Police Performance Must Be Measured with Purpose

At a time when confidence in the police has decreased in many countries, especially among ethnic minorities^[1], it is crucial that forces are able to demonstrate accountability, transparency, and ongoing efforts to improve law enforcement practices. Putting in place robust performance measurement practices is instrumental in achieving this, as it enables police departments to adapt to changing circumstances, allocate resources effectively, and maintain public confidence in their ability to serve and protect the community.

However, there is often tension between the way in which the results of police work are measured and how officers understand the role of the police. The aspects of policing that are tracked may not fully reflect their day-to-day experience on the job. Measures set by national policymakers frequently focus on effectiveness in reducing crime, rather than performance in relation to outcomes, such as the relationship between police and the community. Police practitioners, however, may consider police work in safeguarding vulnerable people and increasing public perceptions of safety to be important additional areas where performance should be measured.

A Need for Consensus on the Purpose of Performance Measurement and a Coordinated Approach

The root cause of such tension is a difference in opinion on why performance should be measured. A police force's performance objectives, indicators, and targets are determined by what it wants to achieve through performance measurement. Whether the organisation is seeking to demonstrate a return on investment, improve the quality of its services, provide strategic direction to its work, or show accountability to the community (or a combination of several or all of these factors) will shape the framework for performance measurement that is considered appropriate for its needs.

A recent RAND Europe review of international approaches to police performance measurement found that in some countries, such as the Netherlands, there appears to be little consensus on the purpose of tracking performance. Due to their varying responsibilities and concerns, governments, groups within the police, and academics have developed different ideas about why it is important to measure the performance of the police and, consequently, about what should be measured. This can result in a disjointed approach to police performance measurement, which, in turn, may impact negatively on public trust in law enforcement, as opportunities for organisational learning and informed decisionmaking are missed.

RAND researchers highlighted how important it is that policymakers and police practitioners seek agreement on what they aim to achieve by measuring the performance of the police before setting the parameters against which this will be done.

Furthermore, it is not always clear who is responsible for different aspects of performance measurement. Across the 10 jurisdictions reviewed for the study, a range of national and local police performance stakeholders were involved in the process of developing, implementing, and maintaining measurement frameworks. In some cases, this appears to have caused misalignments between national and local policies, making it more difficult to identify where resources should be focused. To measure the performance of the police in a meaningful way, it is important that the functions and tasks of different organisations are clearly defined and delineated.

Evidence of Innovative Approaches

There is no question, then, that putting together a framework for performance measurement that policymakers and practitioners buy into can be challenging. However, once consensus has been reached regarding the purpose of performance measurement, the adoption of specific measurement frameworks can allow forces to improve processes, allocate resources more effectively, and strengthen public confidence in the police depending on the practices that are employed. In particular, the study identified several practices that may provide a more nuanced approach to police performance measurement by taking into account a wider range of outcomes, harmonising local and national frameworks, and harnessing new data sets. However, it is important to note that there is currently limited evidence available to assess the effectiveness of these practices.

For example, in England and Wales experts interviewed highlighted the change in performance assessment by the HMICFRS from an annual inspection to a process of continuous engagement, creating a feedback loop that was reported to enhance the inspectorate's understanding of the force and its performance. Interviewees also commented on the value of a national framework for performance measurement that facilitated meaningful comparisons between individual forces' performance, while ensuring sufficient flexibility to capture and reflect local variations in policing priorities, resources, and community expectations.

Moreover, some jurisdictions are incorporating more evidence-based approaches to performance measurement. In Sweden and New Zealand, for example, the Crime Harm Index is used to understand how the police are performing in relation to the types of crimes that create the most harm for individuals and communities, rather than looking strictly at crime volume.

Finally, the U.S. city of Seattle has incorporated new measures to assess police performance into the force's professional learning and development structures. Unlike most forces reviewed for the study, the Seattle Police Department (SPD) not only uses quantitative data to assess its performance, but also considers qualitative feedback to measure the quality of interactions between the community and the police. Furthermore, it uses automatic vehicle locator data, which detects an officer's location every few seconds, to track whether demand for police services in a particular area is being met. Interviewees also highlighted the use of more innovative data sources to inform performance measurement across the SPD, including data from automated transcriptions of body-worn cameras. Overall, while the new measures are yet to be fully tested, the SPD's approach presents a series of promising initiatives that may address important questions around racial disparities, under- and over-policing, and the quality of interactions between the police and the community that most other police jurisdictions have yet to ask themselves.

In conclusion, the challenges and tensions surrounding police performance measurement underscore the need for a unified and purpose-driven approach. The study emphasises the importance of establishing consensus among policymakers and police practitioners regarding the objectives of performance measurement. By aligning goals and clearly defining responsibilities, law enforcement agencies can overcome misalignments and foster meaningful organisational learning. Furthermore, innovative practices, such as the adoption of a process of continuous engagement, evidence-based approaches like the Crime Harm Index, and Seattle's use of qualitative feedback to track the quality of interactions between the community and the police, offer models for coordinated and modern measurement. These may help police forces improve their processes, allocate resources more effectively, and maintain public confidence in their ability to serve and protect the community.

References

^[1] Institute for Government (2023). Performance Tracker 2022/23: Spring update—Police; Tanya Abraham (2021). Trust in the police has fallen amongst ethnic minority Britons; NOS (2022). Enquête: vertrouwen in de politiek is enorm lag; Jeffrey M. Jones (2022). Confidence in U.S. Institutions Down; Average at New Low.

---

Emma Zürcher is an analyst and Rick Slootweg is a researcher at RAND Europe.