Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                           Other Analysis Used
                                           Impact on Other Strategies
                                       Considered

    Authorization                           Authorization Exists
                                           Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                  Needed Structural or Procedural
                                           Change(s) Identified
                                           Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                             Already Ongoing
                                           New Startup Date Estimated
                                           Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                           Impact on Operating Budget
                                           Impact on Capital Outlay
                                            Means of Finance Identified




                                                                             211
                    STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                  CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION PROGRAM

Strategy I.1.3: Increase educational presentations at reducing the demand of
illicit drugs.
        Analysis                            Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                              Other Analysis Used
                                         Impact on Other Strategies
                                      Considered

     Authorization                          Authorization Exists
                                          Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                  Needed Structural or Procedural
                                          Change(s) Identified
                                          Resource Needs Identified

     Time Frame                             Already Ongoing
                                          New Startup Date Estimated
                                          Lifetime of Strategy Identified

     Fiscal Impact                          Impact on Operating Budget
                                          Impact on Capital Outlay
                                          Means of Finance Identified




                                                                            212
                    STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                  CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION PROGRAM

Strategy II.1.1: Develop a pilot program for implementation of the Information
Reporting System (IRS).
     Analysis                                Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                              Other Analysis Used
                                          Impact on Other Strategies
                                       Considered

     Authorization                           Authorization Exists
                                           Authorization Needed

     Organization Capacity                  Needed Structural or Procedural
                                           Change(s) Identified
                                           Resource Needs Identified

     Time Frame                            Already Ongoing
                                            New Startup Date Estimated
                                           Lifetime of Strategy Identified

     Fiscal Impact                           Impact on Operating Budget
                                           Impact on Capital Outlay
                                           Means of Finance Identified




                                                                             213
                    STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                  CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION PROGRAM

Strategy II.1.2: Provide investigators with the opportunity to attend specialized
training courses.
     Analysis                                 Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                               Other Analysis Used
                                               Impact on Other Strategies
                                          Considered

     Authorization                             Authorization Exists
                                             Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                     Needed Structural or Procedural
                                             Change(s) Identified
                                             Resource Needs Identified

     Time Frame                              Already Ongoing
                                              New Startup Date Estimated
                                             Lifetime of Strategy Identified

     Fiscal Impact                             Impact on Operating Budget
                                             Impact on Capital Outlay
                                             Means of Finance Identified




                                                                               214
                   STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                 CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION PROGRAM

Strategy III.1.1: Require investigators to increase assistance to other law
enforcement agencies.
     Analysis                              Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                            Other Analysis Used
                                            Impact on Other Strategies
                                        Considered

    Authorization                         Authorization Exists
                                          Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                 Needed Structural or Procedural
                                          Change(s) Identified
                                          Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                            Already Ongoing
                                          New Startup Date Estimated
                                          Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                         Impact on Operating Budget
                                          Impact on Capital Outlay
                                           Means of Finance Identified




                                                                            215
                   STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                 CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION PROGRAM

Strategy III.1.2: Increase assistance and cooperation with other non-law
enforcement agencies, to include private industry and other local, state, and
federal agencies.
     Analysis                              Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                           Other Analysis Used
                                           Impact on Other Strategies
                                       Considered

    Authorization                           Authorization Exists
                                           Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                  Needed Structural or Procedural
                                           Change(s) Identified
                                           Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                             Already Ongoing
                                           New Startup Date Estimated
                                           Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                           Impact on Operating Budget
                                           Impact on Capital Outlay
                                            Means of Finance Identified




                                                                             216
                    STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                  CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION PROGRAM

Strategy III.1.3: Enhance capabilities of the Fusion Center as a centralized point
for compiling all available information sources relating to homeland security.
     Analysis                                  Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                              Other Analysis Used
                                              Impact on Other Strategies
                                          Considered

    Authorization                             Authorization Exists
                                              Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                     Needed Structural or Procedural
                                              Change(s) Identified
                                               Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                                Already Ongoing
                                              New Startup Date Estimated
                                              Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                             Impact on Operating Budget
                                              Impact on Capital Outlay
                                               Means of Finance Identified




                                                                                217
                      STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                     OFFICE OF OPERATIONAL SUPPORT

Strategy I.1.1: Collect proofs from the various sections within Public Safety
Services to verify compliance with CALEA requirements.
     Analysis                               Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                           Other Analysis Used
                                           Impact on Other Strategies
                                       Considered

    Authorization                           Authorization Exists
                                           Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                  Needed Structural or Procedural
                                           Change(s) Identified
                                           Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                              Already Ongoing
                                           New Startup Date Estimated
                                           Lifetime of Strategy Identified

     Fiscal Impact                          Impact on Operating Budget
                                           Impact on Capital Outlay
                                           Means of Finance Identified




                                                                             218
                     STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                    OFFICE OF OPERATIONAL SUPPORT

Strategy I.1.2: Conduct staff assistance visits to educate personnel and ensure
compliance with CALEA requirements.
     Analysis                                 Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                               Other Analysis Used
                                               Impact on Other Strategies
                                         Considered

    Authorization                            Authorization Exists
                                            Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                   Needed Structural or Procedural
                                            Change(s) Identified
                                            Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                               Already Ongoing
                                            New Startup Date Estimated
                                            Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                            Impact on Operating Budget
                                            Impact on Capital Outlay
                                             Means of Finance Identified




