States and cities with police union agreements that require performance evaluations
| Police hiring, training, and discipline |
|---|
|
| • Police collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) • Ballotpedia CBA dashboard •Reform proposals •CBA areas of inquiry and disagreement •Arguments about police collective bargaining • Index of articles about criminal justice policy |
| Click here for more analysis of police hiring, training, and disciplinary requirements by state and city on Ballotpedia |
This page contains information from a Ballotpedia analysis about which states and cities have police union agreements that require performance evaluations for law enforcement officers. It is part of an analysis of police union collective bargaining agreements and related arrangements with police unions concerning hiring, training, and disciplinary requirements in the 50 states and top 100 cities by population.
According to the analysis, 13 states and 41 cities have police union agreements that require performance evaluations for law enforcement officers as of December 2023.
This page features the following sections:
Maps
Map of states which have police union agreements that require annual performance evaluations for law enforcement officers
Map of cities which have police union agreements that require annual performance evaluations for law enforcement officers
Background
Through the lens of more than 30 research questions related to police hiring, training, and discipline, Ballotpedia examined the collective bargaining agreements, statutes, and regulatory codes governing the 50 states and the top 100 US cities by population.
Some of the hiring, training, and discipline standards for police officers not established by statutes or regulations arise from negotiations with police unions. Those negotiations are often codified in collective bargaining agreements. Those agreements are the contracts that states and cities sign following negotiations with police unions. Some states and cities restrict collective bargaining, but may still negotiate with police unions using other methods. After negotiating with the unions, those jurisdictions sometimes establish police standards through documents including memoranda of understanding or meet and confer agreements.
You can find lists of all the collective bargaining agreements and other documents used by Ballotpedia for this survey here for states and here for cities.
Summary of findings
Ballotpedia's analysis of state and city union policies produced the following key takeaways (as of 2023):
- There are 13 state CBAs and 41 city CBAs that contain provisions related to performance evaluations
- There are 13 state CBAs and 38 city CBAs that do not contain provisions related to performance evaluations
- There are 22 states and 21 cities that do not have police CBAs
- There are two states and one city in which the request for information on police CBAs was denied or information could not be verified
Results
The tables below include each state and city in alphabetical order and indicate those that have police union agreements that require police departments to conduct annual performance evaluations for law enforcement officers. To see the provisions Ballotpedia used to support these results, click here.
- YES means that the jurisdiction has police union agreements that require performance evaluations
- NO means that the jurisdiction does not have police union agreements that require police departments require performance evaluations
- UNKNOWN means that Ballotpedia could not verify whether the jurisdiction had police union agreements that require performance evaluation
- NO CBA means that the jurisdiction does not have a police union agreement
- FOIA DENIED means that the jurisdiction rejected Ballotpedia's request to review any collective bargaining agreements
Results by state
| State | performance-evaluation |
|---|---|
| Alabama | NO CBA |
| Alaska | YES |
All employees receive performance evaluations Members with probationary status received semiannual written evaluations; members with permanent status receive annual evaluations with their rater; non-permanent employees employed for more than thirty days receive a written evaluation. | |
| Arizona | NO CBA |
| Arkansas | NO CBA |
| California | YES |
Performance evaluations referenced in CBA; no details given | |
| Colorado | NO CBA |
| Connecticut | YES |
Performance evaluations required at least once a year Performance evaluations are required at least annually in advance of the employee's employment anniversary date to permit the exhaustion of the appeal process; evaluations are used to determine promotions and lateral assignments | |
| Delaware | FOIA DENIED |
| District of Columbia | YES |
Required; outlined in General Order 201 .20, Performance Rating Plan | |
| Florida | YES |
