full report of community policing impact evaluation_main_doc

NIGERIA POLICE

'F' DEPARTMENT

COMMUNITY POLICING SECTION

COMMUNITY POLICING IMPACT EVALUATION

APRIL 2010

FULL REPORT

WRITTEN BY:

ACP. AUSTIN I. IWAR,

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,

COMMUNITY POLICING.

EVALUATORS NOTE

All references to Community Policing in this document include Neighbourhood Policing and Intelligence-led Policing and envisage the future existence of Community Policing (CP) within a wider multi-partners Community Safety (CS) Strategy, for the reasons provided below.

This Impact Evaluation recognises that the Nigeria Police Force (NPF) does not operate in a vacuum; it works best in close conjunction with other institutions of the rule of law and with partners from varied institutions, civil society and the diverse communities it serves. The NPF also operates on the world stage, requiring its leaders to be mindful of global and regional issues that may affect Nigeria and its policing practices.

Ultimately, the NPF has the role of upholding the law, safeguarding justice and protecting the lives, rights, and dignity of its citizens and visitors – it cannot achieve this Herculean task without support. Therefore, the Force’s CP philosophy will work most effectively when it operates as a key element of a wider multi-partners Community Safety (CS) strategy.

A fundamental requirement of CP is a decentralised neighbourhood based-structure that promotes close relations with members of the community (Neighbourhood Policing - NP). In brief summary this requires the NPF to generate empowered police personnel that have geographic ownership and accountability. Together, CP and NP enable intelligence-led targeting of the issues that matter most to communities (Intelligence-led Policing).

Intelligence-led Policing (ILP) requires the NPF to: interpret the crime and disorder environment, including potential victims/targets; ensure police partners and police staff implement appropriate action plans; and finally guarantee that those actions have the required impact on the crime and disorder environment.

2

CONTENTS

Page Subject

2 Evaluators Note

3-17 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Introduction

Historical background

The introduction of Community Policing

2002: The DFID Access to Justice Programme

2004-2005: The role of the Nigerian police reform process

2004: The Community Policing Project Plan

2005: The DFID Security, Justice and Growth Programme

2007: Report and Implementation Plan: SJGP Community Safety

2007-2010: Revised Community Policing Plan

Development of Police Divisions

The American experience

Presidential Committee on Police Reform

The NPF Philosophy of Community Policing

Strategic support for Community Policing

18-33 CHAPTER TWO: THE IMPACT EVALUATION

Introduction

Purpose of evaluation

Evaluation methodology

Thematic Evaluation Results

Successes

Challenges

Lessons Learnt

Results

Recommendations

Conclusions

33 REFERENCES

Appendix

1 NIGERIA POLICE - ‘F’ DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY POLICING SECTION -COMMUNITY POLICING INSPECTION CRITERIA

3

REPORT ON COMMUNITY POLICING IMPACT EVALUATION

FULL REPORT

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1. Introduction

In December 2009 the Inspector General of Police (IGP) commissioned ‘F’

Department to evaluate the impact of Community Policing in Nigeria. Although

personnel from ‘F’ Department’s Community Policing Section have assisted

international partners with external reviews, this resultant report is the first of its kind, as

the Nigeria Police Force (NPF) has not carried out an organisational evaluation of

Community Policing since its introduction in 2003.

The implementation of Community Policing by the Government of Nigeria was

predicated on certain fundamental realities, which constituted the drivers of change for a

new police service. As an emerging democracy, it was apparent that all government

institutions, including the police, must democratize their service delivery. Moreover,

community experiences of military primacy stimulated a growing public demand for

more accountable, intelligence-led, responsive and service oriented policing.

In order to understand the aforementioned fundamental realities, this Chapter

begins with a brief overview of the historical background to policing in Nigeria, followed

by the background to Community Policing. Chapter 2 details the purpose, methods and

results of the evaluation including the key successes, primary challenges and lessons

learnt. It then makes informed recommendations and provides a conclusion to the

research. Copies of the Community Policing Inspection Criteria Evaluators’

Assessment Sheets are provided at Appendix 1.

4

This evaluation report will therefore afford the IGP and his command team with the

opportunity to assess and evaluate the effectiveness of Community Policing; support

policy formulation; and assist in identifying the way forward. It will be complemented by

the ongoing DFID/SJG-funded survey on the external impact of Community Policing on

communities.

1.1 Historical background

Countries in transition or emerging democracies usually experience periods of

rapid social, economic and political changes affecting state structures, agencies and

their performance, which is often coupled with a rise in criminality. Of critical importance

to these changes is the development and sustenance of a strong police institution. The

police perform crucial roles in the development of democratic principles, law and order,

legality and the perpetuation of democratic practices. While other agencies may recover

and re-establish public support and appropriate resources, policing is the key institution

that can guarantee social order and legitimacy. For an emerging democracy, like

Nigeria, any reform in policing must take into account the role of the police in facilitating

and perpetuating democratic values and practices. The fundamental functions of any

democratic police service are the protection of life and property, the maintenance of

public tranquillity and the prevention and detection of crime.

In Nigeria, historical, media and social science literature on police and policing

indicate that the colonial police forces, which were established in various parts of the

country at different times between 1861 and 1960, were involved in brutal suppression

of the indigenous peoples (Alemika and Chukwuma 2000; Alemika 1988; Ahire 1991;

Rotimi 1993; Odekunle 1979; Tamonu 1970;). They were constantly used to maintain

the exploitation and repression of labour. According to Tamuno (1970:220) “in some

cases the police used batons, rifles and revolvers to suppress, maim and kill persons

who opposed colonial rule and policies”. Tamuno further notes that “the police earned

the displeasure of some trade union leaders and members, a factor which did not

promote good public relations as far as workers were concerned”. Alemika (1988:176)

further elucidates on this point that “colonial police forces in Nigeria were organized and

5

oriented to behave as occupation forces – ruthless, brutal, corrupt, dishonest and prone

to brutalizing the colonized peoples and vandalizing their properties”.

After Nigeria’s independence, rather than reorient the police towards embracing

democratic values, subsequent post-colonial ‘democratic’ and military administrations

used the police to enforce all sorts of authoritarian and anti-people laws and practices,

further deepening the culture of violence that the police had inherited. Therefore, for

most of its existence, Nigeria has been governed through non-democratic institutions

and processes. The police are central to governance because they are responsible for

enforcement of the laws of the government in power. If the citizens view these laws as

authoritarian or illegitimate, the enforcers, the police, are likely to be scorned. Thus,

police personnel in Nigeria have being viewed and characterized as brutal, corrupt and

ineffective by the communities they are intended to serve. Consequently, their

relationship with the public has generally been characterized by mutual antagonism

(Alemika, 1988). Lack of cooperation between the police and the public has negatively

impacted on the performance of the police, as well as society’s capacity to effectively

prevent and control crime.

As the country emerges from several years of military dictatorship to a democracy,

the police will increasingly be responsibility for managing this transition and, more

importantly, guaranteeing and consolidating Nigeria’s nascent democracy. As

gatekeepers of the criminal justice system, the competence of the police to provide

services that guarantee swift access to justice will be in greater demand and Nigerians

will continue to insist on safety, security and protection from violent crimes and other

forms of criminality. Community Policing is seen as a strategic step in transforming the

police and improving its performance and service delivery.

