DOCSLIB.ORG

A Management Information and Program Evaluation System for the State of Maryland

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Management Information and Program Evaluation System for the State of Maryland A Management Information And Program Evaluation System For The State of Maryland A REPORT TO THE GOVERNOR AND GENERAL ASSEMBLY GOVERNOR'S TASK FORCE ON MODERN MANAGEMENT in cooperation with The University of Maryland under the auspices of Title I of the Higher Education Assistance Act JANUARY 1989 EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT |) STATE OFFICE BUILDING ^I^L^If89 301 WEST PRESTON STREET BALTIMORE. MARYLAND 21201 MARVIN MANDEL GOVERNOR March 11, 1969 MEMORANDUM To: Department Heads and Seminar Participants in the Management Information and Program Evaluation System From: John J. McCormick, Jr., Director Management Information Program Re: Report - "A Management Information and Program Evaluation System for the State of Maryland" The report on our efforts during the summer and fall is attached. In the front are some recommendations and review notes. I took as samples for the review notes several programs that were'done rather well^and which illustrate some typical types of questions which we hope will be raised by this effort. I appreciate the time and effort you all put in on this project and I hope to work with you again this year in a continuation of the program. Thank you. JJM/mch Attachment K* MANAGEMENT INFORMATION AND PROGRAM EVALUATION SYSTEM A Report to the Governor and General Assembly January, 1969 CONTENTS Page Number PROGRAM SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS i LETTER TO GOVERNOR ii REVIEW NOTES • . • ix DEPARTMENTAL PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS Section Number Assessments and Taxation, Department of 1 Bank Commissioner, State 2 Board of Natural Resources 3 Board of Trustees of State Colleges 4 Building, Savings and Loan, Department of 5 Chesapeake Bay Affairs, Department of 6 Civil Defense Agency, Maryland ..'..• 7 Comptroller of the Treasury 8 Correction, Department of 9 Crime Commissionj Governor's 10 Economic Development, Department of 11 Education, Department of 12 Economic Opportunity, Office of 13 Employment Security, Department of 14 Forests and Parks, Department of 15 Game and Inland Fish, Department of 16 Hall of Records 17 Health, Department of 18 Higher Education, Advisory Council for 19 Insurance Department, State 20 Labor and Industry, Department of 22 Loan Laws, Administrator of 23 Mental Hygiene, Department of 24 Motor Vehicles, Department of 26 Patuxent Institution 28 Personnel, Commissioner of 29 Planning Department, State 30 Police, Maryland State 31 Public Improvements, Department of .... 33 Public Service Commission 34 Retirement Systems, Employees' 35 Roads Commission, State 36 Salisbury State College 38 Treasurer, State 39 Social Services, Department of 40 University of Maryland 41 Water Resources, Department of 42 APPENDIX Instructions for Completing the State of Maryland Program Description Form 43 PROGRAM SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS This report describes a Management Information and Program Evaluation System for Maryland. All state functions are defined in "programs" and the basic objective of each is stated in writing. For each program certain "measures" are defined for reporting purposes. These include (1) a measure of the cost of the program (2) a measure of the physical activity or produc- tion of the program (3) a measure of the program's success in meeting its stated objectives and (4) unit costs per amount achieved such as cost per patient day or per license issued which are called measures of efficiency. This report contains program definitions and statements of objectives for approximately 85% of state efforts. Measures for each are identified. Information will be accumulated beginning January 1, 1969 on a quarterly basis and should be available next year to help the executive branch in its manage- ment of state efforts. It will also help both the executive and legislative branches to evaluate the desirability and priority of individual programs. MIPES was developed with the help of a federal grant under Title I of the Higher Education Assistance Act of 1965. An application for a further grant is being prepared to allow training of local officials in the system and to help them apply it to their own situations. Recommendations for 1969. 1. The MIPES System should be continued and expanded to include all state programs. 2. Local officials should be offered training in MIPES and en- couraged to apply it to their own operations. 