全球化競爭激烈浪潮下，績效管理成為企業界的重要工作。績效評鑑是績效管理核心，欲有效評鑑績效，必須設立完善績效指標。我國傳統上以刑案績效衡量警察工作效能，過度強調刑案績效數字，無法反映民眾對警察的期望，也影響員警勤務執行方向。2004年7月起，內政部警政署鑒於原有績效評鑑所產生之弊端，屢遭外界詬病，爲杜絕選擇性辦案弊病、提升破案績效及偵查品質、落實地區責任制，研擬訂定新偵查犯罪評鑑計畫，自2005年1月起試辦半年，並選擇台北市等11個警察局作為試辦單位。若成效良好，將擴大推行至各個警察機關。 因此，本研究期透過對新、舊制偵查犯罪評鑑計畫之探討，以提供警察機關日後修訂之參考。本研究以台北市警察局員警為調查對象，透過問卷調查與深度訪談質量並重方式進行研究。在問卷調查研究上，發出問卷560份，回收541份，有效樣本為426份，有效回收率為76.07％。深度訪談對象計有十一人，均為單位主官，或為評鑑計畫業務承辦人，對於「偵查犯罪績效評鑑制度」有深入瞭解。所得資料採描述性統計、T檢定、皮爾森積差相關、典型相關和歸納分析等方法加以處理。 研究發現如下： 一、 新舊制偵查犯罪績效評鑑制度各有其優點 二、 員警對新舊偵查犯罪績效評鑑制度瞭解度不足 三、 新偵查犯罪績效評鑑制度下，員警對於各項刑案的偵辦意願降低 四、 影響治安愈嚴重的刑案，員警偵辦意願愈高。 五、 員警對偵查犯罪績效評鑑制度的瞭解度愈高，對刑案之偵辦意願亦愈高 六、 新偵查犯罪績效評鑑制度對於弊端的改善，無太大成效 七、 對新偵查犯罪績效評鑑制度，員警多持觀望心態 八、 新偵查犯罪績效評鑑制度主觀分數比例偏高，公正性受質疑 九、 新偵查犯罪績效評鑑制度以偵破總件數作為評鑑基準，仍無法完全破除「選擇性辦案」弊病 十、 新偵查犯罪績效評鑑制度之「重點專案工作」配分太低，影響偵辦意願 十一、 新偵查犯罪績效評鑑制度未納入犯罪預防工作，有欠周詳 十二、 新偵查犯罪績效評鑑制度要求全方位績效，員警不能專才專用 十三、 「跨轄偵辦」不受制度變更影響 研究建議如下： 一. 加強對偵查犯罪績效評鑑制度之宣導工作 二. 融合新舊制偵查犯罪績效評鑑制度優點，修訂評鑑方式 三. 評鑑制度修訂時，能納入專家、學者與基層員警意見 四. 重新考量新偵查犯罪績效評鑑制度評鑑項目配分 五. 預防績效能列入評鑑制度項目 六. 訂定適當之個人績效評鑑方式，供各單位參考選用 七. 不同單位評比方式要能多元化 八. 因應社會治安，彈性機動調整刑案配分 九. 評鑑制度應公正、公平、正確 十. 績效評鑑結果應與獎懲制度相結合，以激勵員警士氣 關鍵字：績效評鑑、偵查犯罪績效評鑑制度 / Strike by global vicious competition wave, performance management has become the most important task in entrepreneurial domain. Performance review is the core of performance management. Needless to say, in order to get a validate and efficient review, the parameter of performance review index has to be carefully implemented. As for police officer, performance review was measured solely upon the accumulation of criminal cases have been solved. Under this particular decipherment, neither has fulfilled people’s expectation, nor directed officers on the optimal execution. National Police Agency, Ministry of The Interior, has launched a new performance review index since June, 2004. It’s main purposes are to prevent the pitfalls from the old index, diminish crime case selectivity, increase both case resolution rate and investigation quality, and solidify borough responsibility. It starts off from eleven police stations in Taipei and set the pioneer project for six months from the beginning of 2005. Should the project go well, it will eventually implement nationwide. Thus, this research provides reference for further modification if needed. The research is cross examined by both quantitative (questionnaire) and qualitative (in-depth interview ) measurements. The participants are police officers who current work in Taipei city. On questionnaires part, 541 copies has been collected out of 560 , and 426 valid ones, make validation rate up to 76.07%. As for in-depth interview, there are eleven interviewees, including sheriffs and new project related officers, who acquire better knowledge about the new index project.. All the data has been processed by descriptive statistics, T-test, Pearson’s r, canonical correlation, and systematic analysis accordingly. Findings 1. It contains strengths and weakness at both new and old performance review systems, in terms of crime case resolution rating. 2. Police officers have little comprehension on both review systems. 3. Under the new review index, police officer has lower interests handling criminal cases. 4. As imposing more severe threat on security, the police officer is relatively more devoted to investigation. 5. The more understanding on review system, the more efficient officer hand on the case. 6. There is little efficacy of improving the existing problems. 7. Most police officers are more like spectators, not participating much. 8. New review index includes more subjective scorings and invites severe challenge on justification. 9. New review index is based on sum of crime cases resolved, that doesn’t stop case selectivity. 10. The score on “Special Project” is too low in new review index which effects the degree of devotion. 11. New review index failed to include the crime prevention intervention. 12.New review system neglects the individual specialty, instead, emphasizes on overall common practice, that depresses officers expertise and makes a biased performance review. 13.“ Cross jurisdiction investigation” stays intact. Suggestions 1. Propagate the performance review system. 2. Re-mix the advantages extract from both systems, and modify on the review method. 3. Combine the voice of experts, academic professionals and basic police officers for rectification. 4. Reconsider the scoring system to match the perspective items. 5. Includes prevention invention on the item list. 6. Customize the appropiate individual rating chart for varying departments. 7. Multi-function evaluation to suit various departments demand. 8. Remain scoring flexibility according to security status. 9. The essence of review system should be justice, fair and correct. 10. Intermingle the result of performance review with award/punishment system to further inspire the officers. Key words: