PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE - DPRM Website - Home€¦ · · 2017-06-23PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE PNPM-DPL-DS-5-1-04 ... training and approval/disapproval of all performance-based

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE

PNPM-DPL-DS-5-1-04

POLICE NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICER

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATING (PNCOPER) SYSTEM

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword iii

Preface Iv CHAPTER I:

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background 1 1.2 Policy 2 1.3 Purpose 2 1.4 Scope 3 CHAPTER 2:

POLICE NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICER PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATING (PNCOPER) SYSTEM

2.1 Description of the PNCOPER System 4 2.2 Five Levels in the Rating Scale 4 2.3 Three Major Parts of the PNCOPER 5 2.4 Mechanics of Implementation of the PNCOPER

System 5

2.5 Completion and Submission of the PNCOPER Report

6

CHAPTER 3:

GUIDELINES ON RATING, REVIEWING AND TRANSMITTING THE

PNCOPER REPORT

3.1 Duties and Responsibilities of the Rater, Ratee, Reviewer

and Admin PCO

8

3.1.1 Duties and Responsibilities of Rater 8 3.1.2 Duties and Responsibilities of Ratee 8 3.1.3 Duties and Responsibilities of

Reviewer 9

3.1.4 Duties and Responsibilities of Admin PCO

9

3.2 Rater/Reviewer Designation 10

CHAPTER 4:

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

4.1 4.2 4.3

Creation/Upgrading of the PES

Functions of the Performance Evaluation Division Propagation and Application of the

11 11 12

PNCOPER System 4.2

CHAPTER 5:

CREATION OF GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE 5.1 Grievance Committee

13

CHAPTER 6:

ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTIONS

6.1 Administrative Sanctions 14 Annexes “A” “B” “C”

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

15 27 40

References

Republic of the Philippines Department of the Interior and Local Government

National Police Commission NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE

Office of the Chief, PNP

FOREWORD

The road to change is most challenging and especially difficult when the object of

change is ourselves. Yet we all accept the reality that for the PNP to become more effective

and efficient, we must push the development and growth of our people. There is need to see

the wisdom in the advice for our people to “talk less and deliver more”.

Since the most precious resource of the PNP remains to be our men and women who

get the job done, we must continuously pursue ways to enable them to do their best day in

and day out. This is why an improved system has been developed to provide the benchmark

for performance, which we now call the Police Non-Commissioned Officer Performance

Evaluation Rating (PNCOPER) System. This manual seeks to help our personnel improve

individual efficiency, work ethic and behavioral discipline.

Let us work as ONE to deliver on our pledge of service to our country and our

people. With focus and determination, we can be even more professional and productive

officers for peace and order.

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

DIRECTORATE FOR PLANS Camp Crame, Quezon City

PREFACE

Like the PCOPER, the Police Non-Commissoned Officer Performance Evaluation Rating

(PNCOPER) System Manual is a product of sincere efforts of our personnel in the Directorate for Plans.

We believe that with this Manual, we could institutionalize a revised performance evaluation

system that may not be perfect but a system that we could further improve on as we continue to deliver our

best to the community. The System is, in fact, a result of the ever-changing demands of police work our

personnel perform in their tasks. It must be noted that for the first level (PO1-PO3), the major focus of

evaluation is on output and job knowledge as when a policeman enters the service, his performance

must be measured in terms of what he knows and the output he generates; on the second level (SPO1-

SPO2), the policeman’s performance is focused on work management and job knowledge and, on the third

level (SPO3-SPO4), the focus is on work management and interpersonal relationship since at this level, he

is performing supervisory functions.

Together with the PCOPER, this PNCOPER System Manual will slowly but surely lead us to

properly evaluate the personnel of the PNP so that those who perform well may be recognized and

rewarded and those who perform less may be given enough time to reform themselves.

1.1 Background

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

1.1.2 In line with this provision, a Five-Point Rating Scale in the Performance Evaluation System for Police Non-Commissioned Officers (PNCOs) in consonance with the Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 12, series of 1993 was mandated through NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular No. 93-019.

1.1.3 Since the implementation of said circular, the individual performance evaluation system for Police Non Commissioned Officers (PNCOs) or non-supervisors was not seriously and properly implemented, thus it is hard to assess whether or not the objectives of such PER are attained. In addition, the PER is not even used as basis for promotion, personnel upgrading/enhancement of skills, training and approval/disapproval of all performance-based personnel actions. 1.1.4 To address the weaknesses identified in the previous PER, the PNP has come up with the Police Non-Commissioned Officer Performance Evaluation Rating (PNCOPER) System. This new system is tailored fit to address the above concerns in order to measure and assess individual efficiency, effectiveness, competence, behavioral or personal dimensions and their contribution to the overall function of their Office/Unit. With the PNCOPER System in place, the PNCO’s identified strong and weak points and the areas for development can be determined and enhanced.

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

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

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

b. The PNCO’s immediate supervisor shall be cognizant of

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

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

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

d. Continuing record of PNCO’s performance rating shall be kept

as part of his personal file; and, e. Continuing appraisal on the PNCO’s conduct, training and

education shall be provided to ensure effective implementation of the System.

