Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 11:45 am
Time: 11:45 am
Results for police accountability (u.k.)
1 results foundAuthor: Ipsos MORI, Social Research Institute Title: Police Accountability and Governance Structures: Public Attitudes and Perceptions Summary: This report presents the findings from qualitative research designed to explore public perceptions of police governance structures, and more specifically who the public feel should hold the Police to account. The research took place in four Police Force regions across England and Wales during the week commencing 23rd August 2010. Within each Police Force region one workshop took place. Workshops were deliberative in nature and were designed to allow participants to explore different options, including those proposed in the ‘Policing in the 21st Century – Reconnecting Police and the People’1 consultation paper. Qualitative research is designed to be exploratory and to enable in-depth understanding of views, not to be statistically representative. Conclusions therefore are indicative and not generalisable to the wider population. The research clearly showed that there is a general desire for greater visibility in police accountability. Participants felt a sense of reassurance in knowing the Police were currently and would continue to be held to account, and as such they wanted to be made more aware of any future model of governance. This translated into a strong preference for a visible and named figurehead for police accountability in each area. Participants thought that this figurehead should not only provide an element of visibility, but should also be a symbol of transparency and independence. Indeed, the need for independence was a particular focus for participants throughout discussions. Firstly, there was strong feeling that the role of a figurehead could not be carried out by someone with an obvious political allegiance. Secondly, it was felt that the role of the Police themselves in accountability needed to maintain a balance between ensuring their experience and expertise is maximised, while not allowing them to appear self-regulating in any sense. Linked to this the role of the Chief Constable was seen to be of great importance as providing a crucial link between Police Forces and the individual or body holding the Police to account. Despite participants having a strong preference for a local ‘figurehead’, only a minority of participants wanted an individual who would be solely responsible for holding the Police to account. The most common preferences for where responsibility should fall were either through a structure similar to that currently in place, or through a named-individual plus a scrutiny panel. Participants favouring this latter option envisaged that a scrutiny panel would work alongside a figurehead in both an advisory and scrutiny role. Interestingly, the desire for visibility and transparency did not necessarily translate into support for greater democratic involvement. Factors, such as a preconceived cynicism towards any Government devolving responsibility, and a questioning of the knowledge base on which an electorate would begin to decide who should take responsibility, made participants question this. For example, concerns were raised about possible divisive or corrupt candidates and as such there were calls for stringent vetting processes should it be decided that elections should take place. Participants also raised concerns about the cost burden of a formal election process. There was also a general consensus that those with relevant experience and expertise could be trusted to make suitable appointments for commissioner or panel roles. What mattered more to participants in terms of lay involvement would include: being able to feedback their experiences and opinions on crime in their local area to Police Officers through regular meetings, which those holding the Police to account would attend; making sure community members are in some way represented on an advisory or scrutiny panel, possibly through a process of election; and making sure the voices of key lay individuals are included in decision-making. This included groups such as victims of crime and young people. The future of police accountability. Based on the above key findings, it is possible to build a structure of police governance that summarised the consensus view of workshop participants. Details: London: Ipsos MORI, 2010. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 7, 2010 at: http://www.ipsos-mori.com/DownloadPublication/1387_sri-crime-police-accountability-and-governance-structures-september-2010.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.ipsos-mori.com/DownloadPublication/1387_sri-crime-police-accountability-and-governance-structures-september-2010.pdf Shelf Number: 120401 Keywords: Police Accountability (U.K.)Police-Citizen InteractionsPolice-Community RelationsPublic Opinion |