Periodic Reporting for period 1 - Unity (Unity)
Berichtszeitraum: 2015-05-01 bis 2016-04-30
The Unity vision is to strengthen the connection between the police and the diverse communities they serve to maximise the safety and security of all citizens. The end-user focus of Unity shall identify best practices in Community Policing (CP) through primary and secondary research to enhance cooperation between Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) and citizens.
Live pilot demonstrations of technological tools in six EU member states will facilitate, strengthen and accelerate community and LEAs communications. These tools will amplify and support the design and delivery of CP training and awareness raising activities to LEAs, citizens and community partners, including online virtual communities.
Unity will provide LEAs with a new CP model and shared framework of governance and enabling tools and technology to support closer cooperation for greater, more effective and efficient and more inclusive CP.
The citizen-centred approach of Unity supports the combined protection, safety, security and well-being of communities, but also supports an increased collective, shared ownership of large scale risks. Coordinated by pioneers and practitioners in CP, Unity is developing new ways of working, which will serve as a catalyst for change within communities, helping the latter to become an integral part of the solution, and thereby sharing the ownership and delivery of a sustainable CP model which simultaneously embraces the benefits of technology while meeting diverse community needs.
This new and sustainable citizen-centred CP model has trust, prevention, accountability and information sharing at its heart, providing the ability for two-way flows of information and communication to allow for greater understanding of the problems and issues faced by communities. By working with citizens and community stakeholders to arrive at a full understanding of their concerns, targeted interventions and solutions can be agreed to keep local communities’ safe and feeling safer.
Task 1.1 Project Management Plan
Work performed in this reporting period has been in line with Task 1.1 activities involved the creation of a project management plan. The plan details the protocols and mechanisms in place to ensure the delivery of Unity, including activities that are administrative, financial and technical in nature.
D.1 – Project Management Plan was designed and implemented and was submitted on the ECAS following peer review by SHU and FHVR in line with the deliverable date of Month 3.
Task 1.2 Project Governance and Reporting
Work performed in this reporting period has been in line with Task 1.2 activities involved, the organisation of the General Assembly, Technical Management Committee and Project Management Committee, Work Package Leaders and Coordination Team.
The internal management of the consortium, ensuring monitoring and control mechanisms were implemented
M1 – Unity kick off meeting was held with partners on 25th and 26th June 2015 in Wakefield, UK. The meeting was a success and partners were all clear on roles and responsibilities. The request for Edinburgh Napier to become a full partner was discussed and agreed at the kick off meeting, this was formalised in an Amendment request that has now been approved and implemented.
Monthly Work Package Leader calls were diarised and are held on the last Thursday of every months. The first call took place on Thursday 30th July. This process has been a success, with partners attending the call or providing updates via a report if they are not available.
D1.2 progress reporting template was created and was circulated, this report is completed every 3 months. Work package leaders use this reporting document to collate information on updates of progress on tasks and resources used. As Project coordinators we provide guidance on this process and send reminders when the reports are due.
Task 1.3 Project Coordination
Work performed in this reporting period has been in line with Task 1.3 activities involved, the implementation of the project management plan and the delivery of Unity’s aims and objectives. Key activities have been;
• Organisation of Consortium meetings, relevant workshops and preparation for M12 EC reviews
• Ensuring deadlines for deliverables were met
• Implementation of the Quality Management Plan (QMP)
• Support for project partners (technical, administrative and financial)
• Ongoing monitoring and management of risk
• Preparation of an overall project report
D1.3 Overall project report, is not due until M36, however our monitoring and management of the project allows the collation of information to be stored in preparation for the final report.
D1.4 Quality Management Plan was designed and implemented. This was submitted into ECAS following peer review by SHU and FHVR in line with the deliverable date of Month 3.
Distribution of the grant funding was completed I year one, and project coordination activities have been ongoing, with partners showing faith and support in the processes.
