Does the CBA require performance evaluations?
Topic: Qualifications and evaluation
CBAs marked "Yes" address a given topic or question or "No" do not address that topic or question. Or there is no CBA, the CBA is unknown, or a FOIA request was denied.
| District | Answer |
|---|---|
| Alaska | YES |
| Summary: All employees receive performance evaluations | |
| Detail: 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. | |
| Anchorage, AK | NO |
| Alabama | NO CBA |
| Birmingham, AL | NO CBA |
| Arkansas | NO CBA |
| Arizona | NO CBA |
| Chandler, AZ | NO |
| Gilbert, AZ | NO CBA |
| Glendale, AZ | YES |
| Summary: Evaluations completed by HR | |
| Mesa, AZ | NO CBA |
| Phoenix, AZ | YES |
| Summary: Referenced in relation to appeals | |
| Scottsdale, AZ | NO CBA |
| Tucson, AZ | YES |
| Summary: Referenced in relation to probationary employees | |
| California | YES |
| Summary: Performance evaluations referenced in CBA; no details given | |
| Anaheim, CA | NO |
| Bakersfield, CA | YES |
| Summary: References annual performance evaluations in terms of bonuses | |
| Chula Vista, CA | NO |
| Fremont, CA | NO |
| Fresno, CA | YES |
| Summary: Evaluations required annually, upon exit of position, and monthly during the probationary period | |
| Detail: Each piece of criteria is ranked 1-5; employee has 30 days to file written appeal | |
| Irvine, CA | YES |
| Summary: Performance evaluations required at unspecified intervals | |
| Detail: Department directors rate employees using forms provided by Personnel Officers; employees must sign evaluation after discussing it with their supervisor | |
| Long Beach, CA | NO |
| Los Angeles, CA | YES |
| Summary: Employee performance is reviewed at least annually | |
| Detail: 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 | |
| Oakland, CA | YES |
| Summary: Performance evaluations are mentioned throughout the CBA, but the frequency of these evaluations is not included | |
| Riverside, CA | YES |
| Summary: Required at unspecified intervals | |
| Detail: "Lieutenants shall review draft performance evaluations with Unit members prior to their finalization and being passed on to Captains." | |
| Sacramento, CA | YES |
| Summary: Employee performance evaluations are conducted at the discretion of the appointing authority | |
| Detail: 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 Bernardino, CA | YES |
| Summary: Referenced in relation to personnel files | |
| San Diego, CA | YES |
| Summary: Annual performance evaluations referenced in relation to formal representation | |
| San Francisco, CA | YES |
| Summary: Referenced in relation to step advancements | |
| San Jose, CA | YES |
| Summary: "The performance evaluation rating period will coincide with annual shift change" | |
| Santa Ana, CA | YES |
| Summary: Referenced in relation to step advancements, appeals | |
| Stockton, CA | NO |
| Colorado | NO CBA |
| Aurora, CO | YES |
| Summary: References yearly performance evaluations in terms of promotions | |
| Colorado Springs, CO | NO CBA |
| Denver, CO | YES |
| Summary: Yearly evaluation ratings referenced in terms of promotions | |
| Connecticut | YES |
| Summary: Performance evaluations required at least once a year | |
| Detail: 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 | |
| District of Columbia | YES |
| Summary: Required; outlined in General Order 201 .20, Performance Rating Plan | |
| Delaware | FOIA DENIED |
| Florida | YES |
| Summary: Performance reviews are to be conducted in accordance with Rule 60L-35, F.A.C., Performance Evaluation System | |
| Detail: 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 | |
| Hialeah, FL | NO |
| Jacksonville, FL | YES |
| Summary: Evaluations must be completed by an officer of a higher rank | |
| Detail: 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 | |
| Miami, FL | NO |
| Orlando, FL | YES |
| Summary: Required annually | |
| Detail: Evaluations filed in personnel history folders; evaluations used for promotions and merit pay | |
| St. Petersburg, FL | YES |
| Summary: Referenced in relation to progressions in pay plans and promotions | |
| Tampa, FL | YES |
| Summary: Referenced in relation to promotions | |
| Georgia | NO CBA |
| Atlanta, GA | NO CBA |
| Hawaii | YES |
| Summary: Evaluations referenced in terms of grievances | |
| Honolulu, HI | YES |
| Summary: Evaluations referenced in terms of grievances | |
| Iowa | YES |
| Summary: All employees receive annual performance evaluations | |
| Detail: Employees are provided a copy of the evaluation; performance standards found in Accountable Government Act | |
| Idaho | NO CBA |
| Boise, ID | NO |
| Illinois | NO |
| Chicago, IL | NO |
| Indiana | NO CBA |
| Fort Wayne, IN | NO |
| Indianapolis, IN | NO |
| Kansas | YES |
| Summary: Performance reviews conducted at least annually by employee's immediate supervisor | |