1.3 Purpose

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

a. To foster the improvement of individual efficiency, work ethics and

behavioral discipline of the PNCOs;

b. To provide a basis for professional growth and to determine those who possess outstanding abilities for conferment of greater responsibility or higher position;

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

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

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

1.4 Scope

The Police Non-Commissioned Officer Performance Evaluation Rating

(PNCOPER) System shall apply to all PNCOs of the PNP. It shall be used to assess the performance of a PNCO in terms of his contribution to the attainment of the PNP Mission and Vision, his skills and competencies, attitude towards work and his relationship with his superiors, peers as well as his subordinates. The PNCOPER shall be a requirement and parameter for promotion, assignment/ designation and attrition from the service.

2.1 Description of the PNCOPER System

2.1.1 The Police Non-Commissioned Officer Performance Evaluation Rating (PNCOPER) System prescribes the procedures for evaluating the performance of individual PNCOs. PNCOs are PNP personnel who carry the ranks from Police Officer 1 to Senior Police Officer 4.

2.1.2 Rating shall be done/accomplished by the immediate supervisor

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

2.2.3 Rating of the individual performance shall be undertaken every six (6) months. Evaluation report covering the period January to June shall be submitted within the first twenty (20) working days of July, while for the period July to December shall be submitted within the first twenty (20) working days of January of the succeeding year.

2.2. Five (5) Levels in the Rating Scale

The five (5) levels in the rating scale in the performance evaluation shall be

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

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

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

objectives of the normal job and even exceeded in some areas. Consistently demonstrated competency. 2.2.3 Satisfactory (SF) – Achieved the essential requirements and minimum expectations. Usually demonstrated competency. 2.2.4 Poor (PR) – Fell short of expectations and still needs improvement. Demonstrated little competency and needs skills/capability upgrading. 2.2.5 Very Poor (VP) – Did not achieve minimum expectations and needs major improvement. Demonstrated very little or no competence at all.

CHAPTER 2

POLICE NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICER PERFORMANCE

EVALUATION RATING (PNCOPER) SYSTEM

2.3 Three Major Parts of the PNCOPER

The PNCO performance evaluation rating shall consist of three (3) major

parts, divided into several dimensions and indicators, as follows:

2.3.1 PART I. OUTPUT – this includes the quality, timeliness of work done, acceptability of output based on standard, and accomplishment of target vis-à-vis the required target output.

2.3.2 PART II. CORE COMPETENCIES – this refers to the core competencies which are basic and essential in order to efficiently and effectively deliver required services. These aspect include the following:

a. Job Knowledge b. Work Management c. Inter-personal Relationship d. Concern for the Organization

2.3.3 PART III. PERSONAL QUALITIES - this refers to personal virtues and character of a PNCO which enhance or adversely affect the performance of his/her tasks. This covers the values and personal traits a PNCO possesses. 2.3.4 RATER’S ASSESSMENT OF RATEE – this refers to the overall assessment of PNCO based on his performance evaluation rating whether or not he/she can be recommended for promotion, designated to higher position or relieved from his/her position.

2.3.5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT/COMMENTS – this contains the signatures/comments of the rater, ratee and reviewer to attest to the objective conduct of performance evaluation of the ratee. 2.4 Mechanics of Implementation of the PNCOPER System

The PNCO performance evaluation rating shall be conducted by the immediate supervisor (rater) to his/her subordinates (ratee) every six (6) months covering the period from January to June and from July to December. It shall be submitted to the PES, ODPRM of the National Headquarters or to the PES, RPHRDD of the Regional Police Offices within twenty (20) working days after the rating period. For PNCOs assigned at the regional field support units, the performance evaluation report shall be submitted to the PES, RPHRDD, National Support Units.

The rater shall observe the following in the performance evaluation of PNCOs:

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

Office/Unit or there would be change in position/designation due to job rotation or promotion in the middle of the rating period, the immediate Supervisor (old unit) should make a performance evaluation of the PNCO for the lapsed period and should furnish a copy to the immediate supervisor of the receiving unit who would attach it to his/her evaluation of the said officer at the end of the rating period. The same shall be applied for any movement of PNCO within the same Office/Unit.

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

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

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

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

d. PNCOs who are on non-duty status, meaning those who do not hold any

duty designation or position during the rating period shall not be rated. Failure to acquire rating for four (4) consecutive rating periods or a rating of Poor (PR) or Very Poor (VR) for six cumulative ratings shall be a ground for attrition.

e. The performance evaluation of PNP Uniformed Personnel detailed to other

government offices/agencies outside the PNP organization shall be evaluated by the receiving office/agency in accordance with the PNCOPER/PCOPER Systems. The rating report of the PNCO shall be transmitted to PSPO or to the Office/Unit where the subject PNCO is previously assigned.

