One of the most loathed supervisory activities in a traditional organization is the performance review. In the worst case the reviews aren't conducted at all; or perhaps the worst case is actually a review that is performed on a superficial and one-sided level thereby giving completely wrong and ineffective feedback. On the other extreme are organizations that recognize the value of continual feedback and development, sometimes to the point where a formal review is no longer necessary.
In a traditional organization the review, if conducted at all, looks backwards, evaluates, and attempts to take sometimes punitive post-even corrective action. More innovative organizations use the "review" to focus forward, identify warning signs and developmental needs, and correct issues before they happen.
That's what's also happening in some cities as they take a more pro-active and innovative approach to reducing crime.
In effect potential future problems are being identified before they actually become a problem. Then a style of performance review happens. A peer-based, or perhaps "360 degree review" to use the parlance of some organizations.
A different path forward is presented and alternatives and support systems created.
A deeper root cause analysis would go even further, focusing on why an environment exists that creates a propensity for offenders in the first place. Just as more innovative organizations attempt to understand why poor performers were hired or transitioned to that level of performance. A large majority of performance problems are not the result of the people, but of the systems and processes and methods that surround and support those people.