Performance reviews are to be conducted in accordance with Rule 60L-35, F.A.C., Performance Evaluation System Performance reviews are performed by the employee's immediate supervisor; numerical quotes are not used as a factor in the review; no specifications for how frequently reviews are to be conducted | |
| Georgia | NO CBA |
| Hawaii | YES |
Evaluations referenced in terms of grievances | |
| Idaho | NO CBA |
| Illinois | NO |
| Indiana | NO CBA |
| Iowa | YES |
All employees receive annual performance evaluations Employees are provided a copy of the evaluation; performance standards found in Accountable Government Act | |
| Kansas | YES |
Performance reviews conducted at least annually by employee's immediate supervisor Specific periods are designated for annual and mid-year reviews for permanent employees, and the appeals process is outlined | |
| Kentucky | NO CBA |
| Louisiana | NO CBA |
| Maine | NO |
| Maryland | NO |
| Massachusetts | NO |
| Michigan | NO |
| Minnesota | NO |
| Mississippi | NO CBA |
| Missouri | NO CBA |
| Montana | NO |
| Nebraska | YES |
Referenced only; gives one-time bonus structure for satisfactory performance evaluation ratings | |
| Nevada | YES |
Annual performance reviews required for permanent employees; more frequent reviews for probationary officers Annual performance evaluations coincide with officers' pay progression dates; probationary officers are subject to performance reviews every 3-4 months at specified intervals | |
| New Hampshire | NO |
| New Jersey | NO |
| New Mexico | NO CBA |
| New York | NO |
| North Carolina | NO CBA |
| North Dakota | NO CBA |
| Ohio | YES |
All non-probationary employees have an annual performance review Performance reviews are used for merit positions, raises, and promotions; employees must receive and sign a copy of their review; employee may appeal any section that is not labeled as "meets" or "above" standards | |
| Oklahoma | NO CBA |
| Oregon | NO |
| Pennsylvania | NO |
| Rhode Island | NO |
| South Carolina | NO CBA |
| South Dakota | NO CBA |
| Tennessee | NO CBA |
| Texas | NO CBA |
| Utah | NO CBA |
| Vermont | YES |
Annual performance evaluations required Annual evaluations should take place within 45 days of the officer's original probation date; annual station evaluations take place in a different area each month | |
| Virginia | NO CBA |
| Washington | YES |
Job Performance Appraisal (JPA) process provides an opportunity for employees and supervisors to discuss performance goals and expectations | |
| West Virginia | UNKNOWN |
| Wisconsin | YES |
Referenced in terms of appealing the evaluation, but not specifically outlined in the CBA | |
| Wyoming | NO CBA |
Results by city
| City | performance-evaluation |
|---|---|
| Albuquerque, New Mexico | NO |
| Anaheim, California | NO |
| Anchorage, Alaska | NO |
| Arlington, Texas | NO CBA |
| Atlanta, Georgia | NO CBA |
| Aurora, Colorado | YES |
References yearly performance evaluations in terms of promotions | |
| Austin, Texas | NO |
| Bakersfield, California | YES |
References annual performance evaluations in terms of bonuses | |
| Baltimore, Maryland | NO |
| Baton Rouge, Louisiana | NO |
| Birmingham, Alabama | NO CBA |
| Boise, Idaho | NO |
| Boston, Massachusetts | YES |
Requires annual evaluations | |
| Buffalo, New York | UNKNOWN |
| Chandler, Arizona | NO |
| Charlotte, North Carolina | NO CBA |
| Chesapeake, Virginia | NO CBA |
| Chicago, Illinois | NO |
| Chula Vista, California | NO |
| Cincinnati, Ohio | YES |
Annual performance evaluations referenced in terms of grievance process | |
| Cleveland, Ohio | NO |
| Colorado Springs, Colorado | NO CBA |
| Columbus, Ohio | YES |
Performance evaluations required, but not specified to be annual Evaluations based on Commission on the Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA); officers will not receive evaluations until after their probationary period; officers receive a copy of their evaluation; rater must make specific comments on every area of rating; evaluations are kept as records for 38 months | |
| Corpus Christi, Texas | NO |
| Dallas, Texas | NO |
| Denver, Colorado | YES |
Yearly evaluation ratings referenced in terms of promotions | |
| Detroit, Michigan | NO |
| Durham, North Carolina | NO CBA |
| El Paso, Texas | YES |
Referenced in terms of outside employment approvals | |
| Fort Wayne, Indiana | NO |
| Fort Worth, Texas | NO |
| Fremont, California | NO |
| Fresno, California | YES |
Evaluations required annually, upon exit of position, and monthly during the probationary period Each piece of criteria is ranked 1-5; employee has 30 days to file written appeal | |
| Garland, Texas | NO CBA |
| Gilbert, Arizona | NO CBA |
| Glendale, Arizona | YES |
Evaluations completed by HR | |
| Greensboro, North Carolina | NO CBA |
| Henderson, Nevada | NO |
| Hialeah, Florida | NO |
| Honolulu, Hawaii | YES |
Evaluations referenced in terms of grievances | |
| Houston, Texas | YES |
Semi-annual Job Performance Reviews (JPR) referenced in terms of grievances | |
| Indianapolis, Indiana | NO |
| Irvine, California | YES |