2.5 Completion and Submission of PNCOPER Report

The PNCO performance evaluation rating report shall be accomplished by the rater in three (3) to five (5) copies, depending on the assignment of the ratee. The PNCOs concerned shall observe the flow of submission of the PNCOPER Report as illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Flow of Submission of the PNCOPER Report

PES, ODPRM

PES, NSUs Hqs

D-Staff Admin PCO

PES, RPHRDD

D-Staff Ratee

NSUs(Regional/ Provincial/City) Admin PCO

NSUs (Regional/Provin-cial/City) Ratee

PPO/CPO/ RMG Admin PCO

MPS/CPS/ PMG

Admin PCO

MPS/CPS/ PMG Ratee

PCP Ratee

3.1 Duties and Responsibilities of the Rater, Ratee, Reviewer and Admin PCO

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

b. When the rater gives extreme rating (highest or lowest), he/she shall support/justify his/her rating of his/her subordinates by citing significant/critical incidents in the space provided in the PNCOPER worksheet. The significant/critical incidents are situations or incidents that the ratee manifested during the rating period that have a bearing in the performance of his/her duties. 3. 1.2 Duties and Responsibilities of Ratee

a. The ratee, who conforms with his/her supervisor’s or rater’s evaluation of his/her performance, shall affix his/her signature and the date on his/her rating report within two (2) working days from receipt or tender of the rating . During the said period, he/she shall forward his/her rating report to the reviewer who in turn, shall transmit the same to the Admin PCO/PNCO. Once signed, the ratee shall keep an authenticated copy of his/her rating report for the period. b. A ratee who disagrees with the rater must submit a written request for a review of rating to the reviewer, copy furnished the rater, not later than five (5) days from receipt or tender of the rating. In this case, the twenty-day working period within which to observe the submission of the performance rating report to DPRM shall not apply. In his/her request for review, the ratee must include the following:

CHAPTER 3

GUIDELINES ON RATING, REVIEWING AND TRANSMITTING THE PNCOPER REPORT

1. Copy of the PNCOPER report; and,

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

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

3.1.3 Duties and Responsibilities of Reviewer a. It shall be the duty of the Reviewing Officer to peruse and attest

the rater’s evaluation of the ratee within eight (8) working days after receipt or tender of the rating. The reviewer shall insure also that the PNCOPER is duly accomplished and signed by the rater and ratee. Subsequently, he/she shall transmit the rating report to the Admin PCO/PNCO within the same eight (8) working days after receipt of the rating.

b. In case the ratee requests for a review of his performance rating,

the reviewer should schedule or arrange a meeting with the rater or supervisor and the ratee to discuss and clarify the report not later than five (5) days from receipt of the request. 3.1.4. Duties and Responsibilities of Admin PCO/PNCO a. The Admin PCO/PNCO in the different PNP Offices and Units shall strictly observe the flow of transmittal of the PNCOPER to the National (to the PES, ODPRM or NSUs Headquarters) or Regional (from PCP to the Provincial ) Headquarters, RPHRDD, PES, within the first twenty (20) working days of January/July. For official documentation, he/she shall keep the received copy of transmittal to the ratee and reviewer.

b. The Admin PCO/PNCO shall check, prior transmittal to the next higher Office/Unit within the required period, the PNCOPER of all personnel assigned in his area of responsibility and consolidate the same. He/she shall see to it that rating summary report shall be submitted to the next higher level of Office/Unit. The rating PNCOPER worksheet shall be retained where the ratee is assigned

c. The Admin PCO/PNCO shall encode all rating summary reports of the PNCOPER in the diskette. For easy access, retrieval and fast processing, he/she may unload the rating summary forms in the PNP website. He shall transmit the diskette containing the rating summary report and the original hardcopy of the same to the PES, ODPRM or to NSUs Headquarters (for PNCO assigned at the National Headquarters) or to the Regional PES. d. Once the PNCOPER Report is duly accomplished/completed and signed, the Admin PCO/PNCO shall provide/return an authenticated copy of the PNCOPER Report, including the rating summary report to the ratee and to the Office/Unit where the ratee is assigned. 3.2 Rater/Reviewer Designation 3.2.1 Rater a. In general, PNCOs shall be rated by their immediate supervisor. This means that the rater can be a PCO, PNCO or NUP.

1.2. In case of CESPO, the rater shall be a PCO from the Offic b. In case of CESPO, the rater shall be the Admin Officer in the Office of the CPNP.

c. In case of RESPOs, the rater shall be the Admin Officer in the Office of the RD.

3.2.2 Reviewer - The reviewer of his/her performance evaluation shall be the next higher PCO supervisor of the rate (In the absence of a PCO, the reviewer shall be the most Senior PNCO). In case of CESPO, the reviewer is the Executive Assistant of C, PNP while for the RESPO, the reviewer is RD.