3. Both the Executive branch and the General Assembly should carefully review the statements of program objectives to identify any areas where clarification is needed or where a change of emphasis is desirable. The enclosed statements of objectives were prepared by the departments which actually administer the programs. 4. The definitions of program measures should be reviewed to determine (a) where additional information will be required or (b) where information is unnecessary and should be deleted. The accumulation of information is both time consuming and costly and should not be undertaken unless beneficial results can be anticipated. 5. An evaluation of the future scope and role of the program should be made at the close of 1969. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT ANNAPOLIS. MARYLAND 21404 SPIROT. AGNEW GOVERNOR'S TASK FORCE GOVERNOR ON MODERN MANAGEMENT kJOHNG. LAUBER January 6, 1969 DIRECTOR ROOM 1506 STATE OFFICE BUILDING DR. JEAN E. SPENCER 301 WEST PRESTON STREET ASSISTANT DIRECTOR BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21Z0I 301 - 383-3010 EXT. B970 To His Excellency Spiro T. Agnew Governor of Maryland To the Honorable Ladies and Gentlemen of The General Assembly of Maryland This report describes progress to date on the establishment of a Management Information and Program Evaluation System in Maryland. The system is designed to strengthen the Governor's management of the executive branch of State Government by providing him with a systematic and compre- hensive flow of information on the progress and problems of all state ac- tivities. It will also assist the Governor and the General Assembly by supplying information required for a regular evaluation of all state pro- grams, so that desirable efforts can be emphasized and unproductive efforts curtailed. Needs The executive branch of Maryland State Government consists of approximately 250 departments, offices, boards and commissions which report independently to the Governor. Historically, lobbyists interested in special programs have sought departmental status for their activities in an effort to emphasize their prestige and importance. So many separate agencies have been established that none can receive adequate attention from the Governor and General Assembly. Both branches of government have expressed dissatisfaction with the type, frequency and adequacy of information which they receive for management and program evaluation purposes. A reorganization of the executive branch of government is badly needed and will help alleviate the problem. In addition, an orderly method must be initiated for supplying the Governor and the General Assembly with information so that they may carry out their consti- tutional responsibilities. A word of caution is necessary. No system can be designed which will furnish the answers to all possible questions concerning state activi- ties and programs. This system attempts to supply information necessary for ii an over-view of state programs. The wise legislator or administrator will use it to quickly identify questions of policy or program which require more de- tailed analysis or justification. It will not substitute for the inquiring mind or the need to ask the right question at the right time. MIPES The Management Information and Program Evaluation System requires that everything the state does be broken down into programs or sub-programs. A program is defined as a set of related activities which are coordinated and designed to lead to a given objective. Thus, by definition, the identification of a program is tied to a statement of its objectives. Both the description of the program and its objective must be stated in clear, unambiguous terms. These programs will not necessarily correspond to the present program breakdown in the budget. After the objectives of each program are identified, certain measures are developed for reporting purposes. These are: (1) A measure of cost. In every case this will be stated in dollar expenditures, but it also might involve some other limited commodity such as personnel, land, or equipment. (2) a measure of activity or production. This might be the number of licenses issued, forms processed or patient-days of care provided. It measures the effort expended by the staff in terms of tangible units which can be counted. The fluctuations of this measure will probably have some direct relationship to man-hours of work and/or the cost of the program. It will not necessarily measure the extent to which the stated objectives of the program are being met. (3) a measure of effectiveness. This attempts to measure the success of the program in meeting its basic objectives as stated in the definition of the program. Although it is desirable to identify measures which have a direct and total causal relationship, these will be rare. In most cases the efforts of the state program will be only one of many factors which affect the measure of effectiveness. For example, a state program to combat tuberculosis must use the morbidity rate of the disease as a measure of effectiveness, although it may fluctuate because of economic factors (which change dietary patterns) or the effectiveness of the reporting system (which may induce false changes in the index). In many cases there may be complimentary state, local and private programs attempting to solve the same problems. It is difficult to isolate the impact of any given program in meeting the need. Even though such measures of effectiveness must be examined carefully and used with caution, they must be considered in any evaluation of the iii effectiveness and/or desirability of the program. (4) a measure of efficiency. Such measures emerge when there are meaningful relationships between the measures of cost and the other measures. The cost per patient-day or the cost to reduce an accident or disease rate by a given per- centage are examples of measures of efficiency.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Women and the Law in Colonial Maryland, 1648-1715 Monica C
    Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette Dissertations (2009 -) Dissertations, Theses, and Professional Projects "Justice Without Partiality": Women and the Law in Colonial Maryland, 1648-1715 Monica C. Witkowski Marquette University Recommended Citation Witkowski, Monica C., ""Justice Without Partiality": Women and the Law in Colonial Maryland, 1648-1715" (2010). Dissertations (2009 -). Paper 27. http://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/27 “JUSTICE WITHOUT PARTIALITY”: WOMEN AND THE LAW IN COLONIAL MARYLAND, 1648-1715 by Monica C. Witkowski A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School, Marquette University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Milwaukee, Wisconsin May 2010 ABSTRACT “JUSTICE WITHOUT PARTIALITY”: WOMEN AND THE LAW IN COLONIAL MARYLAND, 1648-1715 Monica C. Witkowski Marquette University, 2010 What was the legal status of women in early colonial Maryland? This is the central question answered by this dissertation. Women, as exemplified through a series of case studies, understood the law and interacted with the nascent Maryland legal system. Each of the cases in the following chapters is slightly different. Each case examined in this dissertation illustrates how much independent legal agency women in the colony demonstrated. Throughout the seventeenth century, Maryland women appeared before the colony’s Provincial and county courts as witnesses, plaintiffs, defendants, and attorneys in criminal and civil trials. Women further entered their personal cattle marks, claimed land, and sued other colonists. This study asserts that they improved their social standing through these interactions with the courts. By exerting this much legal knowledge, they created an important place for themselves in Maryland society. Historians have begun to question the interpretation that Southern women were restricted to the home as housewives and mothers.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Safety
    PUBLIC SAFETY 010 In Review 2 Part I crime in Greenbelt decreased 6.8% in 2010, from 1,396 reported incidents in 2009 to 1,300. Part I crimes are defined as murder, rape, robbery, assault, burglary, theft and auto theft. By comparison, the Washington Metropolitan region of Montgomery and Prince George’s counties, known as UCR Region IV, experienced a 10.5% decrease in 2009, according to the latest published Maryland State Police Uniform Crime Report (May 10, 2010). Violent crimes of murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault involve the element of personal confrontation between the perpetrator and the victim; consequently they are considered more serious crimes than property crimes because of their very nature. These offenses accounted for 16% of all crime in Maryland. For Greenbelt, violent crime comprised 14% of all Part I crimes indicating that Greenbelt falls in line with statewide violent crime trends. Crimes against persons, at 185, were the lowest since 2004, driven by a 17% decline in robbery, 106 reported incidents. Robbery remains the most prevalent violent crime in our community, accounting for 57% of all personal crime. Sixty- six (66) robberies occurred in Greenbelt West (62.2%), twenty-nine (29) in Greenbelt East (27.3%) and eleven (11) in historic Greenbelt (10.3%). The number of property crimes reported during 2010 (1,115) was over six times greater than the number of violent crimes. As a group, property crime made up 86% of the total crimes in 2010. Property crimes decreased 7% overall. Notably, motor vehicle theft (133) declined 25%. Geographically, 51% of crime occurred in Greenbelt West, 35% in Greenbelt East and 14% in historic Greenbelt.
    [Show full text]
  • TITLE Now Is the Time: an Action Agenda for Improvi% G Black and Minority Health in Maryland. the Final Report of the Maryland Governor's Commission on Black and Minority Health
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 326 585 UD 026 889 TITLE Now Is the Time: An Action Agenda for Improvi%g Black and Minority Health in Maryland. The Final Report of the Maryland Governor's Commission on Black and Minority Health. INSTITUTION Maryland Governor's Commission on Black and Minority Health, Baltimore.; Maryland State Dept. of Health and Mental Hygiene, Baltimore. PUB DATE Nov 87 NOTE 228p. AVAILABLE FROMMaryland Dept. of Health and Mental Hygiene, Policy and Health Statistics Administration, Division of Policy Analysis, 201 West Preston Street, Baltimore, MD 21201. PUB TYPE Reports - Research/Technical (243) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC10 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Blacks; Demography; *Health Needs; *Health Promotion; Health Services; Hearinas; Migrant Workers; *Minority Groups; Mortality Rate; Public Health; *Racial Differences; Refugees; State Surveys; Whites IDENTIFIERS *Access to Health Care; *Maryland ABSTRACT This document comprises a report on the disparity between the health status of Maryland's blacks and minorities and the white population. Information was gathered from statewide public hearings at which over 50 individuals and groups representing the general public and health care providers testified. The major finding was that a disproportionate number of black and minority Marylanders died needlessly between 1983 and 1985 from diseases, homicide, or accidents that were either preventable or controllable. Although Maryland has one of the best health care delivery systems in the nation, major improvements are needed if the health status
    [Show full text]
  • Public Safety
    PUBLIC SAFETY 011 In Review 2 Serious crime, or UCR Part I, decreased 27% in 2011, from 1,300 reported incidents to 947. Serious crimes are defined as murder, rape, robbery, assault, burglary, theft and auto theft. By comparison, the Washington Metropolitan region of Montgomery and Prince George’s counties, known as UCR Region IV, experienced a 7% decrease according to the latest published Maryland State Police Uniform Crime Report (July 20, 2011). Violent crimes of murder, rape and aggravated assault involve the element of personal confrontation between the perpetrator and the victim; consequently they are considered more serious crimes than property crimes because of their very nature. These offenses accounted for 16% of all crime in Maryland. For Greenbelt, violent crime comprised 14% of all Part I crimes indicating that Greenbelt falls in line with statewide violent crime trends. Crimes against persons declined 29.7% in 2011, from 185 incidents to 130. Robbery, having dropped 15% from 106 to 90, remains the most prevalent violent crime in our community accounting for 9.5% of all Part I crimes. Forty-six percent (42) of the robberies occurred in Greenbelt West, 36% (33) in Greenbelt East and 17% (15) in Historic Greenbelt. In Maryland, robbery accounted for 35% of violent crime and 6% of the Part I crime index. There were no homicides in 2011, after averaging one annually for the last five years. The number of property crimes (852) was nearly 9 times greater than the number of violent crimes. As a group, property crime made up 90% of the total crime index in 2011.
