![]() |
||
|
||
| Contents | Tracking
and Evaluation Tracking and evaluation methods should be used to measure the impact of illegal dumping prevention efforts and determine whether goals are being met. Baseline figures must be established for indicators such as annual cleanup costs, facility compliance, arrests, convictions, fine collection, complaints, and numbers of problem sites. Tracking Electronic mapping systems use computerized maps and overlays. A map of a particular area is used as a base, and overlays are created for each type of information being tracked. Such information can include common dumping locations, facilities, inspection or violation histories, surveillance reports, or police districts. Individual program elements can be independently observed or viewed together so that relationships and trends can be identified. For example, by viewing the locations of problem areas together with the locations of permitted facilities, a connection may be identified. In addition, a particular dump site can be immediately referenced to determine the date of the last inspection and whether a citation was written. Several mapping techniques can be used to electronically map illegal dumping information. Geographic information systems (GIS) such as ArcView® and Landview®, and public domain mapping programs such as Citimap and TIGER® are commonly used. The Census Bureau provides mapping services online at http://www.census.gov. In addition, much of the same information that is tracked electronically can be simply hand-drawn on maps. The status of ongoing and pending enforcement activities (such as violations, fines collected, and the status of court cases), cleanup activities, and inspection and surveillance reports can be entered into a computer database. Printouts can display up-to-date data concerning the status of individual cases or an overall prevention program. Use of a digital camera to document site activities can support enforcement cases. Evaluation Evaluation of information being tracked allows for identification of needed adjustments and allocation of resources to improve the effort. Information gathered for a defined period can be compared to baseline figures in order to assess program performance. Arrest records or violations can be evaluated to adjust surveillance schedules or target audiences for outreach and education efforts. Court records can be evaluated to determine the typical disposition of cases, which may lead to a different approach in dealing with offenders. Finally, periodic meetings of field personnel to discuss observations and trends can lead to continuous program improvement. Case Studies
|
|
|
||