4.1 Creation of the PES 4.1.1 There shall be created a Performance Evaluation Section (PES) under the Regional Personnel and Human Resource Development Division in the different Offices or Field Units in the National or Regional Headquarters. 4.2 Functions of the Performance Evaluation Division 4.2.1 The PES in the National, including NSUs and Regional Headquarters shall be responsible in receiving, maintaining, updating the records of the PNCOs on their performance evaluation rating. 4.2.2 It shall check the diskette containing the rating summary sheets and the original hardcopy of the same, bearing the signatures of the rater, ratee and reviewer of the PNCOs in the different Offices/Units. In case of discrepancy between the hardcopy and the diskette, the hardcopy shall prevail. 4.2.3 It shall also be responsible in the results on the implementation of the PNCOPER System, particularly on the compliance of the different Offices/Units, trend of the rating and problems encountered affecting the implementation of the System. It shall provide the results of the same to ODPL every last week of August for the first semester and last week of February of the succeeding year for the second semester. 4.2.4 It shall likewise initiate in providing copies of the PNCOPER Report, particularly for those who are due for promotion, assignment/designation and attrition from the service, to the Placement and Promotion Board and Attrition Board. 4.2.5 The PES at the National and Regional Headquarters shall maintain a database system managed, operated and maintained by highly competent personnel. It shall only authorize personnel to encode, store and generate data relative to PNCOPER. It shall see to it that no deletion, correction, and or reproduction of PNCOPER data shall be initiated unless authorized by the Chief, PES. If discrepancy occurs between the hardcopy and the data in the diskette, the hardcopy shall prevail. However if and when discrepancy happens between the hardcopy of the ratee and the generated data in the database, the Chief, PES shall notify the ratee to bring his/her copy of the rating together with the worksheet.

CHAPTER 4

OFFICE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PNCOPER REPORT AND

PROPAGATION AND APPLICATION OF THE PNCOPER SYSTEM

4.3 Propagation and Application of the PNCOPER System.

All PNCOs shall fully abide by and willfully promote adherence to the PNCOPER System as this shall be used in a highly objective assessment of individual performance that contributes to the attainment of PNP Mission and Vision. The PNCOPER shall be a basis in the assignment or reassignment, promotion or attrition, and training or skills enhancement of personnel.

5.1 Grievance Committee 5.1.1 There shall be created a grievance committee in every Office/Unit. The

Grievance Committee shall review, evaluate and render a final decision on the appeal filed by the ratee within thirty (30) days from receipt of the appeal.

5.1.2 The composition of the Committee shall be made up of the Head of the

Office/Unit who shall act as the Chairman or his duly representative, his five designated PCO staff, and Sr PNCO in the Office/Unit as members. However, in no case shall the rater and reviewer be designated as members of the Grievance Committee. The decision of the Grievance Committee shall be final and executory.

CHAPTER 5

CREATION OF GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

6.1 Administrative Sanctions 6.1.1 Failure of the rater, ratee, reviewer and Admin PCO/PNCO to

accomplish, sign and transmit the PNCOPER within the period required from each one of them resulting in its non-submission to the National and Regional Headquarters Personnel Evaluation Section within twenty (20) working days after the rating period is a ground for an administrative case for simple neglect of duty and if found guilty, shall be a cause for:

a. relief from his present position;

b. disqualification for training or scholarship grants;

c. forfeiture of productivity incentive bonus for one year; and

d. other penalties as provided for under PNP Manual on Summary

Proceedings.

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

CHAPTER 6

ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTIONS

ANNEXES

Annex “A”

INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO ACCOMPLISH THE POLICE NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICER

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

This Police Non-Commissioned Officer Performance Evaluation Rating form

has three (3) major parts, namely: Part I –Output; Part II - Core Competencies; and Part III – Personal Qualities. Parts I and II are divided into several dimensions and indicators Part III is a checklist of a PNCO’s personal qualities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

NPR

APR

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

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

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

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

POLICE NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICER PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT

FOR SPO3 TO SPO4 (THIRD LEVEL) Rating Period: ________________________________

PNCOPERF 3A (Rating Summary Form)

(IF REFERRED TO THE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE)

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

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

2. Rank

3. Position/Designation

4. Unit Assignment/Station/District

5. Years and Months in Current Position:

PARTS DIMENSIONS PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Point

Allocation

Numerical Rating

Weighted

Score

I. Output (15 pts)

a. Quality of work 5 x =

b. Timeliness of work 3 x =

c. Acceptability of output based on standard 4 x

d. Accomplishment of target 3 x =

II.

C

O R E

C O M P E T E N C I E S

Job Knowledge (15 points)

a. Understanding of the job description 2 x =

b. Awareness of the vision, mission and objectives of the organization

2 x =

c. Community Oriented Policing System 2 x =

d. Creativity/Resourcefulness 2 x =

e. Analytical Ability 1 x =

f. Ability to solve problems/troubleshooting 2 x =

g. Oral and written communication 2 X =

h. Law Enforcement and Maintenance of Law and Order 2 x =

Work Management

(25 points)

a. Records Management & Submission of Reports 4 x =

b. Compliance with and Implementation of Policies/SOPs

4 x =

c. Sense of Priority 4 x =

d. Client Satisfaction/Orientation 4 x =

e. Cost effectiveness 5 x =

f. Involvement/Presence in Activities 4 x =

Interpersonal Relationship

(25 pts)

a. Receptive to ideas/suggestions 5 x =

b. Teamwork Management 5 X =

c. Build Linkages and networks 5 X =

d. Ability to lead and follow 5 X =

e. Motivation 5 x =

Concern for the Organization

(10 pts)

a. Stewardship of unit’s properties 4 x =

b. Preservation of unit interest 3 x =

c. Coordination 3 x =

III. Personal Qualities (10 pts)

Personal Trait Personal Trait

10.0 x

=

Morally Upright 1 Civic-minded 1

Honest 1 Responsible 1

Well groomed 1 Disciplined 1

Fair and Just 1 Courteous/tactful 1

Loyal to the organization 1 Initiate positive action 1

Nr of Traits with Check Marks

TOTAL WEIGHTED SCORE (TWS)

