Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 11:15 pm
Time: 11:15 pm
Results for police specialist units
2 results foundAuthor: Alach, Zhivan Title: A Tough Nut to Crack: Performance Measurement in Specialist Policing Summary: In the past two decades, public sector performance (and by extension police performance) has become increasingly important, especially in the Western world. However, while there is extensive academic work being done on the generalist tasks undertaken by most policemen every day, there has been very little attention paid to specialist policing performance. This is of some concern, as specialist policing presents a number of interesting challenges to the observer, particularly in terms of clearly identifying the role played by specialist policing in achieving larger outcomes. This report examines the issue of performance reporting in the specialist policing field and describes the development of an innovative performance framework for specialist policing by the Auckland Metropolitan Crime and Operational Support (AMCOS), a specialist policing unit of the New Zealand Police. There has been increasing attention paid to public sector performance management in recent years, and many Western police forces have correspondingly become increasingly performance-focused, despite the challenges they face in doing so. The benefits that can accrue from performance measurement include improving value for money, improving managerial competency and increasing accountability (Collier 2006). But difficulties that relate to so-called ‘perverse behaviours’ can also arise (Loveday 2005: 98), where for a variety of reasons, performance measures become more important than the valuable activities they seek to describe. Adopting performance measures for specialist policing has introduced its own set of challenges. Specialist policing is most easily defined by specifying what it is not—it is not the general, reactive patrol and investigative capability that comprises the majority of most police forces. Rather, specialist policing comprises two main categories— technical units, such as forensics and specialist operational units (eg helicopter, dog), and niche units, which are often investigative units engaged in proactive operations against a particular subcategory of criminality (eg drugs). The general lack of performance measurement attention that has been paid to specialist policing activities is likely related to issues of responsibility. Technical units provide a small part of a greater outcome and identifying what part they played in that outcome can be almost impossible. Niche units face even greater challenges, as their work can be lost among a much larger quantity of generalist activity. As such, it seems most rewarding to focus specialist policing performance measurement on outputs, at least until there is sufficient theory to take the next step to an outcome focus. The AMCOS performance framework was developed locally, to guard against the imposition of a more generic model as well as promote flexibility and an emphasis on improvement rather than accountability. The framework, while focused on specialist policing outputs, is clearly linked to outcomes at the strategic level. The four main categories of the framework fall within the broader concept of technical and niche units described previously and comprise: • forensic performance measures; • operations support performance measures; • intelligence performance measures; and • investigations performance measures. Identifying and developing measures for these categories was affected by different considerations, for example, the general absence of agreed definitions and reliable data on which to frame investigations performance measures and the contributory rather than absolute effect that forensics units have on major police outputs and outcomes. Five factors were identified as being either critical in the development or implementation of such a framework. These were: • the importance of managerial support; • the value of consulting previous work, • the necessity of consultation, • issues around identifying respective shares of specialist resources to other policing groups, and • recognition of ongoing difficulties with measuring the performance of niche units. The next evolution of the AMCOS performance framework will focus on improving an understanding of the links between outputs and outcomes. AMCOS is currently working towards aligning and integrating performance measurement into its business planning, project management and risk management frameworks. The end goal is to have a centrally directed, but locally managed, performance management framework based on core strategic goals, which is integrated into planning and project management processes. This integration is operating on the principle that performance is only valuable if it serves as the basis for action. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2012. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Technical and Background Paper 53: Accessed November 2, 2012 at: http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/F/F/6/%7BFF65539E-BE83-45F6-BA97-1BA6959CCD1B%7Dtbp053.pdf Year: 2012 Country: New Zealand URL: http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/F/F/6/%7BFF65539E-BE83-45F6-BA97-1BA6959CCD1B%7Dtbp053.pdf Shelf Number: 126823 Keywords: ForensicsPolice Intelligence UnitsPolice InvestigationsPolice Performance (New Zealand)Police Specialist Units |