Performance evaluations required at unspecified intervals Department directors rate employees using forms provided by Personnel Officers; employees must sign evaluation after discussing it with their supervisor | |
| Irving, Texas | NO CBA |
| Jacksonville, Florida | YES |
Evaluations must be completed by an officer of a higher rank Evaluations must be standardized and in writing; specially assigned officers may be reviewed by a civilian supervisor in coordination with a higher-ranked officer; grievance procedures are in place | |
| Jersey City, New Jersey | NO |
| Kansas City, Missouri | NO |
| Laredo, Texas | NO |
| Las Vegas, Nevada | NO |
| Lexington, Kentucky | YES |
Referenced in relation to promotions | |
| Lincoln, Nebraska | YES |
Newly promoted employees conduct performance reviews six months into the new position | |
| Long Beach, California | NO |
| Los Angeles, California | YES |
Employee performance is reviewed at least annually Employee performance is reviewed annually and when their performance falls below the minimum requirement for receiving the next merit service step; reviewers are at least one rank above the employee being reviewed | |
| Louisville, Kentucky | YES |
References annual performance evaluations in relation to complaints and discipline | |
| Lubbock, Texas | NO CBA |
| Madison, Wisconsin | NO |
| Memphis, Tennessee | YES |
Performance evaluations conducted annually by the employee's commanding officer Officers will receive a copy of their evaluation and have the opportunity to appeal its contents | |
| Mesa, Arizona | NO CBA |
| Miami, Florida | NO |
| Milwaukee, Wisconsin | YES |
Referenced in relation to Early Intervention Programs | |
| Minneapolis, Minnesota | YES |
Performance evaluations are mentioned throughout the CBA, but the frequency of these evaluations is not included | |
| Nashville, Tennessee | NO |
| Newark, New Jersey | NO |
| New Orleans, Louisiana | NO CBA |
| New York, New York | NO |
| Norfolk, Virginia | NO CBA |
| North Las Vegas, Nevada | YES |
Referenced in relation to longevity pay | |
| Oakland, California | YES |
Performance evaluations are mentioned throughout the CBA, but the frequency of these evaluations is not included | |
| Oklahoma City, Oklahoma | YES |
Referenced in relation to promotions | |
| Omaha, Nebraska | YES |
Job performance interviews are conducted on an as-needed basis | |
| Orlando, Florida | YES |
Required annually Evaluations filed in personnel history folders; evaluations used for promotions and merit pay | |
| Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | NO |
| Phoenix, Arizona | YES |
Referenced in relation to appeals | |
| Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania | YES |
Required annually | |
| Plano, Texas | NO CBA |
| Portland, Oregon | YES |
Required annually Conducted by member's immediate supervisor; cannot be used for pay increases but can be used for promotions; cannot be based on alleged conduct; must be in writing | |
| Raleigh, North Carolina | NO CBA |
| Reno, Nevada | NO |
| Richmond, Virginia | NO CBA |
| Riverside, California | YES |
Required at unspecified intervals "Lieutenants shall review draft performance evaluations with Unit members prior to their finalization and being passed on to Captains." | |
| Sacramento, California | YES |
Employee performance evaluations are conducted at the discretion of the appointing authority Employees on probationary status receive evaluations at "reasonable intervals"; can be used for transfers and salary step increases; can be appealed but not eligible for grievance procedures | |
| San Antonio, Texas | NO |
| San Bernardino, California | YES |
Referenced in relation to personnel files | |
| San Diego, California | YES |
Annual performance evaluations referenced in relation to formal representation | |
| San Francisco, California | YES |
Referenced in relation to step advancements | |
| San Jose, California | YES |
"The performance evaluation rating period will coincide with annual shift change" | |
| Santa Ana, California | YES |
Referenced in relation to step advancements, appeals | |
| Scottsdale, Arizona | NO CBA |
| Seattle, Washington | YES |
Annual performance appraisals required Conducted by employee's immediate supervisor; supervisor must meet with employee regarding the appraisal; appraisal cannot reference alleged misconduct; employees can challenge appraisals | |
| St. Louis, Missouri | NO |
| Stockton, California | NO |
| St. Paul, Minnesota | NO |
| St. Petersburg, Florida | YES |
Referenced in relation to progressions in pay plans and promotions | |
| Tampa, Florida | YES |
Referenced in relation to promotions | |
| Toledo, Ohio | YES |
Referenced in relation to the selection of field training officers | |
| Tucson, Arizona | YES |
Referenced in relation to probationary employees | |
| Tulsa, Oklahoma | NO |
| Virginia Beach, Virginia | NO CBA |
| Wichita, Kansas | NO |
| Winston-Salem, North Carolina | NO CBA |
See also
Footnotes
| |||||||||||||||||