1.2 The introduction of Community Policing

Having summarised the history of policing in Nigeria, it can be seen that the

introduction of Community Policing was a watershed in the development of democratic

values and practices. This Section provides a background to the introduction and

6

implementation of Community Policing in Nigeria, including an overview of the

involvement of international partners.

1.2.1 2002: The DFID Access to Justice Programme

The NPF originally introduced Community Policing in March 2002, in partnership

with a British Department for International Development (DFID) funded ‘Access to

Justice Programme’, which was designed to work with the federal government and four

“focal states”. The original design contemplated broad support for Nigerian-led reform

with a long inception phase to allow relationships between the contractors, DFID, the

government and civil society participants to develop.

1.2.2 2004-2005: The role of the Nigerian police reform process

The Inspector General of Police (IGP) and the Secretary to the Federal

Government formally launched the Community Policing Project in Enugu State in April

2004. A report by Stone, Miller, Thornton and Trone (2005) stated that according to

those involved in the implementation of Community Policing, support from the Enugu

State Governor was one of several examples of increasing government support at the

State and Federal levels for police reform in Nigeria. It stated that the advocates for the

Community Policing Project include the President, Minister of Police Affairs, Police

Council, Police Service Commission, Senate Committee on Police Affairs, Police Affairs

Committee of the House of Representatives and the Nigerian Bar Association.

The report by Stone, Miller, Thornton and Trone (2005) went on to say that

increasing media attention, with regular feature stories on police reform and community

policing, was also heightening interest in Community Policing. It finished by stating that

DFID’s Police Adviser had obtained the agreement of the Minister of Police Affairs for a

legislative framework to enshrine Community Policing as a statutory requirement of the

NPF, plus a supplementary budget to support the NPF Project Team. At the time of this

Impact Evaluation, the legislative framework is not in place but a budgetary framework

has been approved.

7

The change of IGP in early 2005 did not visibly result in any diminution of support

for this effort. The new IGP approved an extension of the Community Policing pilot to

six more states. The NPF Project Team then commenced a programme of multi-rank

sensitization workshops for police personnel at Federal and State levels (5000

participants attended these series of workshops) and trained more than 50 Community

Policing Developers (CPDs). These CPD officers were then deployed to targeted

divisions to launch a programme geared at changing attitudes and behaviours within

both police station personnel and surrounding communities.

1.2.3 2004: The Community Policing Project Plan

In 2004, the NPF Project Team developed a Community Policing Project Plan

(2004) with the following two aims:

a) To facilitate the development of Community Policing throughout Nigeria

b) To examine the policies, strategies, structures and organisation of the Nigeria Police, to ensure that the applicable principles and core values of Community Policing are enshrined in the professional performance, ethics and codes of conduct of the Nigeria Police.

The Project Plan consisted of the following six interrelated elements that formed

the bedrock of the implementation strategy for Community Policing.

a) Manage and deliver an awareness, sensitization and information sharing campaign on community policing;

b) Implement Community Policing training for officers in the States;

c) Examine and develop current organizational structures to drive community policing;

d) Examine and develop the current training and development function;

e) Develop an intelligence-led policing style, including new technology and science; and

f) Examine laws, police processes and procedures.

1.2.4 2005: The DFID Security, Justice and Growth Programme

8

The ‘Access to Justice Programme’ was redesigned in 2005, based on an

assessment by DFID of the “Drivers of Change” in Nigeria (DFID and FCO, 2004). The

previously mentioned report by Stone, Miller, Thornton and Trone (2005) stated that

Nigeria offers good examples of what has been possible to accomplish in the safety and

justice sectors in a situation where “conflict and violence in various forms are a fact of

life”. It went on to explain how the re-designed 2005 programme was known as

Security, Justice and Growth (SJG) and that it would continue to take a sector-wide

approach, but included states beyond the original four, with larger concentrations of

poor people.

The revised SJG programme included a clearer focus on conflict prevention and

the linkages between security and growth. The redesign was closely aligned with the

Nigerian Government’s National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy

(NEEDS) and the equivalent strategies at the state level (SEEDS). It also

encompassed informal as well as formal national policing structures as research

commissioned by DFID in 2003 indicated that most Nigerians had no confidence in the

national police (DFID Report, 2003). The respondents said that whilst they would prefer

to have a professional police service, they mostly relied on informal policing systems

whose members often behave as vigilantes. For similar reasons, the programme

emphasized work with traditional justice, alternative dispute resolution, and lower

courts, on which poor people depend. Moreover, the programme aimed to improve

formal policing, which is the major focus of this Impact Evaluation, through encouraging

a community-based approach to law enforcement and police oversight, known widely as

Community Policing.

1.2.5 2007: Report and Implementation Plan: SJGP Community Safety

The Security Component of the SJG Programme was again re-focussed in 2007,

following a number of drivers for change.

9

In particular, the DFID Annual Programme Review Report (APR) of 2006

expressed a number concerns and highlighted key areas of the Security Component

that required a review and re-orientation to incorporate both remedial actions as well as

necessary changes in light of a possible extension. In response to these drivers for

change a ‘Report and Implementation Plan: SJGP Community Safety’ (July 31st 2007)

was produced that set out the background, research, and new strategy for

implementation for 2007 – 2010. Inter alia, these included the need to:

a) Broaden the focus of the Community Policing project from police training to wider community and institutional development;

b) create a project management plan for the Community Policing project expansion rollout;

c) review the component’s monitoring and evaluation methodology, ensuring that it is not limited to perceptions surveys but is also corroborated by other instruments and data;

d) review, refine and broaden the range of key performance indicators being used in support of the above component monitoring and evaluation framework; and

e) facilitate and ensure greater Civil Society Organisation participation and involvement in the component activities.

Other drivers for change included the publication of the Presidential Commission

on Police Reform calling on the development of Community Policing as the key delivery

mechanism for policing in Nigeria. The Federal Governments’ SERVICOM1 programme

also enjoins all government ministries and department to focus on service delivery.

Additionally, the Presidential Commission on the Administration of Justice called for,

among other things, the development of a coherent approach to Crime Prevention.

These DFID reports provided the overarching context and direction for a DFID-

NPF Review Team, who consulted with key external and internal stakeholders and

ensured that full account was taken of Nigeria-led policy direction and developments in

the implementation of police reform led by the Police Service Commission, the

Presidential Committee on Police Reform, the Presidential Committee on Administration

1 SERVICOM is a service delivery initiative of the Federal Government of Nigeria to re-engineer the service processes, attitudes and results of the civil and public service. SERVICOM gives Nigerians the right to demand for good services and tells them what to expect and what to do if the service fails or falls short of their expectations.

10

of Justice, and other government institutions. Documentary reviews of key policy

documents, such as Harmonisation Committee Report on police, justice and prisons,

the Police Bill and other documents were conducted.

1.2.5 2007-2010: Revised Community Policing Plan

Following this DFID-NPF review, the revised methodology for the 2007-2010

Community Policing Plan was built on a five-part generic model of strategies, which are

Service Delivery, Accountability, Problem Solving, Empowerment and Partnership (see

Figure 1). The Model shows how the plan is designed to be integrated with Informal

Policing Systems and Conflict Management strategies. The strategies contained in the

plan were designed to comply, integrate and take forward, as far as possible, a number

of crosscutting themes. The plan thus defines Community Policing in the most holistic

terms and requires fundamental cultural and organizational change on the part of the

Nigeria Police.