NUMERICAL PERFORMANCE RATING (NPR) = TWS ÷ 5

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

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

This personnel needs improvement on the following:

Significant/Critical Incident(s)

Acknowledged: Conformed: Attested: --------------------------- ---------------------------- ----------------------- RATER RATEE REVIEWER

Rating Table for Performance Indicators Rating Table for Personal Traits

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

NPR-APR Table

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

(Extra Space for Significant/Critical Incidents)

Numerical Rating Rating Criteria

5 Exceeds standards

4 Always meets standards

3 Occasionally meets standards

2 Seldom meets standards

1 Never meets standards

Numerical Rating

Points of Traits

5 Nine (9) to Ten (10)

4 Seven (7) to Eight (8)

3 Five (5) to Six (6)

2 Three (3) to Four (4)

1 One (1) to Two (2)

Numerical Performance Rating

(NPR)

Adjectival Performance Rating

(APR)

91 – 100 Outstanding (OS)

81 – 90.99 Very Satisfactory (VS)

71 – 80.99 Satisfactory (SF)

70.99 - below Poor (PR)

Part I. OUTPUT – (15 pts)

a. QUALITY OF WORK 5.0

RATING CRITERIA NUMERICAL RATING

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

5

- Always meets the standards/expected quality of OUTPUT, OUTPUT

is neat and complete in all details, errors are minimal

4

- Occasionally meets the standards/expected quality of OUTPUT 3

- Seldom meets the standards/expected quality of OUTPUT 2

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

1

*SIGNIFICANT/CRITICAL INCIDENT/S:

b. TIMELINESS OF WORK 3.0


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

5

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

4

- Occasionally meets the schedule/deadline 3

- Seldom meets the schedule/deadline 2

- Never meets the schedule/deadline 1

SIGNIFICANT/CRITICAL INCIDENT/S:

c. ACCEPTABILITY OF OUTPUT BASED ON STANDARD 4.0


- Exceeds the expected output within the desired acceptability 5

- Always meets the expected target output within the desired acceptability

4

- Occasionally meets the expected output within the acceptability 3

- Seldom meets the expected target output acceptability 2

- Never meets the expected target output acceptability 1


d. ACCOMPLISHMENT OF TARGET 3.0


- Exceeds the expected assigned target 5

- Always meets the expected assigned target 4

- Occasionally meets the expected assigned target 3

- Seldom meets the expected assigned target 2

- Never meets the expected assigned target 1

PNCOPERF 3B (WORKSHEET)

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

Part II. CORE COMPETENCIES

1. JOB KNOWLEDGE - (15 pts)

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

a. UNDERSTANDING OF THE JOB DESCRIPTION 2.0

RATING CRITERIA

NUMERICAL RATING

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

5

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

4

- Occasionally arrives at good planning and sound decisions generally expected of the job

3

- Seldom makes good planning and sound decisions on important and complex matter

2

- Never makes good planning and decisions at all 1


b. AWARENESS OF THE VISION, MISSION AND

OBJECTIVES OF THE PNP 2.0


- Exceeds standards/expectations in carrying out the PNP’s -Vision-Mission-Objectives (V-M-0) ;

5

- Always meets standards/expectations in carrying out the PNP’s V-M-O;

4

- Occasionally meets standards/expectations in carrying out the PNP’s V-M-O;

3

- Seldom meets standards/expectations in carrying out the PNP’s V-M- O;

2

- Never meets standards/expectations in carrying out the PNP’s V-M-O

1


c. COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SYSTEM 2.0


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

5

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

4

- Occasionally performs an assigned task with less general instruction

3

- Seldom performs an assigned task given detailed instruction 2

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

1


d. CREATIVITY/RESOURCEFULNESS 2.0


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

5

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

4

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

3

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

2

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

1


e. ANALYTICAL ABILITY 1.0


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

5

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

4

- Occasionally able to identify and analyze problems and its causes

3

- Seldom able to identify and analyze problems and its causes 2

- Never able to identify and analyze problem and its causes 1


f. ABILITY TO SOLVE PROBLEMS/TROUBLESHOOTING 2.0


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

5

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

4

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

3

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

2

- Never implements acceptable solutions to problems encountered on the job

1


g. ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATION 2.0


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

5

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

4

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

3

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

2.

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


h. LAW ENFORCEMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF LAW AND ORDER 2.0


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

5

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

4

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

3

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

2.

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

1


2. WORK MANAGEMENT – (25 pts)

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

a. RECORDS MANAGEMENT AND SUBMISSION OF REPORTS 4.0


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

5

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

4

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

3

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

2

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

1


b. COMPLIANCE WITH AND IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICIES/SOPs 4.0


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

5

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

4

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

3

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

2

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

1


C. SENSE OF PRIORITY 4.0


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

5

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

4

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

3

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

2

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

1


d. CLIENT SATISFACTION/ORIENTATION 4.0

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


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

5

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

4

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

3

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

2

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

1


e. COST EFFECTIVENESS 5.0


- Exceeds the standards in his display of positive action 5

- Always displays positive action 4

- Occasionally displays positive action 3

- Seldom displays positive action 2

- Never displays positive action 1


f. INVOLVEMENT/PRESENCE IN ACTIVITIES 4.0

The PNCO should be given a perfect score of 2.0 for the rating period if his

attendance during the period is perfect, and deduction of (0.1) point for each of absence. Approved leaves, authorized travel and official meetings outside of office premises shall not be considered an absence.