    [Show full text]
  • IN MARYLAND I I I I I I I I I En 'I UNIFORM CRIME REPORTS I R.....---______
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file, please contact us at NCJRS.gov. I I I 19 7 I I I I I IN MARYLAND I I I I I I I I I en 'I UNIFORM CRIME REPORTS I r.....---_________........ t"" I IN MEMORIAM I I Members of the Criminal Records - Central Repository express their sympathy to the families of Maryland law enforcement officers who were killed in the line of duty. In 1977, those officers killed I were: I DENNIS L. RILEY Patrolman First Class I Charles County Sheriff's Department 1948 - 1977 I * PAUL N. MITCHELL I Patroluan, Anne Arundel County Police Department 1946 - 1977 I * I CHARLES A. HUCKEBA Patrolman, Baltimore County Police Department I 1951 - 1977 I * GREGG A. PRESBURY ,I Trooper, Maryland State Police 1950 - 1977 I I I I I I .. I I I I I I , I '}STATE OF MARYLAND 'I UNIFORM CRIME REPORTS I I -- .., I BLAIR lEE III I ACTING GOVERNOR I ROBERT J. lAllY I SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL II SERVICES II THOM.AS S. SMITH SUPERINTENDENT, MARYLAND I STATE POLICE I I L..-.________________ ~ -- ------ ------------------------------------------- . .. I CRIMINAL RECORDS I CENTRAL REPOSITORY I I MAJOR H. W. DASHIELlS DIRECTOR I LAMONT EDWARDS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR I VICTOR J. KONSAVAGE FIELD REPRESENTATIVE I EDGAR H. WHITEMAN FIELD REPRESENTATIVE I' ROBERT J. SPANGLER FIELD REPRfiSENT A TIVE I I UNIFORM CRIME REPORTING SECTION I -------.~-.------------------------------- ROSE MARIE DECARLO ADMINISTRATIVE SPECIALIST I STAFF I JANET L. ASBURY I M. ANTOINETTE COMFORT BARBARA JACOBS I ANN LEVIN I ELEANOR D.
    [Show full text]
  • Maryl(Lnd Statepq[Ice
    .. ii4Q. .. 9* If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. f ,~ " ~I 4 Ly I~, tl' if '(l' This microfiche was produced from documents received for inclusion in the NCJRS data base. Since NCJRS cannot exercise .Maryl(lnd StatePQ[ice .. ... control over the physical condition of the documents submitted, -'~'..:..' "- : ~ " 'II,.I '.- the individual frame quality will vary. The resolution chart on , . , <:;:) this frame may be used to evaluate the document quality. -.-.---~-------1", I oj I I, 1 ....~ .... 1 j I 1 -,..i"_. _. __ .', .. ___ .. _____ . __ .__ .____ . ____________ . _~ _____ _ \\\\\ 1.25 111111.4_ IIIII 1.6 If . " MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANOAROS-1963-A Microfilming procedures used to create this fiche comply with the standards set forth in 41CFR 101-11.504. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the author(s) and do not represent the official position or policies of the U. S. Department of Justice. '0 National Institute of Justice United States Department of Justice Washington, D. C. 20531 4/25/84 _\ '... ... W4t - ., lit' I:1 )1\' I, Ii~! ') U.S. Department of Justice \ National Institute of Justice ~ This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not pecessarily represeot the Qlficial position or policies of the National Institute of Justice. Permission to reproduce this copyrighted material has been granted by Maryland State Police to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS).
    [Show full text]
  • Made in Owings Mills
    MADE IN OWINGS MILLS FIFTY YEARS OF REMARKABLE PRODUCTIONS Assembled for the first time ever, the following lists represent programs made by personnel at the Maryland Center for Public Broadcasting, Maryland Public Television, and Maryland Instructional Television (MITV) or by College of the Air (COA) and International University Consortium (IUC) teams over the years. The information below, arranged in alphabetical order by what we believe to be the full, official titles of productions, has been compiled from various lists, materials in the MPT Archives, Program Guides, and other sources by alumni volunteers, MPT staffers, and other resource people. Because of space limitations, not included are short-form interstitials or public service announcements. We regret any inaccuracies or omissions. Please email corrections to: [email protected]. Notes to readers: • The article “the” has been omitted from the start of many titles below. • Productions that earned regional Emmy®Awards from the National Capital Chesapeake Bay Chapter of the National Association of Television Arts & Sciences are shown in bold face. Productions that earned national Emmys® are shown in BOLD UPPERCASE letters. SECTION 1: MARYLAND CENTER FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING & American Stakes in the Mid-East (1970) MARYLAND PUBLIC TELEVISION PRODUCTIONS An Apple, An Orange (1977) An Interview with Arthur Ashe (1970) 3 Mo’ Divas: A New Concert Smashing Musical Barriers (2008) And Baby Makes Two (1982) A City Celebrates: Opening of Harborplace (1980) And Justice for All? (1992) A Day in the Life of the Mayor (1974) Anna Russell Farewell Special (1985) A Day to Remember (1988) Annapolis 300: A Capital Celebration (2008) A Day With Conrad Green (1980) Anna’s Story (1976) A Festival of Carols (1978) Anne Arundel’s Legacy (1999) A Journey of Faith: The Creation of the Reginald F.
    [Show full text]
  • 90 Day Report, a Review of the 1998
    Department of Legislative Services Office of the Executive Director Maryland General Assembly April 17, 1998 Honorable Thomas V. Mike Miller, Jr., President of the Senate Honorable Casper R. Taylor, Jr., Speaker of the House of Delegates Honorable Members of the General Assembly Ladies and Gentlemen: I am pleased to present you with the first edition of The 90 Day Report - A Review of Legislation in the 1998 Session. In previous years, the Departments of Fiscal Services and Legislative Reference each produced reports summarizing the activities of the General Assembly during its most recent legislative session. This year, the Department of Legislative Services has produced this single detailed report which incorporates the best features of the Sine Die Report and the Session Review. The 90 Day Report consists of two volumes. Volume I is divided into 13 parts, each dealing with a major policy area. Each part contains a discussion of the majority of bills passed in that policy area, including comparisons with previous sessions and current law, background information, and a discussion of significant bills that did not pass. Information relating to the Operating Budget, Capital Budget, and aid to local governments is found in Part A of this volume. Volume II, organized in the same manner as Volume I, consists of a list of all bills passed and a short synopsis stating the purpose of each bill. I hope that you will find The 90 Day Report as helpful this year as you have found the Sine Die Report and the Session Review to be in the past. Further, the Department of Legislative Services will make available the Fact Book and Citizen's Tax Guide shortly.
    [Show full text]
  • Using Crime Data to Track Performance and Community Safety
    Using Crime Data to Track Performance and Community Safety Baltimore Data Day July 12th, 2019 Christine Zhang, Baltimore Sun Justin Elszasz, Mayor’s Office of Performance and Innovation René Najera, Epidemiologist and Blogger Kristina Williams, Charles Village Community Benefits Center 1 “‘Suffocating’ violence: Despite national trend, killings increase in Baltimore through first half of 2019” By Kevin Rector, July 11, 2019 “The last thing Baltimore needs is more abandonment” By Dan Rodricks, July 9, 2019 2 CRIME DATA 101 A LEXICON OF TERMS 3 “Part I Crimes” / “Part I Victim-Based Crimes” / “Part I UCR Offenses” A classification created by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program consisting of the following offenses • Criminal homicide • Rape “The program’s founders chose these offenses because • Robbery they are serious crimes, they occur with regularity in all • Aggravated Assault areas of the country, and they are likely to be reported to • Burglary the police.” • Larceny-theft • Motor vehicle theft • Arson • Human Trafficking, Commercial Sex Acts (beginning in 2013) • Human Trafficking, Involuntary Servitude (beginning in 2013) 4 “Violent Crime” Defined by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program as offenses “that involve force or threat of force.” These consist of the following four offenses: • Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter • Rape • Robbery • Aggravated assault 5 “Property Crime” Defined by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program as the following four offenses: • Burglary • Larceny-theft • Motor vehicle theft • Arson 6 “Crime in Maryland” reports https://goccp.maryland.gov/crime-statistics/ 7 “Rape” Source: “Crime in Maryland, 2017 Uniform Crime Report” 8 “FBI committee moves to update rape definition” by Justin Fenton, The Baltimore Sun, October 18, 2011 https://www.baltimoresun.com/maryland/bal-city-rapes-gallery-storygallery.html 9 “Legacy rape” aka “Forcible rape” vs.