                                                                              219
                     STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                    OFFICE OF OPERATIONAL SUPPORT

Strategy I.1.3: Accreditation Manager initiates a periodic examination of the
agency to determine its compliance with applicable standards required for
reaccreditation.
     Analysis                               Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                           Other Analysis Used
                                           Impact on Other Strategies
                                       Considered

    Authorization                           Authorization Exists
                                           Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                  Needed Structural or Procedural
                                           Change(s) Identified
                                           Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                              Already Ongoing
                                           New Startup Date Estimated
                                           Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                           Impact on Operating Budget
                                           Impact on Capital Outlay
                                            Means of Finance Identified




                                                                             220
                     STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                    OFFICE OF OPERATIONAL SUPPORT

Strategy I.1.4: Prepare for representatives of the Commission who will conduct
an onsite visit, including panel interviews, to verify the agency’s compliance
with all applicable standards.
     Analysis                                  Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                           Other Analysis Used
                                           Impact on Other Strategies
                                       Considered

    Authorization                           Authorization Exists
                                           Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                  Needed Structural or Procedural
                                           Change(s) Identified
                                           Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                              Already Ongoing
                                           New Startup Date Estimated
                                           Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                           Impact on Operating Budget
                                           Impact on Capital Outlay
                                            Means of Finance Identified




                                                                             221
                     STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                    OFFICE OF OPERATIONAL SUPPORT

Strategy I.1.5: Submit annual reports to the Commission during the three-year
accreditation period to attest continued compliance and report changes or
difficulties experienced during the year.
     Analysis                                Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                           Other Analysis Used
                                           Impact on Other Strategies
                                       Considered

    Authorization                           Authorization Exists
                                           Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                  Needed Structural or Procedural
                                           Change(s) Identified
                                           Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                              Already Ongoing
                                           New Startup Date Estimated
                                           Lifetime of Strategy Identified

   Fiscal Impact                           Impact on Operating Budget
                                           Impact on Capital Outlay
                                           Means of Finance Identified




                                                                             222
                     STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                    OFFICE OF OPERATIONAL SUPPORT

Strategy I.2.1: Maintain an internal Quality Assurance Unit.
    Analysis                                  Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                           Other Analysis Used
                                           Impact on Other Strategies
                                        Considered

    Authorization                           Authorization Exists
                                            Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                   Needed Structural or Procedural
                                            Change(s) Identified
                                            Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                              Already Ongoing
                                            New Startup Date Estimated
                                            Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                           Impact on Operating Budget
                                            Impact on Capital Outlay
                                            Means of Finance Identified




                                                                              223
                    STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                   OFFICE OF OPERATIONAL SUPPORT

Strategy I.2.2: Renew ASCLD/LAB accreditation every five years.
    Analysis                              Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                         Other Analysis Used
                                         Impact on Other Strategies
                                      Considered

   Authorization                          Authorization Exists
                                          Authorization Needed

   Organization Capacity                  Needed Structural or Procedural
                                          Change(s) Identified
                                          Resource Needs Identified

   Time Frame                             Already Ongoing
                                          New Startup Date Estimated
                                          Lifetime of Strategy Identified

   Fiscal Impact                          Impact on Operating Budget
                                          Impact on Capital Outlay
                                          Means of Finance Identified




                                                                            224
                    STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                   OFFICE OF OPERATIONAL SUPPORT

Strategy I.2.3: Maintain ASCLE/LAB accreditation and seek accreditation if new
disciplines arise.
    Analysis                               Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                          Other Analysis Used
                                          Impact on Other Strategies
                                       Considered

   Authorization                           Authorization Exists
                                           Authorization Needed

   Organization Capacity                   Needed Structural or Procedural
                                           Change(s) Identified
                                           Resource Needs Identified

   Time Frame                              Already Ongoing
                                           New Startup Date Estimated
                                           Lifetime of Strategy Identified

   Fiscal Impact                           Impact on Operating Budget
                                           Impact on Capital Outlay
                                           Means of Finance Identified




                                                                             225
                    STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                   OFFICE OF OPERATIONAL SUPPORT

Strategy I.2.4: Transition from the current ASCLD/LAB-Legacy Program to the
new ASCLD/LAB-International (ISO 17025) by June 30, 2010. Audit new
policies and procedures for compliance. Issue corrective actions. Seek external
audits for compliance.
    Analysis                                 Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                           Other Analysis Used
                                           Impact on Other Strategies
                                        Considered

   Authorization                            Authorization Exists
                                            Authorization Needed

   Organization Capacity                    Needed Structural or Procedural
                                            Change(s) Identified
                                            Resource Needs Identified

   Time Frame                               Already Ongoing
                                            New Startup Date Estimated
                                            Lifetime of Strategy Identified

   Fiscal Impact                            Impact on Operating Budget
                                            Impact on Capital Outlay
                                            Means of Finance Identified




                                                                              226
                      STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                     OFFICE OF OPERATIONAL SUPPORT

Strategy I.3.1: Increase operating space.
     Analysis                                  Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                               Other Analysis Used
                                               Impact on Other Strategies
                                            Considered

     Authorization                               Authorization Exists
                                               Authorization Needed

