Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- List of boxes
- List of contributors
- Introduction
- Part I Performance measurement – functional analyses and theoretical foundations
- Part II Performance measurement – frameworks and methodologies
- Part III Performance measurement – practicalities and challenges
- Part IV Performance measurement in public services
- 16 Measuring the performance of England's primary school teachers: purposes, theories, problems and tensions
- 17 Police performance: sovereignty, discipline and governmentality
- 18 The development of composite indicators to measure health care performance
- 19 Perversity in public service performance measurement
- Part V Performance measurement – emerging issues and enduring questions
- Index
- References
17 - Police performance: sovereignty, discipline and governmentality
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 September 2009
By
Edited by
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- List of boxes
- List of contributors
- Introduction
- Part I Performance measurement – functional analyses and theoretical foundations
- Part II Performance measurement – frameworks and methodologies
- Part III Performance measurement – practicalities and challenges
- Part IV Performance measurement in public services
- 16 Measuring the performance of England's primary school teachers: purposes, theories, problems and tensions
- 17 Police performance: sovereignty, discipline and governmentality
- 18 The development of composite indicators to measure health care performance
- 19 Perversity in public service performance measurement
- Part V Performance measurement – emerging issues and enduring questions
- Index
- References
Summary
Introduction
This chapter considers performance measurement as a form of knowledge that is intimately connected with power. The setting for the study is the measurement of police performance and how performance measurement constitutes and is constituted by knowledge and power. The work of French philosopher Michel Foucault is used to understand how performance measurement has been a tool by which the sovereignty of government over policing has been established, and how performance measurement has been adopted as a disciplinary measure, such that both can be viewed as governmental technologies involving the use of power to constitute knowledge deemed to be important for political purposes.
The context of policing
Policing in England and Wales (the “Home Office” forces) is carried out through forty-three relatively autonomous police forces. Governance of policing is tripartite, comprising the chief constables, a police authority for each force area and the Home Secretary. Chief constables (or commissioner in the case of the Metropolitan Police), as the professional head of each force, have independence from political interference in operational matters. Police authorities are responsible for setting the force budget, determining local priorities and holding chief constables accountable for their performance. The Home Secretary is responsible for the efficiency and effectiveness of policing nationally.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Business Performance MeasurementUnifying Theory and Integrating Practice, pp. 363 - 382Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2007
References
(1998a). Local Authority Performance Indicators 1996/97: Police Services. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Audit Commission (1998b). The Publication of Information Direction '98: Performance Indicators for the Financial Year 1999/2000. London: HMSO.
Audit Commission (1999). Local Authority Performance Indicators 1997/98: Police Services. London: HMSO.
, with (1998). Turnaround: How America's Top Cop Reversed the Crime Epidemic. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
, and (2003). Measures vs actions: the balanced scorecard in Swedish law enforcement. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 23, 1475–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (1992). How Organisations Measure Success: The Use of Performance Indicators in Government. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2003). Police Statistics: 2002–03 Actuals. London: Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy.Google Scholar
, , , and (2002). Governmentality matters: designing an alliance culture for inter-organizational collaboration for managing projects. Organization Studies, 23, 317–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2001). The power of accounting: a field study of local financial management in a police force. Management Accounting Research, 12, 465–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2006a). Costing police services: the politicization of accounting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 17, 57–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2006b). In search of purpose and priorities: police performance indicators in England and Wales. Public Money and Management, 26(3), 165–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1994). Organizational change and accounting: understanding the budgeting system in its organizational context. Organization Studies, 15, 213–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1975). Discipline and Punish:The Birth of the Prison (trans. Sheridan, A.). Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
(1976 [1990]). The History of Sexuality, Vol. I, The Will to Knowledge (trans. Hurley, R.). Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1978 [1991]). Governmentality (trans. Braidotti, R.; rev. Gordon, C.). In , , and (eds.), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1982). Afterword: the subject and power. In , and (eds.), Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, 208–26. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
(1991). Governmental rationality: an introduction. In , , and (eds.), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, 1–51. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
, and (1995). From public administration to public management: reassessing a revolution? Public Administration, 73, 75–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Home Office (1993). Police Reform: A Police Service for the Twenty-first Century: The Government's Proposals for the Police Service in England and Wales, White Paper, Cm2281. London: HMSO.
Home Office (1999). Annual Report. London: HMSO.
Home Office (2001). Policing a New Century: A Blueprint for Reform, White Paper, Cm 5326. London: HMSO.
Home Office (2004a). Building Communities, Beating Crime: A Better Police Service for the 21st Century. London: HMSO.
Home Office (2004b). National Policing Plan 2005–08: Safer, Stronger Communities. London: HMSO.
(1995). The “new public management” in the 1980s: variations on a theme. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20, 93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (2004). Policing the police service: a case study of the rise of “new public management” within an Australian police service. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 17, 59–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1993). Performance indicators: 20 early lessons from managerial use. Public Money and Management, 13(4), 15–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, with (1999). The Crime Fighter: How You can Make Your Community Crime Free. New York: Broadway.Google Scholar
(1990). On the interrelations between accounting and the state. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 15, 315–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1997). In Search of Results: Performance Management Practices. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.Google Scholar
, and (1992). Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. Harmondsworth: Plume.Google Scholar
(2000). Improving Police Performance: A New Approach to Measuring Police Efficiency. London: HM Treasury.Google Scholar
(1995). Performance measurement and policing: police service or law enforcement agency? Public Money and Management, 15(4), 25–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1992). Political power beyond the state: problematics of government. British Journal of Sociology, 43, 173–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1995a). On the unintended consequences of publishing performance data in the public sector. International Journal of Public Administration, 18, 277–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1995b). Performance indicators and outcome in the public sector. Public Money and Management, 15(4), 13–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar