Literature on Police Reforms in the Nordic Countries

The Best Police in the World. The Police Reform in Denmark

The most comprehensive of the Nordic studies is Balvig, Holmberg & Höjlund Nielsen (2011), Verdens bedste politi, politireformen I Danmark 2007-2011 [The Best Police in the World. The Police Reform in Denmark 2007–2011]. A summarized version is included in Fyfe et al. Centralizing Forces (2013): Holmberg & Balwig “Centralization in Disguise – The Police Reform 2007–2010” (see also Holmberg 2014 for a summary).

Their evaluation was based on multiple data sources, including:

In general, the results showed a decline in citizens’ and police partners’ confidence in the police in the first years after the reform. The same goes for police efficiency. Police officers expressed dissatisfaction with their ability to do their job and rate of solved cases decreased.

However, three years after the reform was implemented, the satisfaction with the police on a national level increased to the level before the reform. In addition, the response time decreased. However, on a local level, citizens’ and local partners’ evaluation continued to be lower than before the reform. Local partners describe a loss in personal ties and that the police had lost their local affiliation. This lack of local knowledge forced police officers to rely more on force and numbers than before.

Change Management Challenges in the Danish Police Reform

Rex Degnegaard’s (2010) doctoral thesis, Strategic Change Management, Change Management Challenges in the Danish Police Reform, has a managerial perspective with focus on unforeseen consequences of the reform in regards to change management and organizational implications.

The method is described as multi-sited with field studies at the section for implementation at the National Commissioner’s Office, supplemented by field studies at an operational level, formal and informal interviews and discussions with top management as well as members at other levels of organization, and analysis of written documents.

Degnegaard finds a lack of organizational abilities in regard to change management and strategic change leadership as central factors in why the Danish police reform cannot be described as a success.

In the implementation of the reform he describes a technocratic process with its rational logic. There has been an excessive dependence on external experts and consultants without knowledge of the police organization’s special character. The planning of the process of the police reform was drawn up on management technologies developed under other premises than those of the police organization. Furthermore, there was a lack of management skills to handle these. The same goes for the implementation of new IT technologies, including phone systems, which were developed without the necessary skills to handle these technologies.

With focus on the changed organization, the current and previous situation has been disregarded. Therefor the implementation was made without understanding of the informal organization and its collective culture. Instead, it was based on a top-down process where feedback from the organization was neglected. The management’s communication to the organization was directed towards individuals, rather than the collective that was new in the organizational culture. For example, the way of filling new positions came to mean an individual competition and rivalry, which challenged the previous collective principles for promotion.

In relation to the external environment, the police management did not realize the importance of and its influence on the discretion of the organization and the managerial space. This has resulted in loss of the organization’s freedom of action and unfortunate consequences for both the managerial level and operational level.

All this has resulted in a lack in trust and frustration within the organization as well as in the outside environment.

Restructuring the Finnish Police Administration

The Finnish contribution in Fyfe et al. (2013), “Restructuring the Finnish Police Administration” is written by Kristina Haraholma and Jarmo Houtsonen. It is based on an evaluation made by Haraholma² and ordered by the Police College of Finland.

The empirical basis consists of the police national result data system and surveys such as the police barometer and the police personnel barometer.

The article describes the background of the reform, which was based on influences from management theory such as New Public Management. In accordance with the rest of the public administration in Finland the reform should be guided by five aspects: security of a minimal service standard in the whole country, increasing productivity and profitability, management by results, maintaining cooperative relations with various partners and securing of the personnel’s motivation.

The relation between the ministry and the National Police Board was changed, police chiefs got new positions and at least formally a more strategic role. However, according to the authors the reform did not have any significant effect on police services at the local level. As opposed to other countries, the police work was carried out as before and no major changes in productivity of police work were observed.

But police officers were more critical of the reform. Experience of increased bureaucracy, inequality and dissatisfaction was reported especially from smaller stations. Measurements of citizens’ perception of the police had on the other hand not declined, but persisted at a high level. This was confirmed by Vuorensyrjä (2014), who from a survey reports that organizational stressors on labour turnover intention have been increasing in the Finnish police force during the police reform years.

Swedish Police: The Piece of the Puzzle That Did Not Fit

Bo Wennström’s book (2014) “Svensk polis: pusselbiten som inte passade in” (Swedish Police: The Piece of the Puzzle That Did Not Fit) was published the year before the reform. He also summarizes his reasoning in Fyfe et al. (2013): Police Reform in Sweden: How to Make a Perfect Cup of Espresso.

Wennström’s book is based on interviews with, among others, former high police commissioners, government officials and ministers of justice. His focus is the processes behind the reform. From an institutional perspective, he analyses underlying motives for the reform, the parliamentary committee’s proposal and anticipated results of the reform.

One of Wennström’s conclusions is that the politicians abdicated their responsibility and left it to state officials to set the agenda for the reorganization of the police. This has led to a reform “blindly focused on organization and management” without an analysis of the terms of policing. In particular, he stresses that the police mission requires discretion on the level of implementation

Evaluation from the Swedish Agency for Public Management

There is an ongoing evaluation carried out by Statskontoret (2016) [the Swedish Agency for Public Management] on behalf of the Government. This is one of three reports: Ombildningen till en sammanhållen polismyndighet: delrapport 1 om genomförandearbetet [Reorganization to Form a Coherent Police Authority: Interim report 1 on the implementation process].⁶ The next report will be published in autumn 2017, and the final report autumn 2018.

In this report, it is stated to be too early to assess the reform’s impact on the Police Authority’s operations. In this report, the focus lies “on how the reorganization has been implemented and whether the Police Authority has created the conditions that will allow the reform’s objectives to be achieved in the long term”.

The report is based on several sources: an overview of research on change processes in large reorganizations,⁷ interviews with 120 managers, mostly on regional and local levels, surveys carried out in autumn 2015 among police employees in the local police area, prosecutors and managers in the municipal social services. Furthermore, within the University of Gothenburg’s SOM surveys, questions were asked about the public perception of police activities.

Unlike Wennström and Björk’s analysis, the tone of this report to the government is diplomatic and with an understanding perspective. It notes that in certain respects, the reorganization has come as far as could be expected, but that several elements of the implementation process could have worked better. They state that steps have been taken to get closer to the general public as the introduction of local crime prevention efforts.

One concern from the evaluation is that it will be difficult to maintain efforts because municipal and area police are resources that can be used for other things. Local crime prevention efforts can be perceived as a paper product and therefore do not fulfill their function in the efforts to get closer to the citizens.

Central in the evaluation is that focus of the implementation has been on central management and on reinforcing the national structure with its emphasis on uniformity. This has led to a gap between what has been internally expected reform and the actual outcome. A central problem in this is that there have not been permanent managers in place on the local level. Furthermore, the work in the local police districts has not received sufficient priority. The continuous deterioration in the results of investigative operations should be rectified by reinforcing the investigative operations with resources and expertise, and developing and introducing new working practices.

Also, Haake, Rantatalo and Lindberg (2015) have made a study of police leaders during major organizational change pressures with 28 police leaders during 2014. They find that leadership at a policy level deviates from leadership in practice. This departs from the idea that police leaders will be agents of change promoting organizational reform. Instead, it is suggested that they represent a barrier to change initiatives.

Reforming the Norwegian Police between Structure and Culture

In a working paper in English, Christensen, Lægreid and Rykkja (2016) analyse the central public reports and documents leading to the police reform. These include the official inquiry report about the police response to the terrorist attacks of July 2011 (Report from the July 22 Commission⁸), the following inquiry report on reforming the police (The Police Analysis)⁹ and the resulting government proposal¹⁰ and parliamentary discussion which led to the decision for the police reform.