     Organization Capacity                      Needed Structural or Procedural
                                               Change(s) Identified
                                               Resource Needs Identified

     Time Frame                                  Already Ongoing
                                               New Startup Date Estimated
                                               Lifetime of Strategy Identified

     Fiscal Impact                               Impact on Operating Budget
                                                 Impact on Capital Outlay
                                               Means of Finance Identified




                                                                                 227
                      STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                     OFFICE OF OPERATIONAL SUPPORT

Strategy I.3.2: Increase number of personnel.
     Analysis                                 Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                               Other Analysis Used
                                               Impact on Other Strategies
                                         Considered

     Authorization                          Authorization Exists
                                             Authorization Needed

     Organization Capacity                  Needed Structural or Procedural
                                            Change(s) Identified
                                            Resource Needs Identified

     Time Frame                             Already Ongoing
                                             New Startup Date Estimated
                                            Lifetime of Strategy Identified

     Fiscal Impact                            Impact on Operating Budget
                                            Impact on Capital Outlay
                                            Means of Finance Identified




                                                                              228
                     STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                    OFFICE OF OPERATIONAL SUPPORT

Strategy I.3.3: Streamline processes to improve efficiency.
    Analysis                                  Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                           Other Analysis Used
                                           Impact on Other Strategies
                                        Considered

    Authorization                           Authorization Exists
                                            Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                   Needed Structural or Procedural
                                            Change(s) Identified
                                            Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                              Already Ongoing
                                            New Startup Date Estimated
                                            Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                           Impact on Operating Budget
                                            Impact on Capital Outlay
                                            Means of Finance Identified




                                                                              229
                      STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                     OFFICE OF OPERATIONAL SUPPORT

Strategy I.3.4: Apply emerging technology to improve efficiency.
     Analysis                                Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                             Other Analysis Used
                                           Impact on Other Strategies
                                        Considered

     Authorization                           Authorization Exists
                                            Authorization Needed

     Organization Capacity                  Needed Structural or Procedural
                                            Change(s) Identified
                                             Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                              Already Ongoing
                                            New Startup Date Estimated
                                            Lifetime of Strategy Identified

     Fiscal Impact                           Impact on Operating Budget
                                            Impact on Capital Outlay
                                            Means of Finance Identified




                                                                              230
                    STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                   OFFICE OF OPERATIONAL SUPPORT

Strategy I.4.1: Provide quality DNA analysis to the law enforcement agencies
that the Crime Lab serves in accordance with the Federal Quality Assurance
Standards for Forensic DNA Testing Laboratories.
    Analysis                               Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                         Other Analysis Used
                                         Impact on Other Strategies
                                      Considered

   Authorization                          Authorization Exists
                                          Authorization Needed

   Organization Capacity                  Needed Structural or Procedural
                                          Change(s) Identified
                                          Resource Needs Identified

   Time Frame                             Already Ongoing
                                          New Startup Date Estimated
                                          Lifetime of Strategy Identified

   Fiscal Impact                          Impact on Operating Budget
                                          Impact on Capital Outlay
                                          Means of Finance Identified




                                                                            231
                    STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                   OFFICE OF OPERATIONAL SUPPORT

Strategy I.4.2: The DNA Unit will incorporate methods, rules, and protocols, to
reduce the turnaround time and eliminate the current backlog of DNA requests
for analysis.
    Analysis                                Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                           Other Analysis Used
                                           Impact on Other Strategies
                                        Considered

   Authorization                            Authorization Exists
                                            Authorization Needed

   Organization Capacity                    Needed Structural or Procedural
                                            Change(s) Identified
                                            Resource Needs Identified

   Time Frame                               Already Ongoing
                                            New Startup Date Estimated
                                            Lifetime of Strategy Identified

   Fiscal Impact                            Impact on Operating Budget
                                            Impact on Capital Outlay
                                            Means of Finance Identified




                                                                              232
                    STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                   OFFICE OF OPERATIONAL SUPPORT

Strategy I.5.1: The Bureau of Criminal Identification and Information will
implement electronic disposition reporting.
    Analysis                                Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                         Other Analysis Used
                                         Impact on Other Strategies
                                      Considered

   Authorization                          Authorization Exists
                                          Authorization Needed

   Organization Capacity                  Needed Structural or Procedural
                                          Change(s) Identified
                                          Resource Needs Identified

   Time Frame                             Already Ongoing
                                          New Startup Date Estimated
                                          Lifetime of Strategy Identified

   Fiscal Impact                          Impact on Operating Budget
                                          Impact on Capital Outlay
                                          Means of Finance Identified




                                                                            233
                    STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                   OFFICE OF OPERATIONAL SUPPORT

Strategy I.5.2: Develop new procedures for processing expungements.
    Analysis                                 Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                           Other Analysis Used
                                           Impact on Other Strategies
                                        Considered

   Authorization                            Authorization Exists
                                            Authorization Needed

   Organization Capacity                    Needed Structural or Procedural
                                            Change(s) Identified
                                            Resource Needs Identified

   Time Frame                               Already Ongoing
                                            New Startup Date Estimated
                                            Lifetime of Strategy Identified

   Fiscal Impact                            Impact on Operating Budget
                                            Impact on Capital Outlay
                                            Means of Finance Identified