RATING CRITERIA NUMERCIAL RATING

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

5

- Always involved/present in unit/office activities 4

- Occasionally involved/present in unit/office activities 3

- Seldom involved/present in unit/office activities 2

- Never involved/present in unit/office activities 1


3. INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIP - (25 pts)

(This dimension measures the manner by which a PNCO accomplished his/her work through other people).

a. RECEPTIVE TO IDEAS/SUGGESTIONS 5.0

RATING CRITERIA NUMERCIAL RATING

- Exceeds standards/expectations in listening to suggestions and comments of peers, subordinates and superiors

5

- Always listens to suggestions and comments of peers, subordinates and superiors

4

- Occasionally listens to suggestions and comments of peers, subordinates and superiors

3

- Seldom listens to suggestion and comments of peers, subordinates and superiors

2

- Never listens to suggestions and comments of peers, subordinates and superiors

1


b. TEAMWORK MANAGEMENT 5.0


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

5

- Always maintains a high degree of teamwork among peers and subordinates

4

- Occasionally maintains teamwork among peers and subordinates as expected

3

- Seldom maintains teamwork among peers and subordinates 2

- Never maintains teamwork among peers and subordinates 1


c. BUILD LINKAGES AND NETWORKS 5.0


- Exceeds standards/expectations in building linkages and networks

5

- Always builds networks and linkages 4

- Occasionally builds network and linkages 3

- Seldom builds network and linkages 2

- Never builds network and linkages 1


d. ABILITY TO LEAD AND FOLLOW 5.0


- Exceeds standards/expectations in displaying sense of leadership and followership

5

- Always display good sense of leadership and followership 4

- Occasionally displays good sense of leadership and followership 3

- Seldom displays good sense of leadership and followership 2

- Never displays good sense of leadership and followership 1


e. MOTIVATION 5.0


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

5

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

4

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

3

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

2

- Never inspires and encourages peers/subordinates 1


4. CONCERN FOR THE ORGANIZATION - (10 pts) (This dimension measures the extent by which a PNCO relates his personal goals with

that of the units’ objectives)

a. STEWARDSHIP OF UNIT’S PROPERTIES 4.0


- Exceeds standards/expectations in displaying good sense of stewardship towards government prorperties

5

- Always displays good sense of stewardship towards government properties

4

- Occasionally displays good sense of stewardship towards government properties

3

- Seldom displays good sense of stewardship towards government properties

2

- Never displays good sense of stewardship towards government properties

1


b. PRESERVATION OF UNIT INTERESTS 3.0


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

5

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

4

- Occasionally safeguards, protects and preserves unit properties/interests

3

- Seldom safeguards and preserves unit properties/interests 2

- Never safeguards and preserves unit properties/interests 1


c. COORDINATION 3.0


- Exceeds standards/expectations respecting superior officers 5

- Always displays respect for superior officers 4

- Occasionally displys respect for superior officers 3

- Seldom displays respect for superior officers 2

- Never displays respect for superior officers 1


PART III. PERSONAL TRAITS (10 pts) (This refers to PNCO’s personal characteristics or traits which enhance his performance)

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

Personal Traits Points Check Appropriate Traits

1. Morally Upright 1

2. Honest 1

3. Well groomed 1

4. Fair and Just 1

5. Loyal to the Organization 1

6. Servant-leadership 1

7. Civic-minded 1

8. Responsible 1

9. Disciplined 1

10. Courteous/Tactful 1

11. Initiate positive action 1

RATING CRITERIA:

Numerical Rating Nr of Traits

5 9 – 10

4 7 – 8

3 5 – 6

2 3 – 4

1 1 – 2

ASSESSMENT OF RATEE

I certify that this report represents my best judgment.

[ ] I DO [ ] I DO NOT recommend this personnel be granted (a) promotion (b) designation to higher position (c) relief. This personnel needs improvement on the following_____________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT/COMMENTS

ACKNOWLEDGED:

SIGNATURE: __________________________________________________

RANK/NAME:__________________________________________________

(LAST) (FIRST) (MIDDLE)

DESIGNATION: ________________________________________________

DATE ACCOMPLISHED: _________________________________________

COMMENTS:

__________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________

CONFORMED:

SIGNATURE: ____________________________________________________

RANK/NAME:____________________________________________________


DESIGNATION:___________________________________________________ DATE ACCOMPLISHED: ___________________________________________ COMMENTS:

________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________

ATTESTED:

SIGNATURE: ____________________________________________________

NAME: _________________________________________________________

(LAST) (FIRST) (MIDDLE) DESIGNATION: __________________________________________________

DATE ACCOMPLISHED: ___________________________________________

COMMENTS: __________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

Annex “B”




has three (3) major parts, namely: Part I –Output; Part II - Core Competencies; and Part III – Personal Qualities. Parts I and II are divided into several dimensions and indicators. Part III is a checklist of a PNCO’s personal qualities.