| Detail: Specific periods are designated for annual and mid-year reviews for permanent employees, and the appeals process is outlined | |
| Wichita, KS | NO |
| Kentucky | NO CBA |
| Lexington, KY | YES |
| Summary: Referenced in relation to promotions | |
| Louisville, KY | YES |
| Summary: References annual performance evaluations in relation to complaints and discipline | |
| Louisiana | NO CBA |
| Baton Rouge, LA | NO |
| New Orleans, LA | NO CBA |
| Massachusetts | NO |
| Boston, MA | YES |
| Summary: Requires annual evaluations | |
| Maryland | NO |
| Baltimore, MD | NO |
| Maine | NO |
| Michigan | NO |
| Detroit, MI | NO |
| Minnesota | NO |
| Minneapolis, MN | YES |
| Summary: Performance evaluations are mentioned throughout the CBA, but the frequency of these evaluations is not included | |
| St. Paul, MN | NO |
| Missouri | NO CBA |
| Kansas City, MO | NO |
| St. Louis, MO | NO |
| Mississippi | NO CBA |
| Montana | NO |
| North Carolina | NO CBA |
| Charlotte, NC | NO CBA |
| Durham, NC | NO CBA |
| Greensboro, NC | NO CBA |
| Raleigh, NC | NO CBA |
| Winston-Salem, NC | NO CBA |
| North Dakota | NO CBA |
| Nebraska | YES |
| Summary: Referenced only; gives one-time bonus structure for satisfactory performance evaluation ratings | |
| Lincoln, NE | YES |
| Summary: Newly promoted employees conduct performance reviews six months into the new position | |
| Omaha, NE | YES |
| Summary: Job performance interviews are conducted on an as-needed basis | |
| New Hampshire | NO |
| New Jersey | NO |
| Jersey City, NJ | NO |
| Newark, NJ | NO |
| New Mexico | NO CBA |
| Albuquerque, NM | NO |
| Nevada | YES |
| Summary: Annual performance reviews required for permanent employees; more frequent reviews for probationary officers | |
| Detail: Annual performance evaluations coincide with officers' pay progression dates; probationary officers are subject to performance reviews every 3-4 months at specified intervals | |
| Henderson, NV | NO |
| Las Vegas, NV | NO |
| North Las Vegas, NV | YES |
| Summary: Referenced in relation to longevity pay | |
| Reno, NV | NO |
| New York | NO |
| Buffalo, NY | UNKNOWN |
| New York, NY | NO |
| Ohio | YES |
| Summary: All non-probationary employees have an annual performance review | |
| Detail: 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 | |
| Cincinnati, OH | YES |
| Summary: Annual performance evaluations referenced in terms of grievance process | |
| Cleveland, OH | NO |
| Columbus, OH | YES |
| Summary: Performance evaluations required, but not specified to be annual | |
| Detail: 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 | |
| Toledo, OH | YES |
| Summary: Referenced in relation to the selection of field training officers | |
| Oklahoma | NO CBA |
| Oklahoma City, OK | YES |
| Summary: Referenced in relation to promotions | |
| Tulsa, OK | NO |
| Oregon | NO |
| Portland, OR | YES |
| Summary: Required annually | |
| Detail: 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 | |
| Pennsylvania | NO |
| Philadelphia, PA | NO |
| Pittsburgh, PA | YES |
| Summary: Required annually | |
| Rhode Island | NO |
| South Carolina | NO CBA |
| South Dakota | NO CBA |
| Tennessee | NO CBA |
| Memphis, TN | YES |
| Summary: Performance evaluations conducted annually by the employee's commanding officer | |
| Detail: Officers will receive a copy of their evaluation and have the opportunity to appeal its contents | |
| Nashville, TN | NO |
| Texas | NO CBA |
| Arlington, TX | NO CBA |
| Austin, TX | NO |
| Corpus Christi, TX | NO |
| Dallas, TX | NO |
| El Paso, TX | YES |
| Summary: Referenced in terms of outside employment approvals | |
| Fort Worth, TX | NO |
| Garland, TX | NO CBA |
| Houston, TX | YES |
| Summary: Semi-annual Job Performance Reviews (JPR) referenced in terms of grievances | |
| Irving, TX | NO CBA |
| Laredo, TX | NO |
| Lubbock, TX | NO CBA |
| Plano, TX | NO CBA |
| San Antonio, TX | NO |
| Utah | NO CBA |
| Virginia | NO CBA |
| Chesapeake, VA | NO CBA |
| Norfolk, VA | NO CBA |
| Richmond, VA | NO CBA |
| Virginia Beach, VA | NO CBA |
| Vermont | YES |
| Summary: Annual performance evaluations required | |
| Detail: 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 | |
| Washington | YES |
| Summary: Job Performance Appraisal (JPA) process provides an opportunity for employees and supervisors to discuss performance goals and expectations | |
| Seattle, WA | YES |
| Summary: Annual performance appraisals required | |
| Detail: Conducted by employee's immediate supervisor; supervisor must meet with employee regarding the appraisal; appraisal cannot reference alleged misconduct; employees can challenge appraisals | |
| Wisconsin | YES |
| Summary: Referenced in terms of appealing the evaluation, but not specifically outlined in the CBA | |
| Madison, WI | NO |
| Milwaukee, WI | YES |
| Summary: Referenced in relation to Early Intervention Programs | |
| West Virginia | UNKNOWN |
| Wyoming | NO CBA |