                                                                              234
                    STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                   OFFICE OF OPERATIONAL SUPPORT

Strategy I.5.3: The Bureau of Criminal Identification and Information will
coordinate a rewrite of the Louisiana Computerized Criminal History (LACCH)
system.
    Analysis                               Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                         Other Analysis Used
                                         Impact on Other Strategies
                                      Considered

   Authorization                          Authorization Exists
                                          Authorization Needed

   Organization Capacity                  Needed Structural or Procedural
                                          Change(s) Identified
                                          Resource Needs Identified

   Time Frame                             Already Ongoing
                                          New Startup Date Estimated
                                          Lifetime of Strategy Identified

   Fiscal Impact                          Impact on Operating Budget
                                          Impact on Capital Outlay
                                          Means of Finance Identified




                                                                            235
                     STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                    OFFICE OF OPERATIONAL SUPPORT

Strategy I.5.4: Continue to participate in the Interstate Identification Index.
    Analysis                                    Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                            Other Analysis Used
                                            Impact on Other Strategies
                                         Considered

    Authorization                            Authorization Exists
                                             Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                    Needed Structural or Procedural
                                             Change(s) Identified
                                             Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                               Already Ongoing
                                             New Startup Date Estimated
                                             Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                            Impact on Operating Budget
                                             Impact on Capital Outlay
                                             Means of Finance Identified




                                                                               236
                     STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                    OFFICE OF OPERATIONAL SUPPORT

Strategy I.6.1: Evaluate and develop new methods for more efficient processing.
    Analysis                                Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                            Other Analysis Used
                                            Impact on Other Strategies
                                         Considered

    Authorization                            Authorization Exists
                                             Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                    Needed Structural or Procedural
                                             Change(s) Identified
                                             Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                               Already Ongoing
                                             New Startup Date Estimated
                                             Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                            Impact on Operating Budget
                                             Impact on Capital Outlay
                                             Means of Finance Identified




                                                                               237
                    STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                   OFFICE OF OPERATIONAL SUPPORT

Strategy I.6.2: Develop a new Applicant Tracking system.
    Analysis                                 Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                           Other Analysis Used
                                           Impact on Other Strategies
                                        Considered

   Authorization                            Authorization Exists
                                            Authorization Needed

   Organization Capacity                    Needed Structural or Procedural
                                            Change(s) Identified
                                            Resource Needs Identified

   Time Frame                               Already Ongoing
                                            New Startup Date Estimated
                                            Lifetime of Strategy Identified

   Fiscal Impact                            Impact on Operating Budget
                                            Impact on Capital Outlay
                                            Means of Finance Identified




                                                                              238
                    STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                   OFFICE OF OPERATIONAL SUPPORT

Strategy I.6.3: Identify and implement new technologies.
    Analysis                                 Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                           Other Analysis Used
                                           Impact on Other Strategies
                                        Considered

   Authorization                            Authorization Exists
                                            Authorization Needed

   Organization Capacity                    Needed Structural or Procedural
                                            Change(s) Identified
                                            Resource Needs Identified

   Time Frame                               Already Ongoing
                                            New Startup Date Estimated
                                            Lifetime of Strategy Identified

   Fiscal Impact                            Impact on Operating Budget
                                            Impact on Capital Outlay
                                            Means of Finance Identified




                                                                              239
                     STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                    OFFICE OF OPERATIONAL SUPPORT

Strategy I.7.1: Identify criminal justice and public functional needs for the Sex
Offender Registry.
    Analysis                                  Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                              Other Analysis Used
                                              Impact on Other Strategies
                                           Considered

    Authorization                            Authorization Exists
                                             Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                    Needed Structural or Procedural
                                             Change(s) Identified
                                             Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                               Already Ongoing
                                             New Startup Date Estimated
                                             Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                            Impact on Operating Budget
                                             Impact on Capital Outlay
                                             Means of Finance Identified




                                                                               240
                    STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                   OFFICE OF OPERATIONAL SUPPORT

Strategy I.7.2: Oversee design, development, and implementation of the SOCPR
system.
    Analysis                                 Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                             Other Analysis Used
                                             Impact on Other Strategies
                                        Considered

   Authorization                          Authorization Exists
                                          Authorization Needed

   Organization Capacity                  Needed Structural or Procedural
                                          Change(s) Identified
                                          Resource Needs Identified

   Time Frame                             Already Ongoing
                                          New Startup Date Estimated
                                          Lifetime of Strategy Identified

   Fiscal Impact                          Impact on Operating Budget
                                          Impact on Capital Outlay
                                          Means of Finance Identified




                                                                            241
                     STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                    OFFICE OF OPERATIONAL SUPPORT

Strategy II.1.1: Increase public awareness through on-site safety seminars.
    Analysis                                   Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                            Other Analysis Used
                                            Impact on Other Strategies
                                         Considered

    Authorization                            Authorization Exists
                                             Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                    Needed Structural or Procedural
                                             Change(s) Identified
                                             Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                               Already Ongoing
                                             New Startup Date Estimated
                                             Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                            Impact on Operating Budget
                                             Impact on Capital Outlay
                                             Means of Finance Identified




                                                                               242
                    STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                   OFFICE OF OPERATIONAL SUPPORT

Strategy II.1.2: Proactively regulate criminal and traffic violators through
diligent enforcement of state statutes.
    Analysis                               Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                           Other Analysis Used
                                           Impact on Other Strategies
                                        Considered

   Authorization                          Authorization Exists
                                          Authorization Needed

   Organization Capacity                  Needed Structural or Procedural
                                          Change(s) Identified
                                          Resource Needs Identified

   Time Frame                             Already Ongoing
                                          New Startup Date Estimated
                                          Lifetime of Strategy Identified

   Fiscal Impact                          Impact on Operating Budget
                                          Impact on Capital Outlay
                                          Means of Finance Identified




                                                                            243
                      STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                     OFFICE OF OPERATIONAL SUPPORT

Strategy III.1.1: Identify data sources among all operational functions
     Analysis                                 Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                            Other Analysis Used
                                             Impact on Other Strategies
                                        Considered

     Authorization                            Authorization Exists
                                            Authorization Needed

     Organization Capacity                   Needed Structural or Procedural
                                            Change(s) Identified
                                            Resource Needs Identified

     Time Frame                             Already Ongoing
                                             New Startup Date Estimated
                                            Lifetime of Strategy Identified

     Fiscal Impact                            Impact on Operating Budget
                                            Impact on Capital Outlay
                                            Means of Finance Identified




                                                                              244
                      STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                     OFFICE OF OPERATIONAL SUPPORT

Strategy III.1.2: Conduct an in-depth review of these data sources to identify
useful information useful, singularly or in combination, to LSP management and
budget processes.
     Analysis                                 Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                             Other Analysis Used
                                          Impact on Other Strategies
                                       Considered

     Authorization                          Authorization Exists
                                           Authorization Needed

     Organization Capacity                  Needed Structural or Procedural
                                           Change(s) Identified
                                            Resource Needs Identified

     Time Frame                            Already Ongoing
                                            New Startup Date Estimated
                                           Lifetime of Strategy Identified

     Fiscal Impact                              Impact on Operating Budget
                                           Impact on Capital Outlay
                                           Means of Finance Identified




                                                                             245
                      STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                     OFFICE OF OPERATIONAL SUPPORT

Strategy III.1.3: Coordinate development of computerized routines designed to
extract selected data (sets) from a variety of sources into a useful set of
information to be used as a basis for producing meaningful information reports.
     Analysis                                 Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                             Other Analysis Used
                                           Impact on Other Strategies
                                        Considered

     Authorization                           Authorization Exists
                                            Authorization Needed

     Organization Capacity                   Needed Structural or Procedural
                                            Change(s) Identified
                                            Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                              Already Ongoing
                                            New Startup Date Estimated
                                            Lifetime of Strategy Identified

     Fiscal Impact                           Impact on Operating Budget
                                            Impact on Capital Outlay
                                            Means of Finance Identified




                                                                              246
                      STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                     OFFICE OF OPERATIONAL SUPPORT

Strategy III.1.4: Identify relevant law enforcement related technologies viable for
implementation within LSP.
     Analysis                                  Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                                Other Analysis Used
                                             Impact on Other Strategies
                                          Considered

     Authorization                              Authorization Exists
                                              Authorization Needed

     Organization Capacity                   Needed Structural or Procedural
                                              Change(s) Identified
                                              Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                                Already Ongoing
                                              New Startup Date Estimated
                                              Lifetime of Strategy Identified

     Fiscal Impact                              Impact on Operating Budget
                                              Impact on Capital Outlay
                                              Means of Finance Identified




                                                                                247
                     STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                    GAMING ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

Strategy I.1.1: Conduct town hall meetings or issue advisories in the appropriate
area of the state to educate the gaming industry about regulatory issues.
    Analysis                                  Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                            Other Analysis Used
                                            Impact on Other Strategies
                                         Considered

    Authorization                            Authorization Exists
                                             Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                    Needed Structural or Procedural
                                             Change(s) Identified
                                             Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                               Already Ongoing
                                             New Startup Date Estimated
                                             Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                            Impact on Operating Budget
                                             Impact on Capital Outlay
                                             Means of Finance Identified




                                                                               248
                    STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                   GAMING ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

Strategy I.1.2: Establish and conduct a proactive compliance Video Poker
inspection program.
       Analysis                             Cost Benefit Analysis
                                            Conducted
                                            Other Analysis Used
                                          Impact on Other Strategies
                                          Considered
      Authorization                       Authorization Exists
                                          Authorization Needed

      Organization Capacity               Needed Structural or
                                          Procedural Change(s) Identified
                                          Resource Needs Identified

      Time Frame                          Already Ongoing
                                          New Startup Date Estimated
                                          Lifetime of Strategy Identified

      Fiscal Impact                       Impact on Operating Budget
                                          Impact on Capital Outlay
                                          Means of Finance Identified




                                                                        249
                    STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                   GAMING ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

Strategy I.1.3: Identify and assess weaknesses in current rules, laws, and
regulations.
    Analysis                              Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                          Other Analysis Used
                                          Impact on Other Strategies
                                      Considered

   Authorization                         Authorization Exists
                                         Authorization Needed

   Organization Capacity                 Needed Structural or Procedural
                                         Change(s) Identified
                                         Resource Needs Identified

   Time Frame                            Already Ongoing
                                         New Startup Date Estimated
                                         Lifetime of Strategy Identified

   Fiscal Impact                         Impact on Operating Budget
                                         Impact on Capital Outlay
                                         Means of Finance Identified




                                                                           250
                     STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                    GAMING ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

Strategy I.2.1: Increase public awareness of gaming industry issues.
    Analysis                                   Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                             Other Analysis Used
                                            Impact on Other Strategies
                                         Considered

    Authorization                            Authorization Exists
                                             Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                    Needed Structural or Procedural
                                             Change(s) Identified
                                             Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                               Already Ongoing
                                             New Startup Date Estimated
                                             Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                            Impact on Operating Budget
                                             Impact on Capital Outlay
                                             Means of Finance Identified




                                                                               251
                      STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                     GAMING ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

Strategy I.2.2: Identify and assess weakness in current rules, laws, and
regulations.
       Analysis                            Cost Benefit Analysis
                                     Conducted
                                           Other Analysis Used
                                           Impact on Other Strategies
                                           Considered

       Authorization                                Authorization Exists
                                                    Authorization Needed

       Organization Capacity                        Needed Structural or Procedural
                                                    Change(s) Identified
                                                    Resource Needs Identified

       Time Frame                                   Already Ongoing
                                                    New Startup Date Estimated
                                                    Lifetime of Strategy Identified

       Fiscal Impact                                Impact on Operating Budget
                                                    Impact on Capital Outlay
                                                    Means of Finance Identified


Note: the same strategy exists on p. 7, but is for a different objective.




                                                                                  252
                    STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                   GAMING ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

Strategy I.2.3: Conduct inspections in accordance with approved audit plan and
audit program pursuant with LA R.S. 27.20.A (1) (a).
       Analysis                                 Cost Benefit Analysis
                                          Conducted
                                              Other Analysis Used
                                              Impact on Other Strategies
                                              Considered

      Authorization                           Authorization Exists
                                              Authorization Needed

      Organization Capacity                   Needed Structural or Procedural
                                              Change(s) Identified
                                              Resource Needs Identified

      Time Frame                              Already Ongoing
                                              New Startup Date Estimated
                                              Lifetime of Strategy Identified

      Fiscal Impact                           Impact on Operating Budget
                                              Impact on Capital Outlay
                                              Means of Finance Identified




                                                                            253
                    STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                   GAMING ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

Strategy II.1.1: Develop a prototype training course for gaming personnel
designed to increase efficiency of the investigation and a greater knowledge of
gaming laws and rules.
    Analysis                                  Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                            Other Analysis Used
                                           Impact on Other Strategies
                                        Considered

   Authorization                            Authorization Exists
                                            Authorization Needed

   Organization Capacity                    Needed Structural or Procedural
                                            Change(s) Identified
                                            Resource Needs Identified

   Time Frame                               Already Ongoing
                                            New Startup Date Estimated
                                            Lifetime of Strategy Identified

   Fiscal Impact                            Impact on Operating Budget
                                            Impact on Capital Outlay
                                            Means of Finance Identified




                                                                              254
                    STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                   GAMING ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

Strategy II.1.2: The Department will develop a standardized application for
gaming suitability as it pertains to gaming licensing.
    Analysis                                    Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                            Other Analysis Used
                                           Impact on Other Strategies
                                        Considered

   Authorization                            Authorization Exists
                                            Authorization Needed

   Organization Capacity                    Needed Structural or Procedural
                                            Change(s) Identified
                                            Resource Needs Identified

   Time Frame                               Already Ongoing
                                            New Startup Date Estimated
                                            Lifetime of Strategy Identified

   Fiscal Impact                            Impact on Operating Budget
                                            Impact on Capital Outlay
                                            Means of Finance Identified




                                                                              255
                    STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                   GAMING ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

Strategy II.1.3: Improve the efficiency of the application process with new
computer technology to allow online usage.
    Analysis                                Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                            Other Analysis Used
                                         Impact on Other Strategies
                                      Considered

   Authorization                          Authorization Exists
                                          Authorization Needed

   Organization Capacity                  Needed Structural or Procedural
                                          Change(s) Identified
                                          Resource Needs Identified

   Time Frame                             Already Ongoing
                                          New Startup Date Estimated
                                          Lifetime of Strategy Identified

   Fiscal Impact                          Impact on Operating Budget
                                          Impact on Capital Outlay
                                          Means of Finance Identified




                                                                            256
                    STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                   GAMING ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

Strategy III.1.1: Forward all law enforcement bulletins via email quarterly to
other sections.
       Analysis                               Cost Benefit Analysis
                                        Conducted
                                              Other Analysis Used
                                              Impact on Other Strategies
                                              Considered

      Authorization                           Authorization Exists
                                              Authorization Needed

      Organization Capacity                   Needed Structural or Procedural
                                              Change(s) Identified
                                              Resource Needs Identified

      Time Frame                              Already Ongoing
                                              New Startup Date Estimated
                                              Lifetime of Strategy Identified

      Fiscal Impact                           Impact on Operating Budget
                                              Impact on Capital Outlay
                                              Means of Finance Identified




                                                                            257
                     STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                    GAMING ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