NPR

APR




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

POLICE NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICER PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT

FOR SPO1 TO SPO2 (SECOND LEVEL) Rating Period: ________________________________



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


2. Rank





Allocation

Numerical Rating

Weighted

Score

I.

Output (15 pts)


b. Timeliness of work 3 x =

c. Acceptability of output based on standard 4 x =

d. Accomplishment of target 3 x =

II.

C

O R E



a. Understanding of the job description 2 x =

b. Awareness of the Vision, mission and objectives of the organization

2 x =

c. Community Oriented Policing System 4 x =

d. Creativity/Resourcefulness 2 x =

e. Analytical Ability 2 x =

f. Ability to solve problems/troubleshooting 2 x =

g. Oral and written communication 4 x =

h. Law Enforcement and Maintenance of Law and Order 2 x =

Work Management

(25 points)


c. Compliance with and Implementation of Policies/SOPs

4 x =



g. Cost effectiveness 4 x =

h. Involvement/Presence in Activities 4 X =


(20 points)

d. Receptive to ideas/suggestions 4 x =

e. Teamwork Management 4 X =

f. Build Linkages and networks 4 X =


e. Motivation 4 X =


(10 points)

c. Stewardship of unit’s properties 3 X =

d. Preservation of unit interest 3 X =

c. Coordination 4 X =

III.

Personal Qualities (10 points)


10.0 x

=













Acknowledged: Conformed: Attested:

--------------------------- ---------------------------- ----------------------- RATER RATEE REVIEWER


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

NPR-APR Table




5 Exceeds standards





Numerical Rating

Points of Traits







(NPR)


(APR)




70.99- below Poor (PR)





5



4




1





5


4





c. ACCEPTABILITY OF OUTPUT 4.0




4

















RATING CRITERIA

NUMERICAL RATING


5


4


3


2



c. AWARENESS OF THE VISION, MISSION AND OBJECTIVES OF THE

PNP 2.0



5


4


3



1






5


4


3



1





5


4


3


2


1





5


4


3







5


4


3


2


1





5


4


3


2.





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

5


4


3


2.


1







5


4


3


2


1





5


4


3


2


1


D. SENSE OF PRIORITY 4.0



5


4


3


2


1






5


4


3


2


1













RATING CRITERIA NUMIERCIAL RATING


5








c. RECEPTIVE TO IDEAS/SUGGESTIONS 4.0



5


4


3


2


1


d. TEAMWORK MANAGEMENT 4.0


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

5

- Always maintains a high degree of teamwork among peers/subordinates

4

- Occasionally maintains teamwork among peers/ subordinates as expected

3

- Seldom maintains teamwork among peers/subordinates 2

- Never maintains teamwork among peers/subordinates 1


e. BUILD LINKAGES AND NETWORKS 4.0



5









5






e. MOTIVATION 4.0



5

- Always encourages and inspires peers/subordinates to give their best in their job as required

4


3

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

2



4. CONCERN FOR THE ORGANIZATION - (10 pts) (This dimension measures the extent by which a PNCO relates his personal goals with

that of the units’ objectives)



- Exceeds standards/expectations in displaying good sense of stewardship towards government prorperties

5


4


3


2


1


c. PRESERVATION OF UNIT INTERESTS 3.0



5


4


3




c. COORDINATION 4.0




- Occasionally displays respect for superior officers 3




PART III. PERSONAL TRAITS (10 pts) (This refers to PNCO’s personal characteristics or traits which enhance his performance)

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

Personal Traits Points Check Appropriate

traits


2. Honest 1

3. Well groomed 1

4. Fair and Just 1



7. Civic-minded 1

8. Responsible 1

9. Disciplined 1



RATING CRITERIA:


5 9 – 10

4 7 – 8

3 5 – 6

2 3 – 4

1 1 – 2

ASSESSMENT OF RATEE


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

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT/COMMENTS

ACKNOWLEDGED:

SIGNATURE: __________________________________________________

RANK/NAME:__________________________________________________


DESIGNATION: ________________________________________________


COMMENTS:

________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________

CONFORMED:

SIGNATURE: ____________________________________________________

RANK/NAME:____________________________________________________


DESIGNATION:___________________________________________________ DATE ACCOMPLISHED: ___________________________________________ COMMENTS:

________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________

ATTESTED:

SIGNATURE: ____________________________________________________

NAME: _________________________________________________________

(LAST) (FIRST) (MIDDLE) DESIGNATION: __________________________________________________


COMMENTS: __________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________

Annex “C”




has three (3) major parts, namely: Part I –Output; Part II - Core Competencies; and Part III – Personal Qualities. Parts I and II are divided into several dimensions and indicators Part III is a checklist of a PNCO’s personal qualities.







NPR

APR




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


POLICE NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICER PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT FOR PO1 TO PO3 (FIRST LEVEL)

Rating Period: ________________________________


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

Head, Grievance Committee


2. Rank





Allocation

Numerical Rating

Weighted

Score

I.