Task 1.4 Establishment of Unity sub committees and Advisory Board
D1.5 – Establishment of the sub committees has been completed and circulated to all Unity project partners. Committee’s roles and responsibilities have been communicated and discussed at the recent consortium 12 month meeting in Estonia.
The committees are supporting the development of Unity and offer expert guidance to the consortium on the development of Unity’s outputs. These sub committees include;
• International Advisory Board
• Scientific & Technical Steering Committee
• Security / Ethics and Confidentiality Committee
Work in Work Package 2 for the Months 1 – 12 is as follows:
D 2.1 has been completed. This was the ethical and ethical framework for the Unity project. This was developed through a literature review and through interviews conducted by all partners with ethical and legal experts in their own countries. This deliverable was completed on 30th October 2015.
D 2.2 was near completion by the end of Month 12. This deliverable considered the social and cultural implications of data gathering and online communication for particular intermediaries, minority communities and the police. Concerns each group may have in relation to information sharing with each other was explored. The data was collected via one to one interviews with native speaking researchers across each partner state which was then collated and analysed by the University of Dundee. The final deliverable was submitted on 8th May 2016.
Policing and Community Requirements and Best/Effective Practices
Deliverable 3.1. Unity: Report on Existing Approaches and Best/Effective Practices to Community Policing. Center of Excellence in Public Safety Management/Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam. Authors: Bayerl, P.S. Van der Giessen, M., & Jacobs, G.
Submitted: 31. October 2015
Summary: This report outlines current practices of community policing of seven countries, of which five will act as Unity pilot sites. The findings are based on 234 interviews with 64 members of police forces and 170 interviews with core stakeholders of community policing in these countries.
Deliverable 3.2. Unity: 1st Stakeholder Analysis – Shared Themes and Concepts. Center of Excellence in Public Safety Management/Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam. Authors: Bayerl, P.S. Van der Giessen, M., & Jacobs, G.
Submitted: 30. January 2016
Summary: This report describes the shared themes and concepts of community policing across eight countries (Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Germany, Finland, Macedonia and UK). The findings are based on 323 interviews with 88 members of police forces and 235 interviews with core stakeholders of community policing in these countries.
Deliverable 3.3. Unity: 1st Stakeholder Analysis – Comparative view on stakeholder needs and perspectives. Center of Excellence in Public Safety Management/Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam. Authors: Van der Giessen, M., Jacobs, G., Brein, E., & Bayerl, P.S.
Submitted: 30. April 2016
Summary: This report describes the differences in themes and concepts of community policing between police and external groups (organizations and communities) and the differences in themes and concepts of community policing between the participating countries (Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Germany, Finland, Macedonia and Great Britain). Core aspects (such as goals, tasks, capabilities and success criteria of community policing) were explored in an emic way. A total of 323 interviews have been analysed across eight countries, 88 of them from within police forces, 235 from external stakeholders, within and involved with the respective communities.
WP4: Community Policing Delivery framework
• Deliverable 4.1. Unity: First report on population and scope for the Combined Effect Architecture Framework (CPAF). Serco Europe. Authors: Laurence Marzell; Christopher Lewis; Indie Rai.
Submitted: 14. October 2015
Summary: The purpose of this first report into the population and scope for the Unity Combined Effect Architecture Framework (CPAF) was to communicate the initial, early stages in the build of the framework that will evolve and take shape over the course of the project; and, upon which the concepts and outputs of the Unity Community Policing (CP) project will be articulated and constructed. The structure of the architecture has been explored and validated by the Unity partners and in particular, by those end users within which we’ll be running pilots. The structure has proved robust and flexible to provide the foundation for and basis from which the Current Operating Model (COM) and then Target Operating Model (TOM) will be developed.
• Deliverable 4.2. Unity: First report on gap, capability and role mapping and assessment for Combined Effect Community Policing initiatives
between extant Community Policing methods and Community Policing Target Operating Model (TOM). Serco Europe. Authors: Laurence Marzell; Christopher Lewis; Indie Rai.
Submitted: 27. October 2015
Summary: This report outlined the initial phases of the assessment of the Combined Effect CP initiatives articulated in the TOM against the outputs on best / effective practice CP conducted in WP2, then to the consensual and shared risks, threats, harm and hazards mapped in T4.1. An analysis of potential gaps, overlaps and misalignments will be carried out. This analysis focussed on the currently existing resources and capabilities of the community stakeholders, relative to those required to meet these gaps and disparities through the Combined Effect CP initiatives. This also considered the possible impact of future developments to outline potential short-term and longer-term gaps and misalignments (up to 15 years).
A further outcome of this evolving gap and misalignment analysis will be the identification of short term and longer-term training needs including (technological) training infrastructures. This deliverable 4.2 is the first in a set of three deliverables that will be produced at Months 6, 18 and 30 based on Task 4.2 Gap, capability and role mapping and assessment for Combined Effect CP initiatives between extant CP methods and CP Target Operating Model.
The purpose of this first report into the T4.2 deliverable, has been to communicate the initial, early stages of this gap, capability and role mapping and assessment which, over the lifecycle of this project, will continue to evolve to provide the basis for the Unity outputs and solution.
Deliverable 4.3. Unity: First report on population and scope for the Combined Effect Architecture Framework (CPAF).
Summary: In preparation
D4.4: Second report on gap, capability and role mapping and assessment for Combined Effect CP initiatives between extant CP methods and CP Target Operating Model
Summary: To be started month 15
D4.5: First report on provision of usable community stakeholder outputs and meaningful scope for the CPAF, TOM and CONOPS
Summary: To be started month 17
D4.6: Third report on population and scope for the Combined Effect Architecture Framework (CPAF)
Summary: To be started month 27
D4.7: Third report on gap, capability and role mapping and assessment for Combined Effect CP initiatives between extant CP methods and CP Target Operating Model (M30)
D4.8: Second report on provision of usable community stakeholder outputs and meaningful scope for the CPAF, TOM and CONOPS
Summary: To be started month 30
No deliverable s for Work Package 5 were due in this reporting period. No deliverable s for Work Package 5 were due in this reporting period. However work was carried out in preparation for the next period as follows:
Deliverable 5.1: The main focus on Work Package 5 in period 1 was to initiate development on the high level architecture of the technical components, working closely with the consortium and in particular the work carried out in work packages 2 and 3, the initial components and interfaces have been identified in line with the requirements gathered for the proposed pilots. During this period the first draft of the high level architecture document was produced.
Deliverable s 5.2 – 5.6: Minimal progress was made during the first period as expected whilst Task 5.1 was the core focus. However preliminary research was carried out to review existing applications, initial discussions were held with LEA in preparations for the workshops and the necessary framework for the development of the server was created. In parallel to this, expectations from the LEA users were collected during the data gathering processes in other WPs so work could start on the data-driven analytics engine.
No deliverable s for Work Package 6 were due in this reporting period.
The WP 7 evaluates the developed technological tool(s) and interventions of community policing for their impacts. The evaluation comprises of baseline measurements, end user pilots in six countries (test-beds), and short- and mid-term effects for law enforcement agencies as well as individual citizens, local, regional and national communities, and private and public partners of community policing efforts. The objectives of this work package are following:
• To ensure the functionality and usability of the newly developed ICT- tool(s) for the diverse user groups (i.e. police, diverse citizens, different communities and organizations) in different usage and national contexts through cycles of tests and pilot implementations
• To evaluate the impacts of the newly developed tool(s) with respect to the processes and outcomes of community policing in the respective user groups (i.e. police, citizens, offline and online communities as well as the public and private organizations).
• Assessment of possible short- and mid-term impacts of police presence online on CP success, particularly impacts of ethical and societal issues leading to unintended side effects such as pressures on privacy and trust, resistance from users (e.g. increased privacy behaviours and surveillance) or changes in online relationships and behaviours.
