Summary of comments to the State Services Commission - from the review of costs and benefits of de-merging traffic enforcement from Police, 2007.

Background to the Stakeholders' Comments

Purpose of the Interviews

In line with the 2005 Confidence and Supply Agreement with New Zealand First the Government undertook to "evaluate the costs and benefits of de-merging traffic enforcement from the Police".

The Terms of Reference for the review calls for a high-level picture of the pros, cons, risks, costs and benefits as a basis for deciding whether further work by officials is warranted. It did not intend that there be quantified costs or benefits in the review, or detailed alternative organisational and structural options for delivery of the traffic safety function. However, an indication of transition costs, risks, and implications were intended.

The Terms of Reference required that stakeholders be interviewed as part of the review.

The review was required to report to the Minister of State Services by 30 March 2007.

Approach

The State Services Commission interviewed¹ key stakeholders and analysed the issues from these interviews². The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) was appointed to independently analyse data from a range of data sources.

This document provides a summary of the stakeholders' comments.

Summary of Stakeholders' Comments

Support for De-merger

No individuals or organisations interviewed supported de-merging traffic policing from Police, although some stakeholders raised the option of differentiation of traffic policing within Police.

Public Perceptions

The stakeholders we interviewed had mixed views about the relationship between any negative public perceptions of/comment on the Police and traffic enforcement. Stakeholders varyingly said traffic enforcement has had:

• A significant negative impact;
• Largely positive impacts;
• Minimal negative impact;
• Some negative impact but that this impact was far outweighed by the community outcome benefits; and
• Little negative impact and that any negative public perception has arisen from issues other than traffic policing.

Some stakeholders raised the point that large parts of the public do not see the seriousness and criminal nature of some traffic offending, or understand the link between traffic enforcement and road safety outcomes, or the Police strategy for increasing road safety e.g. the Police 'crash book' strategy.

Some stakeholders observed that over the past 3-4 years there have been a number of media reports, internet 'blogs', talk back radio programmes and letters to the editor that suggest that some New Zealanders see Police traffic enforcement activities as revenue gathering. They also questioned whether this was the work of a select few of the public, rather than a large portion of the population.

One stakeholder pointed out that the merger of Police with the Traffic Safety Service changed the nature of the relationship between middle New Zealanders and the Police from one where middle New Zealanders would interact mainly with the Police by way of being a witness to, or a victim of, a crime, to being one where they now mainly interact with the Police as a potential traffic offender or over a compliance issue. The stakeholder thought this change in the type of interactions middle New Zealanders have with the Police has had down stream negative impacts on the way in which the public perceive the Police, and that there was an opportunity to rebuild the Police relationship with the public through a strategy of much greater differentiation between Police doing traffic policing and those on general duties.

Stakeholders raised several other suggestions of ways in which Police could further improve their image. These included improving their communications with the public and making better linkages between traffic policing and road safety.

Offenders being dealt with holistically

Some stakeholders quoted the following expression: "All criminals are drivers, but not all drivers are criminals" to make the point that offenders use their vehicles to commit most crimes. They also noted that there is a link between traffic offending, traffic accidents and general crime. They said there is an element of the population which is criminally motivated, or which doesn't care about society, and is therefore heavily involved in crime, traffic accidents and offending, and it is beneficial to be able to deal with these offenders at once, irrespective of the designated policing area, instead of having to wait for them to commit an offence which the officer, in their specific role, can detain them for.

They identified an important benefit of the current system as the Police ability to effectively and efficiently manage serious offenders who are engaged in both traffic and other serious criminal offending, and that this benefit would be lost in a de-merger. Examples given were: drug manufacturers using the road to move their 'P' labs, or traffic offenders stopped who are found with weapons, stolen property or drugs in their vehicles.

Some stakeholders also observed that in a de-merged situation there would have to be duplicated resources, given the potentially different powers and responsibilities which would be held by officers of the two organisations. They said that a significant degree of co-operation and information sharing between the two organisations would be required to ensure the current level of management of offenders who have committed both traffic and general criminal offences.

Impacts on ability to respond

Some stakeholders pointed out that currently all Police officers, regardless of the duties they are undertaking, are required to attend emergency call outs; in a de-merged situation, there would be a reduction in the total number of frontline Police officers available for these callouts.

The stakeholders advised that these changes could mean Police would need to reprioritise their work in order to continue the current level of emergency response, and there would be a negative impact on the general deployment ability, possibly resulting in longer response times to general crime.

Some stakeholders observed that smaller numbers of frontline staff in each organisation could result in reduced flexibility and capacity within each organisation, in relation to the deployment of staff, in a number of different ways. They identified impacts such as reduced flexibility for each organisation to manage through times of higher and lower work loads in any particular area of the organisation, and potentially reduced ability to resource saturated policing initiatives, e.g. "Stop Buses".

Visible policing resulting in perceptions in public safety and deterrence effects on offending

Some stakeholders highlighted the effectiveness of having both traffic and general duties Police officers on the roads and in the communities, as they regarded Police presence (regardless of current duties) as a deterrent to most types of offending.

Stakeholders also observed that communities feel safer when they see a Police officer in the area, regardless of what duties they are undertaking.

One stakeholder put forward that given that traffic funding was around 20% of the Police budget, and therefore assuming 20% of the funding would go to the new organisation, that general policing visibility would be reduced by 20%, and traffic visibility would be reduced by 80%.

Access to intelligence information

Intelligence information is currently gathered by all Police officers and is available to all Police officers, depending on their security status. Stakeholders observed that this would be unlikely to be the case if a de-merger went through, and this loss of access to information would impact negatively on the work of both Police and traffic officers.

Stakeholders raised issues relating to how the Police and traffic officers could have access to and use the intelligence that is gathered by either organisation, and that resolving this could involve expensive information technology changes, and privacy issues that would need to be worked through.

Stakeholders commented that it would be important that staff in both organisations have access to the same level of intelligence that they have now, otherwise there could be degradation in policing/traffic outcomes.

Service Levels

Some stakeholders observed that in small towns and rural areas the combined staffing provided to Police, through both general and traffic safety funding, means that there are more staff in the rural areas for back up and assistance than there would be in a de-merged system. They commented that given the lower numbers of staff available to deploy within both new organisations, the level of service to small towns and rural areas may reduce. Some stakeholders also said that general policing service levels would probably decline across most communities due to losses of efficiencies.

Public/Community/Agency interfaces with policing

Some stakeholders observed that a de-merger makes relationships more complex to manage, and that the more organisations there are, the greater the number of opportunities there are for misalignment of strategy and implementation around policing in general.

Stakeholders also expressed concern over the potential loss of relationships that have been built up over years, and joint strategies and approaches which have been developed, as a result of a possible de-merging of Police and traffic enforcement. There was also concern over the level of communication which would exist between general policing and road policing if they were separated.

Powers available to officers carrying out policing activities

Some stakeholders expressed concern for the safety of traffic officers if there were to be a de-merger, bearing in mind the lessened powers they would be likely to have in the new organisation.

Some stakeholders queried the relative enforcement powers traffic officers and Police officers in a de-merger, and what level of duplication there might be between the powers of the two types of officers. They thought that this issue would need to be thought through carefully.

Independence of Police/Traffic decision making

Some stakeholders raised the issue of constabulary independence, the importance of independent decision making in traffic policing going forward, and questioned how this would be managed in a de-merged situation.

Operational Issues

Stakeholders raised questions around aspects of infrastructure, relationships, and basic office organisation such as office space, vehicle fleets, branding, management structures, staffing numbers and salaries, career paths, business processes, technology and communication, and police and strategy coordination. They commented that many of these would have to be created, re-created, or duplicated for the new organisation.

There was concern among stakeholders that staff issues, relating to career structures and salaries and conditions in the new organisation, could impact on the ability to attract and/or retain experienced traffic staff into that organisation.

Issues around staff safety, for both organisations, given the assumed smaller staff numbers in both organisations, have to be worked through. It may be more difficult to provide back up within each organisation for staff in the rural areas. It could require a significant degree of working together and cooperation between the two organisations to maintain the current degree of back up for officers, according to some stakeholders.

Transitional and process issues

Concern was expressed by stakeholders that both management and staff would lose focus during any transitional period (which it was thought could be over a number of years), and therefore there would be a significant reduction in policing outcomes, in the short term.

Some stakeholders also said that both organisations would have to spend a considerable period of time building new business processes and work flows within and across the organisations.

Appendix A - List of Interviewees

• New Zealand Police
• Ministry of Transport
• Ministry of Justice
• Ministry of Health
• Land Transport New Zealand (LTNZ)
• Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC)
• Local Government New Zealand
• Police Association
• Police Managers Guild
• Victim Support
• Automobile Association (AA)

Appendix B - Discussion Points for Stakeholders

General

1 Can you describe what your interest is in traffic enforcement, and its role in Police?

2 Do you know what benefits were supposed to accrue from the merging of traffic enforcement with police in 1991? And what was the main effect in the five years that followed the merger?

Currently

3 Do you think having traffic policing carried out by the same agency as general policing is impacting on the image of Police in the community? If so, is this a positive or negative impact? What gives you cause to think this?

4 How does having traffic policing merged with general policing affect communities? Why do you think this?

5 Are there risks associated with continuing the current model? (For Police, for the community, for road safety, for crime prevention? For anything else?) If so what are they?

6 Under the current model, do you think general policing (crime prevention, criminal investigation and community policing work) is being eroded by too much emphasis on traffic functions, or vice versa? Why do you think this?

7 Are there benefits (financial and non-financial) associated with continuing the current model? (For Police, for the community, for road safety, for crime prevention? For anything else?) If so what are they?

Change

8 Do you see any benefits (financial and non-financial) in separating traffic enforcement from the Police? (For Police, for the community, for road safety, for crime prevention? For anything else?) If so what are they? Would these benefits be short term or long term? Why would these benefits result from a de-merger?

9 Do you see any risks in separating traffic enforcement from the Police? (For Police, for the community, for road safety, for crime prevention? For anything else?) If so what are they? Would these risks be short term or long term risks? Why do you think these risks would result from a de-merger?

10 Would there be any other major implications as a result of a de-merger?

Police? People? Systems? Structures? Business processes? The community? Crime? Road safety? Financial?

11 If traffic enforcement were to be de-merged from Police, where do you think it should ideally be placed? Why do you think this? What do you think the issues would be in doing this?

12 Does your agency support traffic being de-merged from Police? If so, why? If not, why?

13 Do you support traffic being de-merged from Police? If so, why? If not, why?

¹ See Appendix B for the questions asked of stakeholders.

² See Appendix A for the list of stakeholder organisations who were either interviewed, or who supplied written feedback.