Output (25 pts)


e. Timeliness of work 6 x =

f. Acceptability of output based on standard 6 x =

g. Accomplishment of target 6 x =

II.

C O R E



i. Understanding of the job description 2 x =

j. Awareness of the Vision, mission and objectives of the organization

2 x =

k. Community Oriented Policing System 5 x =

l. Creativity/Resourcefulness 2 x =

m. Analytical Ability 2 x =

n. Ability to solve problems/troubleshooting 2 x =

o. Oral and written communication 5 x =

p. Law Enforcement and Maintenance of Law and Order 5 x =

Work Management

(15 points)


d. Compliance with and Implementation of Policies/SOPs

3 x =



i. Cost effectiveness 2 x =

j. Involvement/Presence in Activities 2 X =


(15 points)

g. Receptive to ideas/suggestions 3 x =

h. Teamwork Management 3 X =

i. Build Linkages and networks 3 X =


e. Motivation 3 X =


(10 points)

e. Stewardship of unit’s properties 3 X =

f. Preservation of unit interest 3 X =

c. Coordination 4 X =

III.

Personal Qualities (10 points)


10.0 x

=













Acknowledged: Conformed: Attested: --------------------------- ---------------------------- ----------------------- RATER RATEE REVIEWER


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

(NOTE: Refer to This Table for Part III)

NPR-APR Table




5 Exceeds standards





Numerical Rating

Points of Traits







(NPR)


(APR)




70.99 - below Poor (PR)





5



4




1





5


4





c. ACCEPTABILITY OF OUTPUT BASED ON STANDARD 6.0




4

















RATING CRITERIA

NUMERICAL RATING


5


4


3


2



d. AWARENESS OF THE VISION, MISSION AND OBJECTIVES OF THE PNP 2.0



5


4


3



1






5


4


3



1





5


4


3


2


1





5


4


3







5


4


3


2


1





5


4


3


2.





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

5

expectations


4


3


2.


1







5


4


3


2


1





5


4


3


2


1


e. SENSE OF PRIORITY 2.0



5


4


3


2


1






5


4


3


2


1















5








f. RECEPTIVE TO IDEAS/SUGGESTIONS 3.0



5


4


3


2


1


g. TEAMWORK MANAGEMENT 3.0


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

5

- Always maintains a high degree of teamwork among peers/subordinates

4

- Occasionally maintains teamwork among peers/ subordinates as expected

3

- Seldom maintains teamwork among peers/subordinates 2

- Never maintains teamwork among peers/subordinates 1


h. BUILD LINKAGES AND NETWORKS 3.0



5









5






e. MOTIVATION 3.0



5

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

4


3

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

2



4. CONCERN FOR THE ORGANIZATION - (10 pts)

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



- Exceeds standards/expectations in displaying good sense of stewardship towards government properties

5


4


3


2


1


d. PRESERVATION OF UNIT INTERESTS 3.0



5


4


3




c. COORDINATION 4.0




- Occasionally displys respect for superior officers 3




PART III. PERSONAL TRAITS (10 pts)

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

Personal Traits Points Check Appropriate

traits


2. Honest 1

3. Well groomed 1

4. Fair and Just 1



7. Civic-minded 1

8. Responsible 1

9. Disciplined 1



RATING CRITERIA:


5 9 – 10

4 7 – 8

3 5 – 6

2 3 – 4

1 1 – 2

ASSESSMENT OF RATEE


[ ] I DO [ ] I DO NOT recommend this personnel be granted (a) promotion (b) designation to higher position (c) relief.

This personnel needs improvement on the following :____________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ACKNOWLEDGEMENT/COMMENTS

ACKNOWLEDGED:

SIGNATURE: __________________________________________________

RANK/NAME:__________________________________________________


DESIGNATION: ________________________________________________


COMMENTS:

________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________

CONFORMED:

SIGNATURE: ____________________________________________________

RANK/NAME:____________________________________________________

(LAST) (FIRST) (MIDDLE) DESIGNATION:___________________________________________________ DATE ACCOMPLISHED: ___________________________________________ COMMENTS:

________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________

ATTESTED:

SIGNATURE: ____________________________________________________

NAME: _________________________________________________________


DESIGNATION: __________________________________________________


COMMENTS:

________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________

REFERENCES

1. Republic Act 6975, otherwise known as the “Department of the Interior and

Local Government Act of 1990 as amended”

2. Republic Act 8551, otherwise known as the “Philippine National Police Reform and Reorganization Act of 1998”

3. NAPOLCOM Memo Circular No. 93-019 “Amendment to MC No. 92-102

dated Nov 12, 1992, entitled “PNP Performance Evaluation System”

4. NAPOLCOM Memo Circular No. 93-022 “Establishing A Complaints Ang Grievance Machinery for PNP Uniformed Personnel”

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

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

to the D-Staff”

7. PNP Staffing Pattern

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

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

10. PNP Manual on Summary Proceedings

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

12. Numerical Designation for PNP Manuals dated 26 December 1994

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

Documents

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE - DPRM Website - Home€¦ · · 2017-06-23PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE PNPM-DPL-DS-5-1-04 ... training and approval/disapproval of all performance-based