11

Community Policing

Informal Policing

Conflict

FederalState

Local

Service Delivery

Accountability

Empowerment

Problem Solving

Partnerships

T I

T II

T III

T IV

T V

T VI

T VII

T VIII

T IX

T X

T XI

T XIIThemes STRATEGIES

LEVELSTHEMES

Figure 1: The Implementation of Community Policing Model (DFID-NPF)

The Model highlights that Community Policing is expected to engender the

following:

a. Respect for, and protection of human rights, particularly reduced violence in police-citizens encounters;

b. Less reliance on law enforcement and more on proactive activities;

c. Willingness to seek for, listen to, and act upon, public opinion regarding policing priorities – and more community involvement in setting and influencing policing priorities;

d. Transparency and openness in relation to activities and relationships, inside and outside the organization;

e. Increased mutual trust between the police and the public;

12

f. Greater problem-solving partnership between police and citizens;

g. Empowerment of all employees to make appropriate decisions, which will facilitate the delivery of a quality service;

h. Increased accountability to the community and the organization;

i. Demonstrable commitment at all times to deliver the best possible policing service; and

j. A better understanding of communities by beat/patrol officers.

1.2.6 Development of Police Divisions

The DFID-NPF Model recognised that Police Divisions form the primary focus of

Community Policing implementation, therefore massive sensitization and awareness

campaigns were mounted at that level within the police and communities – many are

still ongoing at the time of this Impact Evaluation. The concept of Neighbourhood

Policing with Dedicated Policing Teams (DPT) to manage micro-beats was also

introduced in some pilot States, such as pilot areas in Kano and Lagos. The following

personnel structures were also established and/or strengthened, as primary drivers to

improve police services:

i. Divisional Intelligence Officers (DIOs)

ii. Community Policing Developers (CPDs)

iii. Community Safety Officers (CSOs)

iv. Human Rights Officers (HROs)

v. Community Policing Officers (CPOs)

vi. Neighbourhood Watch Officers (NWOs)

In addition to these actions, divisional management structures in the pilot sites

underwent review and restructuring to accommodate Community Policing principles and

practices. This included intensive training programmes aimed at creating new skills,

knowledge and a change in the attitudes and behaviour of police managers and

personnel. In spite of the centralized nature of policing in Nigeria, divisional managers

are given wide discretionary powers concerning tactical and operational issues affecting

their Divisions. However, because of the traditional, hierarchical nature of micro-

13

managing police stations, very little input is sought from subordinates and the

communities they police. Divisional managers were therefore trained in democratic

policing principles, community policing, management and leadership techniques,

delegation, performance measurement, performance management, action planning,

partnerships, problem solving techniques, and accountability.

The aforementioned extensive sensitization and awareness campaigns were

conducted for members of the public targeting: Police Community Relations

Committees (PCRCs), neighbourhood watch groups, the media, national union of road

transport workers, market associations, motorcycle taxi riders, parents-teachers

association, community leaders and government agencies dealing with safety and

security issues. These activities have encouraged increased collaboration and

consultation between the police and communities in various aspects of service delivery

and community concerns.

1.2.7 The American experience

In addition to the aforementioned DFID-funded study tour to the UK to observe the

dominant philosophy of Community Policing – and the subsequent DFID partnership

with the NPF – the McArthur Foundation supported a study tour to the USA to

understudy the success and challenges America faced in the implementation of

Community Policing. Many of those trained NPF personnel joined the NPF Project

Team in the implementation of Community Policing.

Those officers observed that the Community Policing philosophy is also the

dominant model of policing in the USA, where the Office of Community Oriented

Policing Services (COPS) was created by the Justice Department to support innovative

work in Community Policing.

COPS defined Community Policing as ‘a policing philosophy that promotes and

supports organisational strategies to address the causes and reduce the fear of crime

and social disorder through problem-solving tactics and police community partnerships.’

As defined by COPS, Community Policing focuses on crime and social disorder through

the delivery of policing services that includes aspects of traditional law enforcement, as

14

well as prevention, problem-solving, community engagement, and partnerships.

Moreover, Community Policing model balances reactive responses to calls for service

with proactive problem solving centred on the causes of crime and disorder. Community

Policing requires police and citizens to join together as partners in the course of both

identifying and effectively addressing these issues.

1.2.8 Presidential Committee on Police Reform

In 2008, the Federal Government set up the Presidential Committee on Police

Reform headed by MD Yusuf. Moreover, the Committee was tasked with amalgamating

the ‘Report of the Danmadami Committee’ into its own report and making thorough

recommendations. The Committee deliberated extensively on Community Policing and

made the following recommendations, which were approved by the Government.

Recommendation 5.26 of the Government White Paper on the Report of the

Presidential Committee on Police Reform (April, 2008) clearly articulates the basic

parameters for the implementation of Community Policing in Nigeria – it states that: (i)

“There is need to adapt Community Policing to suit Nigeria’s peculiarities. Government

should formulate a Community Policing Policy and Framework for the country, taking

into account our cultural and political environment”. Full compliance with this

recommendation from 5.26 is yet to be achieved, even though substantial progress has

been made in this direction with the establishment of the Ministry of Police Affairs’

Department of Community Policing. It should be noted however that if the transition

from philosophy to operational practice is to be realised, fundamental changes are

required in the structure and culture of the police organisation.

The report at 5.26 further recommends that, (ii) “all police officers should

undergo training in the basic philosophy and practice of Community Policing”.

Substantial progress has also been made in this direction with more than a hundred

thousand police officers sensitized, while many have undergone short focused training

relevant to their rank. It then states (iii) “The principle of Community Policing should be

included in the curricular of all police training institutions”. The concept of Community

15

Policing has already been included in the new police training curricular, but it is yet to be

piloted.

The Reform also saw Community Policing as a straightforward concept of shared

responsibility between the police and the community, with a focus on provision of

efficient and effective service. Government therefore accepted the recommendation

that, (iv) “The police should establish effective police-community linkages from the

lowest to the highest levels to ensure the implementation of crime prevention strategies

and policing priorities of the various communities”. This infers the police participating in

the community and responding to the needs of that community, and the community

participating in its policing and supporting the police. One of the main enablers of public

partnership is the development and strengthening of Police Community Relations

Committees (PCRC) including increased and more representative membership, and

various Neighbourhood Watch schemes (Vigilante groups).

1.2.9 The NPF philosophy of Community Policing

It is in the light of this recent history that Nigeria’s Community Policing

Philosophy sets out three defining features:

i. That the responsibility for community safety and crime prevention is not solely that of the police, but a shared one between the police and the people;

ii. That policing is not simply about reacting to incidents or calls for service from the public once a crime has been committed. Rather, it is proactively addressing local problems and small issues before they grow into bigger ones and/or crimes – known as policing-as-a-process; and

iii. That Community Policing entails greater officer discretion, flexibility and freedom over how they do their jobs and respond to community needs, without the need to resort to formal rules and arrest procedures.

The NPF’s philosophy and strategy of Community Policing adopts an integrated model

that captures the essence of Community Safety and Crime Prevention. It is a hybrid of

different policing models, adapted to suit the Nigerian context, i.e. Community-oriented

Policing, Problem-Oriented Policing, traditional Policing and Intelligence–led Policing.