Strategy III.2.1: Send Gaming Investigators to other sectional meetings at least
quarterly to relate investigative efforts, responsibilities, and resources unique to
the Division.
       Analysis                                   Cost Benefit Analysis
                                           Conducted
                                                  Other Analysis Used
                                                  Impact on Other Strategies
                                                  Considered

      Authorization                               Authorization Exists
                                                  Authorization Needed

      Organization Capacity                       Needed Structural or Procedural
                                                  Change(s) Identified
                                                  Resource Needs Identified

      Time Frame                                  Already Ongoing
                                                  New Startup Date Estimated
                                                  Lifetime of Strategy Identified

      Fiscal Impact                               Impact on Operating Budget
                                                  Impact on Capital Outlay
                                                  Means of Finance Identified




                                                                                258
                     STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                         TRAINING ACADEMY

Strategy I.1.1: Create a schedule to ensure that the Training Academy comes into
compliance with one-third of applicable standards each year until July 1, 2010.
     Analysis                                  Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                              Other Analysis Used
                                              Impact on Other Strategies
                                         Considered

     Authorization                            Authorization Exists
                                             Authorization Needed

     Organization Capacity                    Needed Structural or Procedural
                                             Change(s) Identified
                                             Resource Needs Identified

     Time Frame                              Already Ongoing
                                              New Startup Date Estimated
                                              Lifetime of Strategy Identified

     Fiscal Impact                            Impact on Operating Budget
                                             Impact on Capital Outlay
                                             Means of Finance Identified




                                                                                259
                    STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                        TRAINING ACADEMY

Strategy II.1.1: Training Academy staff will identify courses that will enhance
the professional growth of law enforcement officers.
     Analysis                               Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                            Other Analysis Used
                                            Impact on Other Strategies
                                        Considered

    Authorization                          Authorization Exists
                                            Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                    Needed Structural or Procedural
                                            Change(s) Identified
                                            Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                              Already Ongoing
                                            New Startup Date Estimated
                                            Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                            Impact on Operating Budget
                                            Impact on Capital Outlay
                                            Means of Finance Identified




                                                                              260
                     STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                         TRAINING ACADEMY

Strategy II.1.2: Designated staff will stay informed of the various courses of law
enforcement training that may be available to personnel.
     Analysis                                   Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                              Other Analysis Used
                                             Impact on Other Strategies
                                          Considered

    Authorization                             Authorization Exists
                                              Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                      Needed Structural or Procedural
                                              Change(s) Identified
                                              Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                                Already Ongoing
                                              New Startup Date Estimated
                                              Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                             Impact on Operating Budget
                                              Impact on Capital Outlay
                                              Means of Finance Identified




                                                                                261
                    STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                        TRAINING ACADEMY

Strategy II.1.3: Results of feedback from various forums will be evaluated to
determine the training needs of Department personnel.
     Analysis                               Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                           Other Analysis Used
                                           Impact on Other Strategies
                                       Considered

    Authorization                            Authorization Exists
                                           Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                   Needed Structural or Procedural
                                           Change(s) Identified
                                           Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                              Already Ongoing
                                           New Startup Date Estimated
                                           Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                           Impact on Operating Budget
                                           Impact on Capital Outlay
                                            Means of Finance Identified




                                                                             262
                    STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                        TRAINING ACADEMY

Strategy II.1.4: Develop and implement a career development program for key
positions within the organization.
     Analysis                              Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                            Other Analysis Used
                                            Impact on Other Strategies
                                       Considered

    Authorization                         Authorization Exists
                                          Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                 Needed Structural or Procedural
                                          Change(s) Identified
                                          Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                            Already Ongoing
                                          New Startup Date Estimated
                                          Lifetime of Strategy Identified

   Fiscal Impact                          Impact on Operating Budget
                                          Impact on Capital Outlay
                                          Means of Finance Identified




                                                                            263
                    STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                        TRAINING ACADEMY

Strategy II.1.5: Develop a mentoring program for command level positions to
encourage advancement within the agency.
     Analysis                              Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                          Other Analysis Used
                                         Impact on Other Strategies
                                      Considered

    Authorization                         Authorization Exists
                                          Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                 Needed Structural or Procedural
                                          Change(s) Identified
                                          Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                            Already Ongoing
                                          New Startup Date Estimated
                                          Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                         Impact on Operating Budget
                                          Impact on Capital Outlay
                                          Means of Finance Identified




                                                                            264
                    STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                        TRAINING ACADEMY

Strategy II.2.1 Training Academy will promote the Wellness Program to LSP
employees.
     Analysis                             Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                           Other Analysis Used
                                           Impact on Other Strategies
                                       Considered
     Authorization                         Authorization Exists
                                         Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                Needed Structural or Procedural
                                         Change(s) Identified
                                         Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                           Already Ongoing
                                         New Startup Date Estimated
                                         Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                        Impact on Operating Budget
                                         Impact on Capital Outlay
                                         Means of Finance Identified




                                                                           265
                    STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                        TRAINING ACADEMY

Strategy II.2.2: Training Academy staff will track the participation in the
Wellness Program.
    Analysis                             Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                         Other Analysis Used
                                          Impact on Other Strategies
                                      Considered