    [Show full text]
  • Maryland Natural Resources Police Level of Service Standards
    MARYLAND NATURAL RESOURCES POLICE LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS DECEMBER 2012 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In the 2012 Joint Chairmen’s Report, the General Assembly directed the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to submit “a report on the Natural Resources Police level of service standards,” including “a workload analysis, response time metrics, staffing levels for authorized and filled law enforcement officer positions, evaluation of law enforcement officer work for civilianization, and pertinent crime rates.”1 This report has five parts: • Background describes the responsibilities of the Natural Resources Police (NRP) and discusses current staffing levels for authorized and filled positions; • Data Collection discusses patrol officer and computer aided dispatch system reports, regional differences in law enforcement, response time to calls for service, seasonal variations in law enforcement, patrol data trends, crime rates, and staffing levels in 2004 before the merger of the majority of the law enforcement officers in the Maryland Park Service into the NRP; • Best Practices reviews best practices for conservation law enforcement that have developed since 2004 and are developing now, including the potential for civilianization of law enforcement officer (LEO) positions; • Workload Analysis analyzes the collected data using a methodology developed by the International Association of Chiefs of Police in studies of other natural resource police agencies; and • Conclusion describes the actions being taken to rebuild the capacity of the NRP. Key findings of the report are: Standards • There are no universally applicable standards for assessing the adequacy of natural resource policing; • Patrol staffing and deployment requirements are best established by careful analysis of all available data; • The Department has not conducted a workload analysis of natural resource police staffing needs until this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Assisting and Educating Victims of Identity Theft and Fraud (Maryland
    Maryland Crime Victims’ Resource Center, Inc. Jani S. Tillery, Esquire (Point of Contact) Staff Attorney,Maryland Victims’ Resource Center.,Inc. (301) 952-0063 [email protected] Statewide Non-Profit Organization assisting victims of crime in Maryland. Offers comprehensive victim services to any victim of crime including identity theft and fraud. Private nonprofit. Grassroots organization founded by Vince and Roberta Roper after the murder of their daughter Stephanie in 1982. 25 years of assisting victims of crime. 70 pieces of legislation passed concerning victims’ rights in Maryland since inception. Appreciate the needs of victims of identity theft. Recognize the importance of filing a police report. Comprehend the resources available to assist in responding to victims of identity theft. Maryland law defines a “victim” as a person who suffers— Actual Threatened Physical Emotional Financial harm as a direct result of a crime or delinquent act. Maryland Constitution, Declaration of Rights, Article 47 “(a) A victim shall be treated by agents of the State with dignity, respect, sensitivity.” The right to be notified of a criminal justice proceeding. The right to attend criminal justice proceedings. The right to be heard at a criminal justice proceeding. The right to request restitution. Criminal Procedure 11-1002 Guidelines for treatment of victim of crime, victim’s representative, or witness. A victim of a crime, victim’s representative or witness: (2) should receive crisis intervention help, if needed, or be
    [Show full text]
  • Crime Victims Compensation in Maryland
    RESEARCH REPORT Crime Victims May 2003 Compensation in Maryland: Accomplishments and Strategies for the Future Lisa Newmark Megan Schaffer Report to the Maryland Governor’s Office of Crime Control and Prevention The Urban Institute Justice Policy Center 2100 M St., NW Washington, DC 20037 This project was funded by the state of Maryland Governor‘s Office of Crime Control and Prevention under a Byrne Memorial Grant (2002-DB-MU-0024), awarded by the U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view or opinions contained within this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of any agency. Any questions or comments can be forwarded to the first author at the Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center ([email protected] or 202 261-5566). For an electronic version (Adobe Acrobat) of the report, send an e-mail to [email protected] and specify “CICB report.” Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...............................................................................................................1 ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................................3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................5 COMPENSATION FOR CRIME VICTIMS IN MARYLAND................................................................9 Our Assessment of the Compensation Program ......................................................................................
    [Show full text]