16

This created a multi-faceted, but all encompassing, Nigerian-specific model of

Community Policing – supported by KUSAB training (i.e. training that covers

Knowledge, Understanding, Skills, Attitudes and Behaviour) as represented below.

Through this integrated approach, Nigeria Police’s vision of Community Policing

puts the community at the core of service delivery. To achieve these require

fundamental changes in its present institutional structures, policing culture, ethos and

the skill base of its staff. The Force will require officers skilled in partnership

development and using up-to-date problem solving methods to effectively

tackle crime and anti-social behaviour. Officers would have to deliver results

to their communities in the form of a reduction in criminal activity impacting

on the quality of life of the communities they served. At the time of this Impact

Evaluation, Community Policing had been formally rolled out to 129 Police Divisions,

spread across 18 State Commands, which constitutes just 2% of the 6,000 plus police

stations/posts in Nigeria. However, it is important to recognise that some committed

17

Commissioners of Police have ensured that Community Policing training is cascaded

beyond the pilot sites.

1.2.10 Strategic support for Community Policing

In Nigeria, the Federal Government created the Department of Community

Policing in the Ministry of Police Affairs, whilst the Nigeria Police established the

Community Policing Section in its ‘F’ Department (Research, Planning and Information

Technology) at both Federal and State level. Many members of the former-CPMT now

staff this Section, buttressing the sustainability of Community Policing within the NPF.

Moreover, the IGP’s 3-Point Agenda, which is driving the production of a Strategic Plan

by ‘F’ Department, recognises the importance of the police reform process and the

reduction of serious crime through community policing, intelligence-led policing and

partnerships – leading towards an improved police image.

18

CHAPTER TWO

THE IMPACT EVALUATION

2. Introduction

Having briefly examined the historical background to policing in Nigeria, followed

by the background to Community Policing, this Chapter details the purpose, methods

and results of this Impact Evaluation including the key successes, primary challenges

and lessons learnt. It then makes informed recommendations and provide a conclusion

to the evaluation.

2.1 Purpose of evaluation

Since the introduction of Community Policing, numerous surveys and evaluations

have been conducted by the British Government's DFID to ascertain the impact of this

policing philosophy and operational practices on police personnel and the communities

they serve. Moreover, the promising results of these surveys encouraged more support

from donor agencies. Whilst NPF personnel were involved in many of these DFID

studies, the NPF did not carry out its own internal evaluation or assessment of

Community Policing. Therefore, the IGP commissioned this research by 'F" Department

to address this gap in the evaluation process.

The purpose of this Impact Evaluation is to assess the progress made by the NPF

in implementing the five key elements of Community Policing (Service delivery;

Partnership; Problem Solving; Empowerment; and Accountability) against the rigorous

criteria of the Policing Excellence Model (PEM), which is described in detail in the

following Section.

As mentioned previously, this Impact Evaluation will afford the IGP with the

opportunity to assess and evaluate the effectiveness of Community Policing; support

19

policy formulation; and assist in identifying the way forward, in line with his 3-Point

Agenda. It will be complemented by the ongoing DFID/SJG-funded survey on the

external impact of Community Policing on communities.

2.2 Evaluation methodology

Impact Evaluators from ‘F’ Department visited the Pilot Divisions within the 18

Pilot States as indicated in the chart below.

Inspection Team State and Divisions

CP Edgar Tam Nanakumo

ACP Austin Iwar

FCT: Gwagwalada; Asokoro; Maitama; and Garki.

BENUE: ‘A’ ‘B’ and ‘E’ Divisions, Makurdi

KOGI: ‘A’ ‘B’ and ‘C’ Divions, Lokoja

ACP James Ochai

DSP Fidelis Okunfolami

JIGAWA: Dutse; Gwaram; and Maigatari.

KATSINA: Dutsema; CPS Katsina; CPS Funtua; and CPS Daura.

CP Chris A. Ola

DSP Fidelis Okunfolami

OYO: Agodi; Iyaganku; Eleyele; Egbeda; and Sango

ONDO: Ijape‘A’ Division; Famibi; Okuta-elerinia; Oda and Idanre.

DCP Tunde Ogunsakin

CSP Jonah O. Musa

ASP Felicity Ugobor

LAGOS: Ogudu; Ikeja; Victoria Island; Apapa; Mushin; Surulere and Makinde.

CP Edgar Tam Nanakumo

ACP Meyiwa Steven Esimaje

ENUGU: Uwani and Ogui.

ANAMBRA: CPS and Awka.

CP Chris Ola

CSP Nendel J.D. Gomwalk

IMO: N/A

CROSS RIVER: N/A

DCP Hassan Adamu

ASP Yusuf B Kayode

KADUNA: Sabon Tashan; Kawo;

KANO: Gwagwarawa; Bompai; Sabon Geri; Dalla

DCP Hassan Adamu

ASP Yusuf B Kayode

BAUCHI: Township Division

BORNO: Gwenge; Ibrahim Taiwo Divisions

20

ACP James A. Ochai

CSP Jonah O. Musa

ASP Felicity Ugobor

OGUN: Adatan; Ilaro; Otta; Iperu; Ago-Iwoye; and Igbeba.

EDO: Ekpoma; Auchi; New Estate; Ugbowo; Adesuwa; Ogida; and Okhoro.

In assessing these States and Divisions, the NFP recognises that there are key

steps by which an organisation harnesses and releases the talents of its people to

produce results – they are the ‘Enablers’ that produce ‘Results’. The Enablers that

were tested during the Impact Evaluation are listed below.

i. Leadership

Does the behaviour and actions of NPF’s leaders support a culture of ‘excellence’ for Community Policing?

ii. Strategy and Policy

Is Community Policing integrated into NPF’s strategies and policies as the core policing function and are those strategies and policies deployed into plans/actions?

iii. People (NPF Staff)

Does the NPF realise the full potential of its people in relation to the implementation of Community Policing?

iv. Processes

Does the NPF manage and improve the sequence, tracking, handover and assessment of all its processes to facilitate Community Policing?

v. Resources

Does the NPF manages resources, effectively and efficiently to facilitate Community Policing?

vi. Partnerships

Does the NPF work in partnership with the community, thereby empowering the community to participate in its own policing to solve problems affecting public safety for the longer term?

The Results that will be tested through the inspection process consist of:

i. People Results

What are the employees’ perceptions of the NPF and how good are the drivers of employee satisfaction?

ii. Service-user Results

21

What are service-users’ perceptions of the NPF and how good are the drivers of customer satisfaction?

Note: NPF’s service-users are those who come into contact with the NPF through personal, telephone or written encounters –including partners, victims, witnesses and offenders.

iii. Society Results

How does society and the local community perceive the NPF and what results have been achieved relating to wider community concerns – such as the fear of crime preventing trade and recreation?

iv. Key Performance Results

What is the NPF achieving in relation to its planned performance within the philosophy of Community Policing?

Hence, service-user results, people results and society results are achieved

through: leaders driving policy and strategy; harnessing the potential of their people;

ensuring appropriate resources and systematic processes; and working in

partnership with their communities and other stakeholders. All of which leads to

excellence in key performance results. This relationship is shown diagrammatically on

the following page. Additionally, the full set of criteria and sub-criteria are provided at

Appendix 1 in the form of Impact Evaluator’s Assessment sheets.

In the light of these criteria, the 'F' Department evaluators held meetings with

police leaders and personnel charged with the responsibility of enabling Community

Policing in the 129 Police Divisions, across the 18 State Commands – thus State

Commissioners of Police, Divisional Police Officers and junior officers were interviewed.

Moreover, focus group meetings were held with diverse community leaders.

22

PartnershipsDoes the NPF work in partnership with the community?

People (NPF staff)


LeadershipDoes the behaviour and actions of NPF’s leaders support a culture of ‘excellence’ for Community Policing?

Strategy and Policy Is Community Policing integrated into NPF’s strategies and policies as the core policing function...?

Resources


Processes

Does the NPF manage and improve the sequence, tracking, handover and assessment of all its processes...?

People ResultsWhat are the employees’ perceptions of the NPF and how good are the drivers of employee satisfaction?

Society ResultsHow does society and the local community perceive the NPF and what results have been achieved relating to wider community concerns?

Service-user ResultsWhat are service users’ perceptions of the NPF and how good are the drivers of customer satisfaction?

Key Performance Results

What is the NPF achieving in relation to its planned performance within the philosophy of Community Policing?

ENABLERS

INNOVATION AND LEARNING23

RESULTS

2.3 Thematic Evaluation Results

Each Enabler and Result is now summarised in the form of a Pie Chart,

indicating whether it is performed poorly, adequately or excellently across the

pilot areas, supported with indicative comments and/or quotes. It is important

to re-emphasise that these assessment have been made against rigorous

PEM sub-criteria of ‘excellent police organisations’ and that the evaluation is

intended to be formative to promote NPF development and inform strategic

direction.

Impact Evaluators identified the key role of Leaders in the

implementation of Community Policing, for example:

‘...the command management team embraces and supports the five key elements of Community Policing...The Commissioner of Police attends organised meetings

personally with stakeholders, and delegate...as duty dictates...’

‘...The DPO is seen as effectively pursuing the concept of Community Policing, which has led to the arrest of some criminals...Information from members of the public were treated with...absolute confidentiality, this led to the arrest of two armed

robbers...and the recovery of all the items stolen...’

They also highlighted problems with inappropriate postings, which will

be detailed in the section on challenges.

1%

97%

1%

LeadershipPerforms Poorly Performs Adequately Performs Excellently

The Evaluators stressed the importance of continued Federal level

leadership support to the philosophy and strategy of Community Policing

through policy, strategies, funding and motivation.

Impact Evaluators highlighted the importance of training in relation to NPF

staff as trained officers appeared to fully understand the concept and were actively

applying the precepts – whereas untrained personnel believe it ‘is not their role but

the role of selected staff only’ due to a lack of adequate knowledge.

25

12%

87%

1%

NPF Personnel/staffPerforms Poorly Performs Adequately

Performs Excellently

24%

74%

2%

PartnershipsPerforms Poorly Performs Adequately


Policy and StrategyNote: insufficient data was available at the pilot sites on NPF Strategic Policy and Strategy.

Most respondents referred to the Community Policing Handbook as their implementation authority.

All the Impact Evaluators noted improvements in police-public relations

due to the formation of partnerships, which resulted in crime reduction and

increased feelings of safety, as the following quote highlights: ‘...There is a

reduction in the case of thefts of animals in the night, due to partnerships with

vigilante groups and the Okada Union. Furthermore people are now free and

coming forward to volunteer information to the police...’

Areas that are graded as ‘performs poorly’ predominantly refer to a lack

of Neighbourhood Policing (NP) i.e. neighbourhood ‘micro’ beats, thereby

reducing the potential for local partnerships.

Many evaluators highlighted a lack of specific funding for Community Policing,

particularly on-sight training/development and raised the urgent need for this to be

rectified. They also highlighted the fact that resources donated by stakeholders are

managed in a transparent and accountable manner.

26

26%

70%

4%

ResourcesPerforms Poorly Performs Adequately


27%

73%

0%

ProcessesPerforms Poorly Performs Adequately


0%

100%

0%

People ResultsPerforms Poorly Performs Adequately


0%

84%

16%

Service-user ResultsPerforms Poorly Performs Adequately


Evaluators noted that the current systems and processes were managed

effectively, but had not been updated to support Community Policing, with one or two

positive exceptions in the Pilot Divisions – for example, Intelligence-Led Policing

systems and processes had been introduced in some areas.

Evaluators identified that trained staff were happy to be involved in

Community Policing and the changed attitudes of their leaders and the

community were motivational. The majority of community service-users were

impressed with the changes in policing style – but some showed concern that

the police could still not be trusted as an entire organisation, even if individual

officers had developed.

Society Results were assessed through discussions with community groups

and all agreed that Community Policing has a positive impact on society – for

example traders are happy to sell their wares later into the night and community

members feel safe enough to patronise their stalls.

‘F’ Department’s evaluators subjected the above data to a full analysis

to identify key successes, primary challenges and lessons learnt – in order to

make informed recommendations and conclusions, which are summarised in

the following sections and Chapters.

2.4 Successes

27

The Evaluators identified the following successes in the Commands

and Divisions regarding the implementation of Community Policing.

i. 'F' Department's Community Policing Section, at both Federal and State level, worked closely with State and Divisional teams to implement Community Policing within NPF's overarching philosophy but tailored it to the specific safety and security requirements of the 129 Police Division jurisdictions.

ii. Improved perception of the police by the public. This is supported by DFID/SJG’s public opinion surveys, and focus group meetings conducted by evaluators in most of the pilot Police Divisions.

iii. An increase in the number of incidents reported to the police. Moreover, as the public have felt more confident to report criminal incidents, the police have been able to deal more effectively with their cases and provide feedback to the community on the steps taken and progress made.

iv. A reduction in crime, increased recovery of property and human-rights compliant arrests, which is also supported by data from recently trained DPOs across the pilot areas.

v. Awareness and sensitisation activities have ensured that communities and police officers in all the pilot areas are familiar with Community Policing principles and practices.

vi. The Community Policing Team have organised numerous joint training activities between community leaders, other community members and police officers.

vii. There are improved informal policing activities, and joint patrols between neighbourhood watch groups and/or vigilantes and the police.

viii. Initiatives to get young people involved in Community Policing activities have been organised enabling them to play a key role in bringing about safety for their communities.

2.5 Challenges

Despite the impressive range of successes recorded by the evaluators,

the introduction of Community Policing is experiencing a number of serious

challenges that must be addressed to ensure full implementation in line with

the reform agenda.

