11293 report 19 - CAIN - University of Ulster

IntroductionThis document was prepared as a historical guide and overview to the process of policingoversight evaluation applied in Northern Ireland. The actual 19 reports, commencing in Septemberof 2001 and ending in May of 2007, can be found at www.oversightcommissioner.org or in theParliamentary Library, London. This overview is sectioned into Background, Methodology Process,Conclusion and Lessons Learned.BackgroundThe Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland (commonly known as the PattenCommission) was established as part of the 1998 Belfast Agreement, to review policingarrangements and make recommendations on policing reform. The Independent Commissiondelivered its 175 recommendations in September of 1999. The recommendations touched on allaspects of policing, including their role in society, organisational efficiency, policing philosophies,acceptability and accountability. The goal was to encourage the development of a police servicethat was viable and effective “in any imaginable circumstance”.A key recommendation relating to the implementation was the appointment of an independentOversight Commissioner from outside the United Kingdom or Ireland. The purpose of this wasto provide independent supervision of the implementation measures, and more importantly itcreated a spotlight of systematic public reporting that could assure the community that all aspectsof the reform were being implemented or seen to be implemented. The oversight mechanism wasalso intended to act as more than a mere stocktaking function, but by its very existence provide acritical impetus to the process of transformation and reform.Methodology ProcessThe DevelopmentThe Independent Commission did not itself develop specific measures against which progress onits recommendations could be benchmarked or monitored. The first Oversight Commissioner,Tom Constantine, established an evaluation team of experienced law enforcement and academicexecutives. This experienced team recognised that the evaluation process needed to be equippedwith an acceptable degree of scientific rigour, be capable of acquiring all necessary data and entailreporting that needed to be clear, credible and supportable.Although the Oversight Commissioner was appointed in May of 2000, the substantive evaluationdid not commence until September of 2001 with the release of a report detailing the standards ofevaluation and performance indicators 1 . One of the major reasons for the delay was that theGovernment did not detail its final acceptance or rejection of the Independent Commissionrecommendations until the release of its August of 2001 Implementation Plan. There was anearlier government implementation plan that was widely rejected.2421This turned out to be fortuitous because one of the 1st ‘lesson learned’ is to take an appropriateamount of time to set up the evaluation process