They conclude that while the inquiry after the massacre 22.7 2011 focuses on culture and leadership leading “to a potential cultural revolution which changed attitudes and police leadership”, the Police Analysis pointed to the need for structural reorganization by prescribing organizational mergers” (ibid., p. 25). The Police Analysis as well as the government’s final suggestions followed a structural/instrumental approach where hierarchy, centralization and standardization were central to create a robust police force. However, there was a discussion on how this centralization should go, where the Police Analysis suggested six regions while the government, after political compromises, indicated twelve, which was the final decision.

Police in Crisis. The Game of Norwegian Police after July 22, 2011

Stig O. Johannesen (2015) analyses in his book the development of the police after the massacre on July 22 2011, including the Norwegian police reform that followed: Politi i krise, Spillet om norsk politi etter 22.juli 2011 [Police in Crisis. The Game of the Norwegian police after July 22, 2011]. (For a presentation in English of the authors’ basic criticism, see Johannesen 2016).

Johannessen’s book has major similarities with Wennström and Björk’s books above. With a basis in organizational theory, it is more analytical and provocative than empirical.

Like the Swedish critics, his focus is on the investigation that preceded the reform, “Politianalysen” [the Police Analysis] for its emphasis on central control, excessive uniformity and lack of links to the police operative reality. He also criticizes the report’s lack of a basis in scientific organizational knowledge and claims that the Police Analysis reminds most about an ideological manifesto for the police director, based on Taylorist management philosophy.

Police Employees and Managers' Assessment

In a report by Renå (2016) police employees’ and managers’ attitudes to Norwegian police reform are presented: “Nærpolitireformen. Politiansatte og lederes vurdering av dagens situasjon og forventningar til reformen [The Community Police Reform: Police Employees and Managers' Assessment of the Current Situation and Expectations of the Reform].

The survey was sent out in summer 2016 to all police employees and was answered by 36.8%. Eighty-six percent of the responses stated that reform would mean an increased centralization of resources; less than 20% stated that it would lead to more effective crime control, strengthening of crime prevention to children and youth, and a more visible and accessible police. Of the police personnel, only 8% believed that the reform would lead to higher visibility and accessibility, and 12% to more effective crime control.

The author concludes that the study strongly indicates that the political and administrative authorities have a job to do in gaining support for reform within the organization, and that the further process will be demanding.

A similar result is presented by the magazine of Norway’s police union Politiforum.¹¹ They report in a survey among their members (response rate 35%): 57 % disagree with the statement that the reform would lead to “police being improved to prevent and combat crime” while nearly 75 % disagree that the reform will ensure the presence of a “competent and efficient local neighborhood police”.

Evaluation of the Community Police Reform Status Report 2016

A parallel to the Swedish government-initiated report mentioned above is a status report from the Agency for Public Management and eGovernment who on behalf of the Ministry of Justice and Public Security have evaluated the Norwegian reform, Direktoratet for forvaltning og IKT (Difi) (2017). Evaluering av nærpolitireformen Statusrapport 2016 [Evaluation of the Community Policing Reform, Status Report 2016]. This is the first of three reports. A second report on culture, attitudes and management will be published in 2017, and an impact evaluation of whether the objectives of the reform have been achieved and an evaluation of the place of service structure will come out in 2019.

Sources for the report include Renå’s survey on attitudes to the reform mentioned above, national citizen surveys, and interviews with leading representatives of the police organization. There have also been carried out case studies of three police districts, including interviews with employees’ representatives from municipalities as well as central collaboration partners.

The report concludes that both the police employees and the municipalities have little confidence that the reform will be successful. It notes that the concept of community policing is problematic and that both the police employees and people in general perceive that the reform will lead to more centralization. The goals of the reform are perceived as overambitious and contradictory. In addition, there is considerable uncertainty that the necessary information resources and communications technology will be available.