Whilst police skills and police-community relations have improved

dramatically since the introduction of Community Policing, particularly in the

28

pilot areas, it is true to say that our problems still include ineffectiveness,

corruption, brutality and incivility to members of our public by some members

of the NPF, resulting in a lack of trust for the entire organisation by many

members of our communities. In many areas the NPF also lack capacity,

infrastructure and funding. The evaluators recorded the following specific

challenges:

i. Lack of a National Policy: The lack of a strategic national policy on Community Policing, with implementation authority, guidelines and implementation mechanism has hindered the process of expanding to other states. Moreover, the lack of such a policy has created some confusion as to what the concept actually means in practice. Unfortunately, this has resulted in many police officers viewing Community Policing as 'add-on' to police work rather than a policing philosophy and strategy.

ii. Capacity gaps: The culture of any organisation is embodied in each and every one of its members – in the case of the NPF this involves 377,000 men and women across more than 6,000 police posts. Axiomatically, whilst the skills and capacity of thousands of police personnel has improved since the introduction of Community Policing, much more needs to be done to utilise their skills; cascade and sustain this reform; and achieve a critical mass.

iii. Unfulfilled expectations of Community Policing advocates: Many un-trained police officers at all levels, State Governments and communities have indicated a keen interest in Community Policing and Community Safety activities, but a lack of local police capacity makes it difficult to meet their implementation expectations.

iv. Incessant transfers: Severe difficulties have been reported in retaining trained officers in pilot Police Divisions. Trained officers require a sufficient period of time in a conducive environment to allow full utilization of their newly acquired skills and knowledge. Despite skilled instructions from NPF command to the contrary, officers who have been trained to play a crucial role in implementing Community Policing are frequently transferred to other duties. This is particularly damaging in a context where human and material resources are overstretched, and has an adverse effect on the continuity, effectiveness and sustainability of the implementation strategy. Moreover, it can undermine trust and confidence, since work put into building relationships has to start all over again.

v. Institutional resistance to change: There is still a widespread lack of understanding about, and full commitment to, reform by some police officers.

29

This is further hampered by low wages, poor working conditions and terms of employment, which continue to have a negative effect on police morale.

vi. Resource limitations and weak structures: While the expectations of communities are high, Community Policing has not been sufficiently funded to allow for a swift cascade process to create the all-important critical mass. Moreover, weak divisional structures and lack of clearly defined roles and responsibilities at divisional levels are further hampered by a lack of operational tools and guidelines for effective service delivery.

vii. Low public trust in the police: As mentioned in the introduction to this

section, despite moves to introduce and publicise Community Policing, a legacy of suspicion and mistrust between police and communities continues to hamper efforts to build relationships between the police and general public. This finding has been correlated to data received from the newly-trained Pilot Division DPOs who unanimously scored it as their biggest challenge, which they managed to overcome due to their training and personal efforts.

viii. Conflict: Conflict or potential conflict in certain regions of Nigeria continue to threaten police primacy and, as a consequence, the implementation of Community Policing. This is an alarming paradox – as the implementation of Community Policing in conflict-prone areas would drastically reduce the chances of such conflict reoccurring due to community-focused, proactive, intelligence-led policing (with a focus on tension indicators), and policing-as-a-process methodologies. Again, this finding is supported with data from the newly trained DPOs, particularly those who have utilised the new methodologies to successfully prevent conflict.

Realistically, the NPF will face these challenges throughout 2010 and beyond, but

they can be reduced through effective, short, focused, needs-based training and

development of police personnel to further develop NPF’s Community Policing ethos,

which puts the community as the foci of all police work. Equally, effective

engagement with communities and other partners is paramount in making Nigeria a

safe and prosperous place to live and work.

2.6 Lessons learnt

The Evaluators identified the following key lessons learnt.

i. Partnership development between the police and communities: The Community Policing programme has shown the importance of police-community initiatives, especially at local levels. Additionally, the pilot sites

30

have provided a laboratory in which to test and refine police options. For example, the piloting of a Community Safety Partnership in Gwagwalada in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) has informed the process of developing a national strategy for crime prevention and community safety, by providing appropriate methodologies, including grass-roots structures drawn from local communities.

ii. Building capacity for Divisional Management Teams: It is particularly important to strengthen capacity to manage change and institutional reform, for example through coaching and training senior police officers. Therefore, a key component of the extensive Community Policing training programme was the development of the leadership and management capacity of divisional management teams. The outcome has been improved leadership and ownership of the reform agenda, which is buttressing the police reform agenda particularly in relation to making the police services more transparent, adaptable, participative and consultative – all of which has reduced crime and improved quality of life for Nigerian communities in the pilot areas.

iii. Capacity development for stakeholders: Closer working-relationships with the police, particularly police-community partnership forums, supported by NPF-led stakeholder workshops have improved the problem-solving capacity of all stakeholders.

iv. Ownership and participation at all levels is crucial: The establishment of the Department of Community Policing in the Ministry of Police Affairs has further strengthened government commitment to the philosophy and strategy of Community Policing. Moreover, the clear and published leadership of the Inspector General of Police is a crucial enabler for Community Policing, creating a sense of ownership at all levels of the NPF. For example, the trained pilot site DPOs were encouraged and heartened by the IGP's commitment to the precepts of Community Policing throughout his 3-Point Agenda.

In relation to State-level ownership and participation, it is clear that in states with a committed Commissioner of Police, supported by an equally committed Governor, the philosophy and strategy of Community Policing has spread far wider than the Pilot Divisions, due to increased empowerment and cascade training.

The involvement of diverse community leaders in the implementation of Community Policing, particularly the identification of local problems and joint problem solving, has contributed significantly to local ownership and support.

v. Civil society has a broad and vital role in security sector reform: The role of civil society organisations in Community Policing has emphasised the

31

critical and central role they can play in security sector reform. Civil society organisations’ contribution is often seen as primarily about raising awareness in local communities, but the Nigerian experience has shown the value of a much broader engagement including participation in training and evaluation, police-community partnerships, and the sharing of physical and human resources.

8. Results

The key results of this inspection are:

i. There has been substantial progress in implementing the recommendations of the MD Yusuf’s Committee report;

ii. There is substantial progress in the development of Community Policing since its inception in 2003;

iii. There has been observable, evidenced improvement in the skills of police personnel, particularly within the pilot sites; and

iv. There is increasing community support for the policing process.

Despite this progress, more needs to be done to meet the aforementioned

challenges and fully embed Community Policing as the core philosophy and strategy

for policing in Nigeria, as highlighted in the following recommendations.

8. Recommendations

At the conclusion of this inspection, the evaluators made the following

recommendations:

i.Community Policing should be the laid-down published core operational philosophy and strategy for policing in Nigeria. This strategy should be founded on a sound corporate vision of the Nigeria Police Force.

ii.Community Policing should be legislated for in the Police Act.

iii.The NPF should develop the right institutional structures, at all levels, that will support the development of Community Policing.

iv.The NPF needs to empower and entrust frontline officers enabling them to respond more effectively to community concerns.

v.Community Policing should continue to be integrated into all police training curricular to further embed the principles and practice of Community Policing.

32

vi.In support of v above and in order to achieve a critical mass of Community Policing compliant personnel, the current short, needs-based, on-sight training and development of police personnel should continue with NPF funding, with immediate effect.

vii.The PEM methodology adopted for this impact evaluation of police performance, should be adopted by the police as the most modern tool for assessing the performance of NPF Divisions and personnel;

viii.The PEM methodology provides for a coordinated approach to collecting information from the police and the public and producing a comprehensive set of data. Therefore it should be further utilised for developing police plans, strategies and setting priorities;

ix.In order to mange public expectations, Police Divisions need to develop more effective partnerships, consultations and problem solving processes with communities.