    Authorization                         Authorization Exists
                                          Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                 Needed Structural or Procedural
                                          Change(s) Identified
                                          Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                            Already Ongoing
                                          New Startup Date Estimated
                                          Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                         Impact on Operating Budget
                                          Impact on Capital Outlay
                                          Means of Finance Identified




                                                                            266
                    STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                        TRAINING ACADEMY

Strategy II.2.3: Results of feedback from various forums will be evaluated to
determine the success of the Wellness Program.
     Analysis                               Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                           Other Analysis Used
                                           Impact on Other Strategies
                                       Considered

    Authorization                           Authorization Exists
                                           Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                  Needed Structural or Procedural
                                           Change(s) Identified
                                           Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                             Already Ongoing
                                           New Startup Date Estimated
                                           Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                           Impact on Operating Budget
                                           Impact on Capital Outlay
                                             Means of Finance Identified




                                                                             267
                    STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                        TRAINING ACADEMY

Strategy III.1.1: Develop a database to track contacts made by recruiters.
     Analysis                                  Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                             Other Analysis Used
                                             Impact on Other Strategies
                                         Considered

    Authorization                             Authorization Exists
                                             Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                    Needed Structural or Procedural
                                             Change(s) Identified
                                             Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                               Already Ongoing
                                             New Startup Date Estimated
                                             Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                             Impact on Operating Budget
                                             Impact on Capital Outlay
                                              Means of Finance Identified




                                                                               268
                    STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                        TRAINING ACADEMY

Strategy III.1.2: Maintain networking with military installations,
college/university career service departments, and other potential sources of
qualified candidates.
     Analysis                              Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                           Other Analysis Used
                                           Impact on Other Strategies
                                       Considered

    Authorization                           Authorization Exists
                                           Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                   Needed Structural or Procedural
                                           Change(s) Identified
                                           Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                              Already Ongoing
                                           New Startup Date Estimated
                                           Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                           Impact on Operating Budget
                                           Impact on Capital Outlay
                                           Means of Finance Identified




                                                                             269
                    STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                        TRAINING ACADEMY

Strategy III.1.3: Continue to further enhance the Department’s website.
     Analysis                                  Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                             Other Analysis Used
                                             Impact on Other Strategies
                                         Considered

    Authorization                             Authorization Exists
                                             Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                     Needed Structural or Procedural
                                             Change(s) Identified
                                             Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                                Already Ongoing
                                             New Startup Date Estimated
                                             Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                             Impact on Operating Budget
                                             Impact on Capital Outlay
                                             Means of Finance Identified




                                                                               270
                    STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                        TRAINING ACADEMY

Strategy III.1.4: Develop a database for mass mail-out to faith-based
organizations, non-profit organizations, fraternities, sororities, community
service organizations, criminal justice programs, and Louisiana National Guard
and Reserve components.
     Analysis                                 Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                           Other Analysis Used
                                           Impact on Other Strategies
                                       Considered

    Authorization                           Authorization Exists
                                           Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                   Needed Structural or Procedural
                                           Change(s) Identified
                                           Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                              Already Ongoing
                                           New Startup Date Estimated
                                           Lifetime of Strategy Identified

   Fiscal Impact                            Impact on Operating Budget
                                           Impact on Capital Outlay
                                           Means of Finance Identified




                                                                             271
                     STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                         TRAINING ACADEMY

Strategy IV.1.1: Utilize course content critiques to revise course content to better
meet participants’ needs.
    Analysis                                   Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                               Other Analysis Used
                                               Impact on Other Strategies
                                           Considered

     Authorization                             Authorization Exists
                                               Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                       Needed Structural or Procedural
                                               Change(s) Identified
                                               Resource Needs Identified

     Time Frame                                Already Ongoing
                                               New Startup Date Estimated
                                               Lifetime of Strategy Identified

     Fiscal Impact                              Impact on Operating Budget
                                               Impact on Capital Outlay
                                                Means of Finance Identified




                                                                                 272
                    STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                        TRAINING ACADEMY

Strategy IV.1.2: Utilize instructor delivery ratings to determine strengths and
weaknesses of instructors’ delivery style.
   Analysis                                   Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                               Other Analysis Used
                                               Impact on Other Strategies
                                           Considered

    Authorization                            Authorization Exists
                                            Authorization Needed

   Organization Capacity                     Needed Structural or Procedural
                                            Change(s) Identified
                                            Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                              Already Ongoing
                                            New Startup Date Estimated
                                            Lifetime of Strategy Identified

   Fiscal Impact                             Impact on Operating Budget
                                            Impact on Capital Outlay
                                             Means of Finance Identified




                                                                              273
                    STRATEGY ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
                        TRAINING ACADEMY

Strategy V.1.1: Advertise LSP Website POST certified training academy courses
to law enforcement agencies outside of LSP.
     Analysis                               Cost Benefit Analysis Conducted
                                           Other Analysis Used
                                           Impact on Other Strategies
                                       Considered

    Authorization                           Authorization Exists
                                           Authorization Needed

    Organization Capacity                   Needed Structural or Procedural
                                           Change(s) Identified
                                           Resource Needs Identified

    Time Frame                             Already Ongoing
                                           New Startup Date Estimated
                                           Lifetime of Strategy Identified

    Fiscal Impact                           Impact on Operating Budget
                                           Impact on Capital Outlay
                                           Means of Finance Identified




                                                                             274

								
To top