Scribd
Upload
62 views2 pages

UK Home Office: CLEVE MSF

This document provides a peer comparison of police performance in Cleveland and other police forces for the period of April 2004 through March 2005. Cleveland's performance is assessed as fair in reducing crime, investigating crime, providing assistance, citizen focus, resource use, and local policing. Its performance is assessed as good in promoting safety. Cleveland showed stable or improved performance direction in all areas assessed over the previous year. The document identifies peer police forces for comparison and the metrics used to evaluate performance in seven key areas.

Uploaded by

UK_HomeOffice
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
62 views2 pages

UK Home Office: CLEVE MSF

This document provides a peer comparison of police performance in Cleveland and other police forces for the period of April 2004 through March 2005. Cleveland's performance is assessed as fair in reducing crime, investigating crime, providing assistance, citizen focus, resource use, and local policing. Its performance is assessed as good in promoting safety. Cleveland showed stable or improved performance direction in all areas assessed over the previous year. The document identifies peer police forces for comparison and the metrics used to evaluate performance in seven key areas.

Uploaded by

UK_HomeOffice
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Police Performance Assessments 2004/05 Peer Comparison

POLICE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENTS 2004/05

PEER COMPARISON

The table below shows the performance of Cleveland compared to its peers for the
period 1 April 2004 – 31 March 2005.

EXPLANATION

Police forces operate in different environments and it is reasonable to expect that


performance will vary because of this. By comparing forces which operate in similar
environments we are able to identify relative strengths and weaknesses. Therefore,
each force is compared to forces which are most similar to it. Peers are identified
using a range of geographic, demographic, and socio-economic information and
each force has its own unique group of peers.

The first force in the table (name in bold) is the ‘force of interest’. The other forces in
the table are its peers in alphabetic order.

Each force is assessed in seven key performance areas: Reducing Crime;


Investigating Crime; Promoting Safety; Providing Assistance; Citizen Focus;
Resource Use and Local Policing.

Two assessments are made in each of the seven areas, both of which are based on
a combination of performance data and professional judgement.

The first assessment concerns the performance delivered by a force over the last
year (2004/05). Typically, this judgment is made by comparing the performance
achieved by a force to that achieved by a group of similar forces (its peers). For each
performance area a force can be graded ‘excellent’, ‘good’, ‘fair’ or ‘poor’.

The second assessment is made on direction by comparing the performance


achieved by a force in one year to that achieved by the same force in the previous
year (ie 2004/05 compared to 2003/04). For each performance area a force can be
graded ‘improved’, ‘stable’ or ‘deteriorated’.

FURTHER INFORMATION

The Home Office and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary published ‘Police
Performance Assessments 2004/05’ in October 2005. All assessments plus
underpinning data are available at:

http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/performance-and-measurement/performance-assessment
Police Performance Assessments 2004/05 Peer Comparison

Reducing Investigating Promoting Providing Citizen Resource Local


Force
Crime Crime Safety Assistance Focus Use Policing

Cleveland Fair Fair Good Fair Fair Fair Fair

Stable Stable Improved Improved Stable Improved Improved

Merseyside Good Fair Fair Fair Good Good Good

Stable Stable Stable Stable Improved Improved Stable

Northumbria Excellent Good Good Good Fair Good Excellent

Improved Deteriorated Improved Stable Improved Improved Stable

South Yorkshire Good Good Fair Poor Poor Fair Fair

Stable Stable Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved

West Midlands Good Good Fair Excellent Good Good Good

Improved Deteriorated Improved Stable Deteriorated Improved Improved

West Yorkshire Good Excellent Good Good Poor Good Fair

Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved Improved

End

You might also like