9. Conclusion

The challenges faced by the NPF are serious and they are many – they will not be

met easily or in a short space of time. However, many Community Policing

compliant NPF personnel are tackling these challenges in their areas. Working in

partnership with thier communities, they are developing trust, utilising intelligence,

targeting their activities, reducing crime, and improving quality of life. Through

improved training and development more managers and senior personnel are

becoming committed to this integral element of the reform process – such

development needs to continue until we achieve a critical mass at all levels of the

NPF. Only then can Community Policing become the core operational philosophy

and strategy for policing in Nigeria – as one returning Evaluator said:

‘I am a career police officer and I never thought I would see this day; the communities were elated with their police officers and Community Policing. They were so eager to tell their personal stories to us – how they had worked with the police, how the police really were their friends and how proud they were to have helped in solving crimes and problems...Community Policing is the only way forward for Nigeria.’

A detailed breakdown of the inspection methodology can be found in Appendix 1.

33

REFERENCES

1. Alemika, E.E.O (1988) ‘Policing and Perceptions of Police in Nigeria’, Police Studies

Vol 11, No. 4:161-176.

2. Alamika, E.E.O (2000) ‘Police-Community Relations in Nigeria: What went wrong?’ in

Chuwuma and I. Ifowodo (eds) Policing A Democracy, Lagos: Centre for law

Enforcement Education

3. Joint DFID and FCO Synthesis and Review of UK Funded Safety and Security

Programmes: Nigeria Case Study, November 2004, paragraph 1.6.

4. Odekunle, F (1979) ‘The Nigeria Police Force: A Preliminary Assessment of Functional

Performance’ International Journal of sociology of Law (7): 61-83;

5. Rotimi, K (1993) ‘Local Police in Nigeria: Past, Present and Future; Malthouse Press,

Lagos;

6. Stone, C, Miller J, Thornton M, and Trone J, (June 2005) ‘Supporting Security, Justice,

and Development: Lessons for a New Era’. Harvard University and Vera Institute of

Justice

7. Tamuno, T.N (1970) ‘The Police in Modern Nigeria’ Ibadan University Press; Ibadan;

34

APPENDIX 1

NIGERIA POLICE

‘F’ DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY POLICING SECTION

COMMUNITY POLICING INSPECTION CRITERIA

NIGERIA POLICE

‘F’ DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY POLICING SECTION.


NAME OF COMMAND/POLICE STATION: NAME OF OFFICER IN-CHARGE FORMATION:

DATE:

NAME OF OFFICER CONDUCTING INSPECTION:

Leadership

Does the behaviour and actions of NPF’s leaders’ support a culture of ‘Excellence’ for Community Policing?

Performs Poorly Performs Adequately Performs Excellently

Is the CP/Area Commander/DPO a consistent internal and external advocate for Community Policing? Is he or she ready to promote Community Policing and provide success stories for any group or occasion?

Is the CP/Area Commander/DPO fully aware of the appropriate Community Policing legislation/Force Order, strategies, policies and codes of practice/ethics including NPF’s vision, values and mission for Community Policing?

Does the CP/Area Commander/DPO actively support the five key elements of Community Policing building of community relationships and community-based problem solving?

Does the CP/Area Commander/DPO develop the mission, vision and values and is he/she a role model of a Community Policing culture?

Is the CP/Area Commander/DPO personally involved in ensuring that NPF’s integrated management system is developed, implemented & continuously improved?

Is the CP/Area Commander/DPO personally involved with customers, partners and community representatives?

Does the CP/Area Commander/DPO motivate, support and recognise NPF’s people who are actively working towards the implementation of Community Policing?

Does the CP/Area Commander/DPO deal with the internal resistance, particularly from his or her subordinates who perceive Community Policing as a rejection of the prevailing police culture?

Does the CP/Area Commander/DPO deal with the internal resistance, particularly from his or her super-ordinates who perceive Community Policing as a rejection of the prevailing police culture?

Does the CP/Area Commander/DPO remove bureaucratic obstacles that stifle creativity?

Does the CP/Area Commander/DPO express openness to new ideas from all levels of the organization, including front-line personnel?

Does the CP/Area Commander/DPO back those who make well-intentioned mistakes?

Is the CP/Area Commander/DPO committed to dealing appropriately with the ‘bad apples’ whose actions can undermine the trust of the community?

Does the CP/Area Commander/DPO deal with those employees who are unwilling or unable to translate the Community Policing philosophy into practice, thereby effecting real change?

38

NIGERIA POLICE




DATE:


People (NPF Staff)



Operational

Are people resources planned, managed and improved in pursuit of Community Policing?

Are people’s knowledge and competencies identified, developed and sustained in pursuit of Community Policing?

Are NPF people involved and empowered in pursuit of Community Policing?

Is the communication flow two-way between NPF people and their managers?

Do ideas from front-line staff move upward within the organization?

39

Are NPF people rewarded, recognised and cared for in pursuit of Community Policing?

Do all officers, including front-line staff, exhibit leadership internally and externally for the commitment to and changes required by implementing Community Policing?

Do all officers, including front-line staff, express the philosophy and five principles of Community Policing in their work?

Do all officers, including front-line staff, engage in community building and problem solving in their work? Are they given the time, freedom, autonomy, and opportunity to do so?

Do all officers, including front-line staff, receive support from management in carrying out their commitment to Community Policing?

Has the job really changed?

Training for NPF People

Are Frequency and Importance of Training Needs Analyses (TNAs) conducted for all roles and ranks of the NPF – to ensure that the required skills for Community Policing are identified and integrated into the appropriate training courses?

Has the NPF syllabi been reviewed in the light of the TNAs?

Are the skills identified by the TNA (such as ‘developing and managing community relationships) interwoven into all operational training programmes – including command courses, recruit and detective training – to fully embed Community Policing philosophy and principles across the whole service?

40

NIGERIA POLICE




DATE:


Strategy and Policy

Is Community Policing integrated into NPF’s strategies and policies as the core policing function and are those strategies and policies deployed into plans/actions?


Legislation

Has legislation been introduced in support of the philosophy and principles of Community Policing, to establish it as the national policing philosophy and set up obligatory partnerships so that a more cohesive approach to local policing and community safety strategies can be implemented?

Vision/Values/Mission

Has the NPF written or revised these statements to reflect an organisation-wide commitment to the philosophy and principles of Community Policing?

Did the process of writing or revisiting these statements include soliciting input from all levels of the police service?

41

Did the process of writing or revisiting these statements include soliciting input from outside the NPF such as: community residents, business personnel, civic officials, public agencies, community institutions (schools, hospitals, and the religious community), formal and informal community leaders and non-profit agencies?

Strategy and Policy

Are Community Policing strategies and policies based on the present and future needs plus the expectations of communities and other stakeholders?

Are Community Policing strategies and policies based on information from performance measurement, learning and innovation, research and other key sources?

Does the NPF conduct crime pattern and complaint pattern analysis (at a service-wide level and at patrol team level) to inform Community Policing strategies and policies and thereby provide an information-led, problem solving approach to policing?

Are Community Policing strategies and policies developed, reviewed and updated?

Are Community Policing strategies and policies deployed through a framework of key processes?

Are Community Policing strategies and policies actually communicated and implemented?

Code of Ethics/Practice

Has the NPF written or revised a Code of Ethics/Practice that reflects the principles of Community Policing?

Does the Code of Ethics/Practice encourage input from inside and outside the NPF?

Does the Code of Ethics/Practice discuss issues such as civility, courtesy, respect for human rights and sensitivity to diversity?

Strategic Planning and Evaluation Process

42

Has the NPF devoted sufficient time and resources to ensure its strategic planning process facilitates the implementation of community policing?

What mechanisms are employed to solicit input from inside and outside the NPF to ensure adequate input from everyone – including front-line police personnel and community residents?

Does the strategic planning process itself provide opportunities to begin building new partnerships?

Does the strategic planning process itself provide opportunities to empower front-line personnel?

Can those involved in the planning process clearly describe what their plan is designed to achieve?

How does the NPF inject objectivity into the planning process, as a guarantee that the difficult questions will be asked?

Does the monitoring process include capturing qualitative as well as quantitative outcomes?

Is there a robust monitoring and evaluation system to reflect the many different kinds of success, such as a reduced fear of crime?

Is there a strategy to stay abreast of new opportunities and new problems?

Is there a plan to keep modifying and adapting the implementation plan?

Divisional Action Planning

Does the police division have an Action Plan?

Is the Action Plan developed in consultation with community members and police personnel?

What mechanism was used in involving community members and police personnel in designing the Divisional action Plan?

Can police personnel in the division clearly describe what the Action Plan is designed to achieve?

43

Does the action Plan have Performance Indicators?

Does the police division have progress report against the Action Plan?

Is there a robust monitoring and evaluation system to reflect the many different kinds of success, such as a reduced fear of crime?

What challenges are faced by the police division in designing the Action Plan?

How is success in the division documented?

How is individual success rewarded?

:

NIGERIA POLICE

44




DATE:


Partnerships

Does the NPF work in partnership with the community, thereby empowering the community to participate in its own policing to solve problems affecting public safety for the longer term?


Neighbourhood Partnerships

Does every neighbourhood (macro beat) have a dedicated Neighbourhood Policing Team (NPT) with lead responsibility for policing its area?

Does every micro beat have a named officer with lead responsibility for policing its area?

Does each neighbourhood and beat have a Neighbourhood/Beat Profile?

Has every beat officer undergone a Beat Patrol Officers Course?

Are NPT and beat officers empowered to determine their own local priorities and set their own objectives, within the

45

overall Policing Plan and in consultation with community representatives?

Are there Project Plans that contain details of the priorities and objectives for the neighbourhood/beat under review?

Is there an evaluation of the Project Plans?

Do the NPT and beat officers understand the importance of providing information to contribute towards intelligence-led policing?

Are appropriate resources allocated to the NPT and beat officers?

Is there evidence of Community engagement, including (but not restricted to) consultation; problem –solving; Community Impact Assessments?

Are there appropriate postings/abstractions policies or do the postings/redeployment of police officers to other duties have an adverse impact on the partnerships?

Is there evidence that the philosophy and style of policing is Community Policing?

Formal Partnerships

Was the partnership under review the best solution to the identified problem/issue?

Is there appropriate membership? – are all interested parties involved? – has anyone felt excluded?

Has sufficient time been allowed during the planning process to allow trust to develop?

46

Have the members of the partnership established a shared vision and common goals?

Is the required expertise available in the partnership to solve the problem/issue?

Are all members of the partnership aware of problem-solving methodologies, including (but not restricted to) the Problem Analysis Triangle and the SARA Model of scanning, analysis, response and assessment?

Has the partnership developed teamwork strategies?

Is there evidence of open communication in the partnership?

Does the partnership have adequate resources?

Has the partnership developed robust Action Plans, using the SMART formula? (SMART = Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound plans)

Does the partnership measure progress, success and failures?

Is the partnership sustainable?

Are there appropriate postings/abstractions policies or do the postings/redeployment of police officers to other duties have an adverse impact on the partnership?

NIGERIA POLICE

47




DATE:


Resources


Performs Poorly Performs adequately Performs Excellently

Have funding priorities been revised to reflect the priorities of Community Policing?

Are Finances for the implementation of Community Policing managed in a transparent and accountable way?

Has the NPF realistically analysed its resource needs to implement Community Policing?

Has the NPF clearly justified the need for additional Community Policing resources?

Has the NPF restructured and prioritised workload and services to free up patrol time for community policing?

Has the NPF worked with the community/its partners to develop alternatives to traditional handling of calls for service?

48

Are buildings, equipment and other material resources supplied for the implementation of Community Policing managed in a transparent and accountable way?

Is available technology for the implementation of Community Policing managed in a transparent and accountable way?

Are intangible resources such as information, knowledge and trust appropriately valued and managed to further the implementation of Community Policing?

Has the NPF considered flattening the management hierarchy as a means of creating more patrol positions for Community Policing?

Has the NPF considered de-specialising (eliminating, reducing, restructuring or civilianising specialised units) as a means of creating more patrol positions for Community Policing?

NIGERIA POLICE


49



DATE: NAME OF OFFICER CONDUCTING INSPECTION:

Processes

Does the NPF manage and improve the sequence, tracking, handover and assessment of all its processes to facilitate Community Policing?


Does the NPF design and manage the sequence, tracking, handover and assessment of all its processes to facilitate Community Policing, particularly in relation to service delivery; partnerships; problem solving; empowerment; and accountability?

Are processes improved using innovation and consultation to fully satisfy and generate quality service delivery for customers and other stakeholders?

Are all policing services designed and developed based on customer needs and expectations?

Are policing services delivered and monitored to facilitate the implementation of Community Policing particularly in relation to service delivery; partnerships; problem solving; empowerment; and accountability?

Are customer and society relationships managed and enhanced according to the key principles of Community Policing (service delivery; partnerships; problem solving; empowerment; and accountability)?

NIGERIA POLICE


50



DATE:


People Results

What are the employees’ perceptions of the NPF and how good are the drivers of employee satisfaction?

Performs poorly Performs Adequately Performs Excellently

Training

Have officers been trained in Community Policing appropriate to their role and level?

Awareness

Are officers of all levels aware of the philosophy and principles of Community Policing?

Attitude

Do officers of all levels perceive a difference in way they are treated?

Do officers of all levels perceive greater support from management in carrying out their commitment to community policing?

51

Are officers feel confident that their ideas move upward within the NPF?

Do officers of all levels feel involved and empowered in pursuit of Community Policing?

NIGERIA POLICE


52



DATE:


Customer Results

What are customers’ perceptions of the NPF and how good are the drivers of customer satisfaction?

Note: NPF’s customers are those who come into contact with the NPF through personal, telephone or written encounters.


Observation

Does the neighbourhood appear to be improved?

Can residents see the results of the programme?

Attitude

Do residents feel safer?

Statistics

Is crime down?

Have complaints about crime decreased?

53

Outcome measures

Reduction in neighbourhood victimisation rates

Reduction in adverse social and economic conditions

Reduction in number of neighbourhood ‘hot spots’ (drugs and violent crime)

Reduction in numbers of arrests

Reduction in emergency calls for service

Reduction in neighbourhood crime rates

Reduction in neighbourhood blight conditions

Reduction in residents’ fear of crime levels

Crime solution rates

Numbers of problems/crimes solved by police

Numbers of bona fide neighbourhood resident complaints successfully managed by police

Number of complaints against police

54

NIGERIA POLICE

‘F’ DEPARTMENTCOMMUNITY POLICING SECTION.


NAME OF COMMAND/POLICE STATION:

NAME OF OFFICER IN-CHARGE FORMATION:

DATE:


Society Results

How does society and the local community perceive the NPF and what results have been achieved relating to wider community concerns?

full report of community policing impact evaluation_main_doc

Documents