Author: Police Foundation Title: The governance of supra-force specialist policing capabilities Summary: In early 2006 the Home Secretary Charles Clarke announced a programme of mandated police force mergers in England and Wales that would have seen the number of police forces reduced by about half. Clarke envisaged a police service "close, responsive and accountable to the communities it serves, supported by larger forces with the capacity and specialist expertise to protect the public from wider threats such as serious and organised crime". In May 2006 Clarke was sacked, and by July his plans had been scrapped in favour of an emphasis, in the words of Prime Minister Tony Blair, on areas where there is the scope for "far greater strategic co-operation across force lines". The advent of a new government in 2010 was followed by the introduction of Police and Crime Commissioners and the 43 force structure seems here to stay. Instead, the growing emphasis in recent years has been on increased collaboration between police forces as a means of delivering an improved service for the public while also responding to the demands of austerity and fundamental changes to the nature of crime and police demand. This has been underpinned by the statutory 'duty to collaborate' introduced by the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, but also financial incentives in the form of the Innovation Fund and Transformation Fund. A key challenge has been to reconcile force-level statutory accountability arrangements with the need to provide effective governance of collaborated arrangements across multiple forces. A range of approaches have been adopted across what is quite a mixed economy of largely ad-hoc and in some cases multi-layered collaborations. A focus on specialist capabilities In July 2014, HMIC called for a national debate regarding police reform and in June 2015 an influential group of policing leaders published Reshaping Policing for the Public, which set out a 'possible new approach' that would see 'specialist capabilities... consolidated into cross-force functions, strategically located and operating to national standards' with 'the most highly specialised capabilities (such as counter-terrorism)... delivered nationally'. In early 2016 the PCC chaired Police Reform and Transformation Board was established, with a specific programme focused on specialist capabilities such as armed policing and surveillance. As part of that work, a governance sub group was established, chaired by PCC Paddy Tipping, which commissioned the Police Foundation to undertake a review of the governance of police services delivered above force level. The objectives of the review were three-fold: 1. To review the existing secondary literature on collaboration. 2. To give all PCCs and chief constables the opportunity to feed in their views about the governance of collaboration arrangements, which we did by way of a questionnaire and the offer of follow-up telephone interviews. 3. To apply the learning from (1) and (2) to the Networked Policing Model proposed (after the consultation had closed) in the Specialist Capabilities Programme Phase One Report, in the form of a governance proposition to form the basis for further discussion. Networked Policing Model By adopting a 'mutual mindset' in policing, the proposed Networked Policing Model encompasses three things: 1. A strategic understanding of specialist capability supply and demand across all forces. 2. A more strategic approach to the development of specialist capabilities, including their leadership, tactics and standards. 3. A brokerage service that would link police forces to capabilities beyond current force and collaborative boundaries. Consultation findings Questionnaire responses were received from 14 PCCs and 19 chief constables, and with additional telephone interviews a total of 37 respondents informed our consultation. Although only a minority of PCCs and chief constables, their responses nevertheless provide a window on the balance of views regarding the governance of existing and future collaborative models. • Collaboration is believed to have delivered efficiencies and resilience, but there are concerns that governance arrangements are often complex, which can produce bureaucracy and weaken accountability. • Confidence in collaborative arrangements is contingent on personal trust, on geographical constraints, on historical relations between forces and on similarities in their size, outlook and character. There is opposition to any centrally organised brigading of capabilities that might ignore local nuances and undermine efforts already invested in collaboration. • There is some support for more specialist capabilities being delivered through regional clusters. Nonetheless there are concerns about whether shared capabilities will be available when required and will arrive in a form sympathetic to the character of local policing. In light of this it is clear to see why a model for the future that leaves existing and emerging regional structures intact – as the Networked Policing Model does – is a pragmatic approach. That said, it is likely that the transition to a Networked Policing Model will present governance challenges. Our consultation responses suggest a lack of consensus on basic principles, including around lines of accountability and Direction and Control. Collective agreement on these basic principles would seem to be a prerequisite for the kind of Networked Policing Model envisaged by the Specialist Capabilities Programme. Details: London: Police Foundation, 2016. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 15, 2016 at: http://www.police-foundation.org.uk/uploads/holding/projects/governance_of_supra_force_specialist_policing_capabilities.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.police-foundation.org.uk/uploads/holding/projects/governance_of_supra_force_specialist_policing_capabilities.pdf Shelf Number: 141217 Keywords: Police AccountabilityPolice CollaborationPolice ReformPolice Specialist Units |