• Assessment of the role diversity (e.g. in terms of gender) and different (national/legal/societal) contexts play in adoption and successful use of the new tool for online community policing.
T7.1: Determining evaluation criteria considering disparate users groups and usage contexts (M1-M6)
The criteria and blueprint for the technology evaluation has been developed and reported in Deliverable 7.1 Determining evaluation criteria considering disparate groups and usage contexts (October 2015). The responsible organization has been Erasmus University (EUR) with the help of Treelogic, Rinicom and Police University College of Finland (PUCF).
According to the Deliverable 7.1 the evaluation design for the pilots from baseline to mid-term evaluation comprises of three aspects: functionality and usability testing, technology acceptance and adoption and impact evaluation (including quality of police-community relationships, citizens' acceptance of community policing and engagement with police, and operational outcomes).
T7.2 Baseline measurements (M6-M12)
The corresponding deliverable for the task is D7.3: Report on results of the baseline measurements. Final design of the baseline measurement led by EUR and with input from pilot countries and Unity consortium members is currently ongoing (May 2016). The deadline for D7.3: Report on baseline measures has been moved forward to month 18 (Oct 2016) because no full pilot implementation has yet taken place and hence, no baseline data from pilots was collected. The newly agreed date with the EU project officer for the Deliverable 7.3 is 31. October 2016.
T 7.3 End user pilots, demonstrations and testing and validation (M6-M32)
Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire (OPCC) and Serco have been responsible of the planning of pilots, test beds and validations during the tool development phase. Croatian Police College, Estonian Police and Border Guard, Belgian police, Police University College of Finland (PUCF), West Yorkshire Police and FHVR Fachberei Polizei (in Germany) have contributed to the scenario building and pilot event planning.
Within Unity project the development and evaluation of technological tools proceeds with piloting. Tests and pilots were held in Zagreb, Croatia (Nov 2015), and in Tallinn, Estonia (May 2015); the following pilot kick-up events are intended to being carried out in months 17 (Munich, Germany), 21 (Antwerp, Belgium), 26 (Helsinki & Tampere, Finland), 31 (Bradford, UK). The first two pilot events in Zagreb, Croatia and Tallinn, Estonia were intended as proof of concept, i.e. no actual technology was deployed
to users. They were organized as scenario-based workshops providing proof of concept. The third pilot event in Munich, Germany will start the full evaluation process with baseline and short/mid-term measurements.
All pilot sites have developed real-life simulating scenarios of community policing issues and events. The scenarios describe current processes, procedures and tools, outcomes of community policing interventions prior and after the implementation of Unity approach and the added value provided by the possible Unity technological tools. The scenarios are therefore both realistic and innovative, describing the Current Operating Model (COM) and the Target Operating Model (TOM). The scenarios of six pilot sites have been reported in Deliverable 7.2 Scenarios and Pilot Specifications. Besides these scenarios all countries have developed two additional case-scenarios for later use. Aim is to choose the best working scenarios and use them in dissemination as training material (Task 8.1.)
In the first round of research conducted for this project led by Work Package 3, a key partner community was identified from across partner countries as being young people (aged 18 to 25 years old) from a ‘minority’ group, with the minority group to be determined by each country depending on their particular circumstances. This group were chosen as the ‘common community” around which each pilot country would develop their scenarios. In addition, organizations that support police works in accessing or addressing this minority group working has been identified as another target group in testing. Third group comprises of the local police force and subgroups within the police that deal with this minority group respectively. See Deliverable 7.1 Determining evaluation criteria considering disparate groups and usage contexts.
Preliminary user requirements of these groups, that is perceived social and cultural limitations of employing an ICT tool and systems for community policing, have been reported in Deliverable 2.2 Report on the Social and Cultural Limitations of an ICT Tool for Community Policing. More specific user requirements will be reported in Deliverable 2.3 Reports on requirements of diversity strand.
Task T7.4: Evaluation of short-term impacts (M24-M27)
To determine the immediate usability, feasibility and success of the developed tool(s) short-term impacts will be assessed across the selected user groups: community policing officers, intermediaries and communities. Young people (aged 18 to 25 years old) have been identified to be a key partner community from across partner countries. In addition, organizations that support police works in accessing or addressing this minority group working has been identified as another target group in testing. Third group comprises of the local police force and subgroups within the police that deal with this minority group respectively. See Deliverable 7.1 Determining evaluation criteria considering disparate groups and usage contexts.
With short-term impacts is referred to effects in the first days and weeks, up to six months after the implementation of the tool(s).
Three areas are addressed:
• Functionality and usability testing
• Technology acceptance and adoption
• Impact evaluation (including police performance, trust building, information sharing and communication, recognition of local needs, problem solving and prevention)
Special consideration will be given to diversity and ethical/societal issues impacting the adoption and usage of the tool(s), following the recommendations given in Deliverable 2.3 Reports on requirements of diversity strand.
Evaluation methods will be developed together with OPCC and PUCF with the support of EUR. Central methods, however, are usability experiments and analysis of objective data (e.g. statistics from police and/or public reports and databases). Feasibility and thus the exact choice of these methods will be affected by the accessibility to individuals, communities and organizations in a given context as well as the evaluation criteria defined in Deliverable 7.1. Based on the short-term evaluations design and usage recommendations will be formulated to inform further efforts in WP5 (technology) and WP6 (solution and integration).
Task T7.5: Evaluation of mid-term impacts (M30-33)
Mid-term impacts refer here to six months to one year after first implementation / usage of the tool. Special consideration will be given to diversity and ethical/societal issues impacting the continued usage of the tool(s) in relation with its viability for CP (online and offline) as well as impacts on the individuals, communities and organizations using it. The same methods as in T7.4 will be employed, but also including longitudinal measurements in the form of ongoing and/or repeated assessments of evaluation criteria.
Three areas are addressed:
• Functionality and usability testing
• Technology acceptance and adoption
• Impact evaluation (including police performance, trust building, information sharing and communication, recognition of local needs, problem solving and prevention)
Task 8.1 Training material development and training sessions for law enforcement agents
• First draft of Community Policing Training in cooperation with PUCF
D8.1 “Training material and plan of training sessions for law enforcement agents” is not yet submitted (M28). The working process has started in M12 in cooperation with PUCF and OPCC. A first draft of the development of training material and training sessions for law enforcement agents was developed.
Task T8.2: Awareness raising campaigns for citizens and stakeholders (M12-M15, M18, M28)
D8.2 “Plan and implementation of the Awareness raising campaigns for citizens and stakeholders” is not yet submitted. The working process for this deliverable has not yet started.
Task 8.3 Dissemination through website, press releases, conferences and publications
• Regular updating of the dissemination activity list
• Launch of the Unity Website including a participant portal
• Planned: Participation at 16th Annual Conference of the European Society of Criminology in Münster (21nd - 24th September 2016)
• Planned: Book “Community Policing in a European Perspective” – BayFHVR Chapter “CP and radicalization” (Delivery to Springer: 15th October 2016)
• Development of Newsletter (Period M1-12), Flyer and Brochure
D8.3 “Dissemination through website, press releases, conferences and publications” is not yet submitted (M36). The working process is initiated and following achievements can be mentioned:
- Partners presented the project on their websites, during different meetings and conferences and within publications (the list of dissemination activities is attached)
- The Unity Website was launched including a participant portal
- A Unity Newsletter (M1-M12) was developed
- A Unity leaflet and flyer were developed
- A book on Community Policing in a European Context is planned for October (Editors: P.S. Bayerl, R. Karlovic, B. Akhgar, G. Markarian; Publisher: Springer)
Task 8.4 Exploitation and realization strategy
D8.4: Exploitation and Realization Strategy (Decision: D8.4 is a living document through the lifetime of the project). D8.4 identifies opportunities for Unity partners to attend and participate at key events including conferences, seminars, symposia, workshops and other associated presentations being supported by the publication of papers in professional journals, academic publications and policy documents serving to inform and update specific target audiences concerning the developments and findings of all Unity activities.
• D 8.4 Exploitation and Realization Strategy in cooperation with SERCO and UoD
• Decision: D 8.4 is a living document though the lifetime of the project
Work Package 9
As requested by the PO, Deliverables 9.1 D9.2 and D9.3 have been created and refer to D2.5 and D2.6 all 3 deliverables have been uploaded onto the ECAS System.
Unity will have a far-reaching and positive impacts for individual citizens, their communities and the LEAs and wider partners and stakeholders who have responsibility for keeping communities’ safe and feeling safer. Unity offers a unique range of positive impacts within and well beyond the scope of expected impacts of the work programme.
Just under 800 surveys have been completed across Europe in the first 12 months of the Unity project. Unity has already started reaching and obtaining the views of our communities, stakeholders and representatives from LEAs.
Implementation of the Unity approach will have direct and indirect impacts on how a diverse range of citizens and communities interact with their local LEAs. Unity will engage and include members of the community in establishing procedures and processes for engaging the wider community. Through Unity, communities and their needs will heavily influence the best practise guidance and also the Unity framework and communication system, leading to an effective process directly developed in association with end-users.
By listening to our communities, in the first year of Unity we have started the work required to create cohesive communities where police are seen as catalysts for change and where citizens and communities take ownership of issues to be solved.
Increasing community participation in the problem solving process, Unity will thereby increase the sustainability of solutions addressing community concerns. Most importantly, Unity has and will continue to raise awareness within communities about the potential for effective collaboration with local LEAs, facilitating the participation of citizens, communities and partners by opening channels that has and will continue to enable effective communications with LEAs.
Increased empowerment will enable residents to be more directly involved in service delivery in their communities, this creates a process of working with local community partners and the police to increases their sense of empowerment.
Improved efficiencies will follow as Community partner agencies join the CP approach of Unity which will result in more effective and efficient delivery of services to meet local needs and requirements. Improving prevention, Information sharing, Trust, accountability. These four key priorities came out of the research undertaken with our communities through the surveys.
Perceived reductions in crime, disorder and anti- social behaviour gives our citizens an increased perceptions of reduced crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour from the feedback they receive through engagement, communications and meetings with partners on the actions taken to address local priorities. The Unity project facilitates this, and so produces an increased feeling of confidence in police and partners.
Unity will enable more effective problem solving. When issues are dealt with collaboratively through Unity more than one agency, partner representatives and citizens can engage to resolve issues more effectively.
Unity enables citizens to engage in joint problem solving, this will lead to increased confidence in partners to deal with their problems and as a result of their increased confidence, they will be more likely to further engage with partner organisations by reporting problems and providing information.
Citizens observe an improved perception of safety through experiencing increased visibility, access and engagement with police and community partners. The Unity Coordination Portal is where data posted by citizens will facilitating the sharing of information, LEAs can also engage, increasing the virtual access and engagement that communities are telling the project they want.
Representatives from community partner agencies will see results being achieved in their areas. This impact should in turn encourage partners to develop strong and productive personal working relationships with LEAs and citizens enabling greater communication.
The activities of Unity shall be of great interest and significance to nations beyond EU borders, reflected in the international participation and support of Unity from UNICRI (member of Advisory Board), UNODC and international academics who understand that all crimes and crisis emerge locally.
The results of Unity shall be shared with a wide international audience through the collective extended network of Unity partners to countries in Asia, Africa, Middle East, Australia and in the United States, all of which have an active interest in developing and implementing the next generation of CP. While Unity shall focus upon the safety and security of EU citizens, it has a global potential and resonance not just for citizens in other countries, but also for the millions of EU citizens who reside outside the EU.