RUDN Journal of Public Administration

ISSN 2312-8313 (print), ISSN 2411-1228 (online) 2022 Том 9 No 3 332–343

Вестник РУДН. Серия: http://journals.rudn.ru/
ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОЕ И МУНИЦИПАЛЬНОЕ УПРАВЛЕНИЕ publicadministrationy

DOI: 10.22363/2312-8313-2022-9-3-332-343
Research article / Научная статья

A Framework
for Measuring Performance
of Nigerian Police Force Organization
Mansur M. Bello ✉, Chubado Umaru
Federal University Gusau,
860242, Gusau, Nigeria
✉ [email protected]

Abstract. The Nigerian Police Force as an organisation is mandated to ensure public safety
through maintenance of law and order. Despite its old history, the rate of criminal activities
such as armed robbery, kidnappings for ransom, killing of innocent citizens, ethno-religious
conflicts in many parts of Nigeria is on the increase. Previous studies have indicated factors
that contributed to underperformance of Nigerian Police Force, but there is an insufficient
attention given on how to measure the performance of Nigerian police as a public service
organisation, especially by using the new performance management approach. This study
deploys a framework for measuring performance of police organisation in Nigeria. The study
uses literature on performance management drawing practices from both private and public
sector context to propose a framework for measuring performance of Nigerian Police Force. The
Input-output-outcome model is used to support the study. The study finds out that Input-output-
outcome model could have the potential of improving performance of Nigerian Police Force.
The study concludes that despite lack of clear outcome quantification, input-output-outcome
model of performance management practice could be a tool for improving and measuring the
performance of Nigerian Police Force.
Keywords: performance management, input-output-outcome, efficiency, effectiveness, public
outcome
Conflicts of interest: The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Article history:
The article was submitted on 01.06.2022. The article was accepted on 01.08.2022.
For citation:
Bello M.M., Umaru C.AFramework for Measuring Performance of Nigerian Police Force Organization.
RUDN Journal of Public Administration. 2022;9(3):332–343. https://doi.org/10.22363/2312-8313-
2022-9-3-332-343

Introduction

The public sector reform movement of 1980s introduced many changes in the
study and practice of public administration management. The drivers for these
reforms include the need for optimal performance of public service organisations
in a bid to provide cost effective public goods and services to the citizens.

© Bello M.M., Umaru C., 2022

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/legalcode

332 INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

 Белло М.М., Умару Ч. Вестник РУДН. Серия: Государственное и муниципальное управление. 2022. Т. 9. № 3. С. 332–343

The adoption of performance management practice in the public sector could

be attributed to the inefficiencies and ineffectiveness of the traditional model
of public administration that focuses more on public service inputs provision
without much emphasis on measuring public service outcome. Hood [1] argues
traditional bureaucratic model of public administration has failed to live with
the expectation of citizens in the area of prompt provision of public services and
efficient and effective resources.
Specifically, some of the problems associated with the traditional bureaucratic
model of public administration include too much emphasis on inputs (increased
in public spending and staffing) without paying attention to the actual results
produced and its impact on the citizens; lack of clear accountability for results,
because public servants are asked to be impersonal in the conduct of their work [2; 3].
The renewed emphasis on performance management is dated back to 1980s and 1990
aimed at improving both efficiency and effectiveness of public sector organisations
in responding to growing demands for cost effective public services in an era
of austerity affecting government over the world, and this idea gives outcomes and
quality of public services more prominence in many countries of the world [4].
In response to these, the global public management reform agenda requires
public sector agencies to concentrate more on achieving results as against inputs/
process. This reform agenda introduces new management techniques that could
be used to improve economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the public sector [5].
Performance management framework is among the set of these new management
techniques. It presents information on what agencies have done or expect to do with
the annual budgetary allocations provide [4].
The question begging for answers is that does performance management
technique is applicable to African countries since many African countries engage
in shaping and reforming their public administrative system. De Waal [6] submits
that like other continents of the world, performance management technique
is appropriate for African public sector organisations. Similarly, Kasim [7] discovered
that effective application of performance management techniques can improve
delivery of public services in Nigeria across three tiers of government (federal, state
and local governments). Additionally, to properly employ the use of performance
management in Nigeria, public managers must have the capacity to formulate
goals and objectives in accordance with the mission statement of particular public
sector organisation and also embrace the culture of target setting, accountability,
performance standards [7].
The Nigerian Police Force as an organisation is mandated to ensure public
safety through maintenance of law and order. Despite its old history, the rate
of criminal activities such as armed robbery, kidnappings for ransom, killing
of innocent citizens, ethno-religious conflicts in many parts of Nigeria is on the
increase. Adejokun [8] reports that the Global Peace Index (GPI) ranked Nigeria
146th least peaceful of 163rd countries in 2021. This is connected to the various form
of criminal activities that the Nigeria Police Force and other security agencies are
mandated to prevent, manage and tackle.
МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫЙ ОПЫТ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОГО УПРАВЛЕНИЯ 333
 Bello M.M., Umaru C. RUDN Journal of Public Administration,2022;9(3):332–343

Previous studies have revealed factors that contributed to underperformance

of Nigerian Police Force, but there is an insufficient attention given on how to measure
the performance of Nigerian police as a public service organisation, especially
by using the new performance management approach. This study contributes to the
growing body of literature by contextualising a model that could be used to measure
the performance of Nigerian Police Force as a public sector organisation.

The Concept of Performance

The term performance is a contested concept as it means different things

to different people. Drawing from Dubnick cited in Van Dooren, Bouckaert,
and Halligan [5], it could means ability to carry out tasks such as a police
patrol, a vaccination campaign, a medical treatment, teaching a subject, judging
in court. These tasks are example of performance on the basis of accomplishment
not actually on measured positive impact. Thus, performance could be viewed
as quality of actions accomplished not much about quality of results achieved.
That is ability to successfully finish a given task within a particular period of time.
Different from carrying out the task and doing it accurately, performance is also
considered to be about quality of achievement or results. That is the actual value
achieved in real term and its impact on the intended course of action.
Relating performance to the context of organisational studies, Dooren et al [5:4]
‘defined performance to means productive organisation’. That is organisation that
has the capacity to converts its inputs and outputs into outcome (positive impacts).

Performance Management

Andrews [9] defined performance management as the use of policies, strategies

and techniques intended to direct public managers and employee’s actions to improve
organisational efficiency and effectiveness. This definition centres on external
control of public managers to account for performance. Public managers are tied
with expectation of what to achieve with the allocated resources.
According to Bouckaert and Dooren [4] the main thrust of performance
management is to improve efficiency and or to direct public spending in meeting
demands and needs of the citizens. This is in response to the inadequacies of the
traditional model of administration where performance of public service agencies
is measured through compliance to formal rules and regulations service, ethics and
impersonality [2].
Dooren et al [5:20] view performance management as ‘a type of management
that incorporates and uses performance information for decision making’. The
performance information is used to measure the level of inputs, outputs or outcomes
produced by public organisation [4]. In this sense, the need for quantification
of output and outcomes in relation to the inputs used becomes necessary. This
paves way for emphasis on efficiency and effectiveness as the two major tools
of performance management.
334 INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
 Белло М.М., Умару Ч. Вестник РУДН. Серия: Государственное и муниципальное управление. 2022. Т. 9. № 3. С. 332–343

Efficiency and Effectiveness — Output and Outcome

OECD [10] defined efficiency from economic theory as a ‘relationship between
one of more inputs (factors of production) and one or more outputs [4. P. 162]. This
is regarded as production model of performance management, which derived from
the private sector [5].
According to Rutgers and Van Der Meer [11] efficiency is getting things
done in time with least costs to achieve outcomes (effectiveness). This production
model of performance focuses on prudent utilisation of scarce resources, time,
tools, equipment and manpower to maximise outputs/outcomes. That is achieving
maximum outputs from a given level of resources used to carry out a task. For
instance, a private firm usually converts resources in form of funds, manpower, time
and efforts into finished products, which are taken to the market for sale. Thus, the
efficiency of this firm depends on the quantity of the maximum outputs it produces
against the level of the inputs invested. According to Alford [12. P. 4] in the private
sector, manager’s task is to produce ‘the kind of goods and services desired by the
customers, producing as much of them at minimal cost’.
Most of the above postulations consider efficiency of an organisation as the
minimising costs to maximise outcomes. But this could be more related to private
sector practices where stress is on utilising scarce resources (inputs) to maximise
profit (outcomes), which the New Public Management [1] paid much emphasis on.
In NPM, Hood, argues to ensure delivery of better outcomes to citizens, there is need
to stress much emphasis on outcomes instead of just inputs and or outputs. Hood
maintains that explicit performance standards should be put in place to measure
the outcomes of the delivered public services. This development has pushed many
public sector organisations to adopt strategies such as performance measurement
in order to provide the desired outcomes to the citizens.
However, there is concern on whether efficiency and effectiveness model
of the private sector could be feasible in the public sector, especially looking at how
it stresses much emphasis on the economic model of efficiency and effectiveness.
In this regard, Manzoor [13] argues that managing performance in the private sector
is seemingly possible because of profit driven motive where outcomes can simply
be quantified using monetary value.
The outcomes of the private sector products and services are determined
through the market forces of demand and supply. For instance, Alford [12] puts
that private sector gains its resources if the firm is producing what the customers
desired most and at affordable rate, the return of market sales measured as the value
generated by the private organisation.
While on the other hand, in the public-sector organization’s inputs are usually
identifiable in monetary value (that is public funds allocated, staffing and other
equipment), but the outputs and outcomes cannot be measured in monetary term
but only measured in social value [14]. That is the extent at which public service
provision improve the general wellbeing of the citizens and or their satisfactions.
However, unlike in the private sector where market forces determine return
on investment, for instance, Mihaiu et al [14] poses a question of under which basis
МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫЙ ОПЫТ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОГО УПРАВЛЕНИЯ 335
 Bello M.M., Umaru C. RUDN Journal of Public Administration,2022;9(3):332–343

the economic benefit of constructing a school in a village could be measured? The

only things that could probably be measured here are: all the costs incurred for
the construction, the material basis, the wages etc. Mihaiu et al maintain that there
is no answer to the efficacy of the economic benefits using construction of school
in village, but social benefits (the intangible) can be seen in terms of increase
in the ‘level of literacy, ensuring better labour market and higher living condition’
(14. P. 134). Additionally, in response to what constitutes public service outcome,
Manzoor [13] argues that public service outcome could be view in terms of goal
fulfilments, which Mihaiu et al [14] says is on the quality of human life (social
value). However, it is important at this juncture to question the applicability
of performance management in the public sector, especially in relation to provision
of valued outcome to the citizens.
As shown in the literature, performance management practice could
lead organisation to achieve better outcomes if properly use [7] through
setting of standards and measuring the impact of end results produced by the
organisation. Noordegraaf [15:71] asserts that performance management makes
agencies to pay more attention on achieving objectives (effectiveness, value
for money), produce results (efficiency, productivity, accountability), respond
and adapt to changes (flexibility and innovation). This indicates that nowadays
public sector organisations do set targets to achieve in line with the available
resources to produce the desired results which in turn are expected to provide
better outcomes for the citizens.
Similarly, according to Andrews [9] the use of some performance tools such
as performance planning, target settings, league tables and performance data in the
public services have strengthened the application of performance management
in the public sector. This shows that introduction of performance management has
apparently turned public service organisations to result driven agencies. It is in this
arrangement we can cite example on how politicians set targets to be achieved
by the public managers aimed at delivering the desired outcome to the citizens.
In this regard, Hughes [7. P. 312] aptly captured this: ‘Agencies enter into a bargain
where money is allocated through the budget to carry out particular activities but
with conditions set in terms of expectations. If those expectations are met, then the
manager had delivered on what was promised; if not, budgets may be cut in future
and the manager blamed for non-performance’.
Hughes assertion shows that performance management makes public managers
to deliver desired outcomes, which must tally with the inputs provided and citizens
expectations. This could be a major contribution of performance management to the
public sector in terms of cost-effectiveness and the provision of outcomes to the
citizens and change the narratives from focus on inputs and outputs to more focus
on outcomes achieved.
Furthermore, achieving the set targets (in line with mission and vision statement)
within the stipulated period of time by an organisation means that the organisation
is efficient. This could be translated in reflection of the main target of police service
organisation, which is to enforce law and order aimed at ensuring peace and
336 INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
 Белло М.М., Умару Ч. Вестник РУДН. Серия: Государственное и муниципальное управление. 2022. Т. 9. № 3. С. 332–343

safety in the neighbourhood. In this sense, police need adequate funding, staffing,
equipment to carry out operations such as patrol and surveillance to achieve their
target. Noordegraaf [15] asserts that the standard for measuring police performance
is determined by the peaceful coexistence in the neighbourhood and significant
reduction of criminal activities. Alford [12] rightly says the citizens are more likely
to be concerned about the reduction of crime (outcome) than just the daily patrols
and surveillance (an output).
Additionally, in a bid to create public outcomes, adoption of performance
management makes public sector organisations to be conscious of their strategic
direction. That is to channel organisational capabilities to create value to the citizens.
According to Moore [16] the value produced by the public sector is determined by the
satisfactions of the citizens who enjoy desirable consequences derived from public
services. Therefore, we could say to a certain degree, if use properly performance
management could push public sector organisations to be more conscious of their
actions geared towards effective provision of public services that best meet the
satisfaction of the citizens.

Input-output-outcome model

According to Bouckaert & Dooren [4. P. 149] input-output-outcome model

refers to measurement of inputs, outputs or outcomes, or it may focus on economy,
efficiency or effectiveness. This explains that performance measurement could
be at a certain level or at aggregate. It could be at input level, which means
to quantify the level of resources invested, or at output level, to measure the level
of output produced or at outcome level, to measure the overall result achieved.
As stated earlier by Dooren et al [5] performance could either be measured
by action carried out, timely accomplishment and importantly quality of the results
achieved. Bouckaert & Dooren, [4] specify inputs as (public funds, personnel and
infrastructures) to produce outputs (services, actions, responses) leading to positive
results outcomes (citizens’ wellbeing).
Noordegraaf [15] for instance, posits that police use public funds to procure
equipment’s and tools (the inputs) to investigate criminal cases, or to enforce public
order and to ensure public safety. These output processes are patrol, surveillance
to catch thieves, making arrests and or issuing fines (the outputs), which may lead
to peaceful, safer and stable society to live for everyone (the outcomes).
Furthermore, in relation to the above, better outcomes could be measured when
public services improve citizens standard of living. Smith [17] argues to measure
public sector performance, inputs (utilisation of resources) must reflect the desired
quantity of goods and services provided, while the outcome refers to measuring the
intangible consequences of public services on the society.
The public sector performance management using inputs-outputs and outcomes
model supposedly leads to creation of public outcomes (citizens wellbeing), while
private sector performance management is used to quantify inputs, outputs and
outcomes in monetary terms. This indicates the advantage of input-output model
МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫЙ ОПЫТ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОГО УПРАВЛЕНИЯ 337
 Bello M.M., Umaru C. RUDN Journal of Public Administration,2022;9(3):332–343

on actualising organisational mandate through prudent utilisation of resources and

subsequently provision of valued outcome to the citizens.
Going by this, the most important question to answer is how could input-output-
outcome model be contextualised in the Nigerian Police Force? The subsequent
section contextualises performance management model of input-output-outcome
model in the Nigerian Police Force.

Performance Management
and the Nigerian Police Force Organisation

The main thrust of performance management in the public sector is to track how
well agencies and organisations are carrying out their duties and responsibilities
[18]. Every public sector organisation has a mandate to achieve, which is translated
in the mission and vision statement. In this sense, the Nigerian Police Force
as a public service organisation that serves as the principal law enforcement agency
in Nigeria. It has branch offices across the thirty (36) states and seven hundred and
seventy-four (774) local government areas of the country under the command and
control of the Inspector General of Police.
As obtained from the website of Nigerian Police Force, the vision statement
of Nigerian Police Force reads: ‘to make Nigeria safer and more secure for
economic development and growth; to create a safe and secure environment for
everyone living in Nigeria’; while one of its mission statement stated that ‘to
participate in efforts aimed at addressing the root causes of crime while ensuring
that any criminal act is investigated so as to bring the criminals to justice in a fair
and professional manner’ [19].
As found on the website of Nigerian Police Force, part of its efforts to manage
and report performance, department of Research and Planning of the Force
Headquarters, Abuja is charged with ensuring standards and uniformity in the
delivery of police service in Nigeria. Some of the functions of this Department those
that are related to performance management include monitoring and evaluation
function to support modern police operations and public safety practices through
collation of statistics on crime, accident, traffic violation, police personnel, human
right violation, domestic violation as well the preparation annual reports to present
activities and performance of police. This indicates a presence of performance
management and measurement system in the Nigerian Police Force, but it requires
proper application in line with core tenets of modern performance management
system, especially linking it with inputs- output-outcome model.
Foregoing from the above, the performance measurement of the Nigerian
Police Force is interpreted to mean the ability of police as an organisation to utilise
its inputs to generate outputs towards the provision of outcome. The UK Home
office stresses that performance management in policing is ‘about constantly
striving to improve quality of service, reduce crime and anti-social behaviour, and
bring offenders to justice — in short, deliver safer and stronger communities, and
do so in a way that provides the very best value for money to the public’ [20].
338 INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
 Белло М.М., Умару Ч. Вестник РУДН. Серия: Государственное и муниципальное управление. 2022. Т. 9. № 3. С. 332–343

Therefore, the performance of Nigerian police organisation is measured

in terms of outputs produced such as patrol services, surveillances, number
of arrests, catching of thieves, while the outcome should reflect reduction of crimes
and restoring of public safety, law and order as contained in its vision and mission
statement. To understand this further, Maslov [18] provide metrics also known
as direct measure use in measuring performance of police as an organisation
as follows:
a. Number of arrests and fines issued: This is used in measuring the level of output.
That is the ability to bring criminals to book, punish them by enforcing law and
order. For example, a website-based report of 18th May 2022 credited to Nigerian
Police Fore stated thirty-one (31) suspects were arrested in connection with
major violent crimes such as kidnapping, culpable, homicide, rape, unlawful
possession of firearms etc. The report also contains that sixty-one (61) firearms,
three hundred and seventy-six ammunitions, twenty-two (22) cartridges and cash
amounting to the sum of two million naira recovered from these criminals [19].
b. Clearance rate: This refers to the percentage of crimes solved within a particular
period of time.
c. Call for service response rate: This refers to the ability of the police organisation
to respond promptly to a call put forward by the citizen seeking for police
intervention where there is breach of law and order.
d. Crime rate: This is useful in measuring the outcomes of police organisation. The
main metric here is the prevention and or reduction of criminal activities and the
state of public safety.
To achieve this police outcome, according Noordegraaf [15] ‘police
organizations use taxpayers money and manpower (inputs) to investigate criminal
cases or to safeguard public order (throughput), which produces (outputs) such
as catching thieves, making arrests or issuing fines, which in turn might produce
more safety and more stable public order (outcomes)’. This shows that performance
could only be achieved in policing when there is adequate supply of inputs that are
ingredients for actions and commitments from the police force in order to produce
the desired result of public safety.
However, in contrast, a report by Adaku [21] shows that Nigerian Police
Force lacks adequate inputs (sufficient tools and logistics platforms) to tackle
myriads of security challenges bedevilling the country. In furtherance to this,
a study on performance in crime control from the perspectives of the citizenry
that the police are expected to protect by Afolabi, Joseph, and Babatunde
[22] reveals that performance of Nigerian Police has not improved in the
area of crime prevention and combating due to factors such as poor funding,
shortage of personnel, inadequate training and development of manpower,
poor personnel welfare and corruption. The public perception component
of the study also shows that, the Nigerian Police Force lacks accountability
and transparency system.
Therefore, to improve performance of Nigerian Police Force, there is need
for adequate inputs the use of input-output-outcome model in Nigeria’s security
МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫЙ ОПЫТ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОГО УПРАВЛЕНИЯ 339
 Bello M.M., Umaru C. RUDN Journal of Public Administration,2022;9(3):332–343

sector should identify government priority objectives over the medium term, and
to concentrate necessary for resources to achieve them. Information on what to be
done and the expected results/outcomes should be clearly made available.

•Budget •Decreased in the

Allocations rate of crimes,
•Staffing, patrol •Peace in the
vehichles, OUTPUT neighbourhood,
•Equipment
•Criminal •Overall societal
including ICT safety and
gadgets Investigation
• Crime wellbeing
•Arms and
ammunitions preventions,
• patrol and
survellance
INPUT •Possible
OUTCOME
arrest and
prosecutions
etc.

Fig. 1. Performance Measurement Framework for Nigeria’s Police Organisation

Source: designed by authors.

In the above proposed model, it shows that adequate inputs should be made
available in order to produce outputs, which would later be used to measure
outcomes/result generated. According to Bouckaert and Dooren [4] outputs are
not the same with outcomes. Outputs are the quantity of services provided (as
illustrated above), while outcomes represent the consequences of what the output
produced. That is absence or minimum rate of kidnappings, armed bandits’ attacks,
and farmers-herders’ clashes. The level of efficiency depends on prudent utilisation
of human materials resources to produce outputs and effectiveness represents
outcomes (that is the increased in the level of safety as illustrated above).
It is important to note that the outcomes delivered by the public sector should
not be narrowed to only economic benefit as obtained in the private sector. Mihaiu
et al [14. P. 136] ‘the outcome of public expenses implies a relation between the
economic and social value resulted from the delivered of public services, and the
efforts made to finance the delivery’. But the question of whether the citizens are
satisfied with the produced service could be very difficult to answer. Smith [17]
argues that in the private sector where willingness of customer to purchase firm
products in the market is the determinant of achieving market value, but in contrast,
the public sector has no such market forces arrangement that can provide quantified
information on citizens’ satisfaction on the delivered service. This could be attributed
to lack of quantitative data for measuring the outcomes of the delivered public
services unlike in the private sector counterpart where market forces determine the
outputs and outcomes of the business enterprises [14].
340 INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
 Белло М.М., Умару Ч. Вестник РУДН. Серия: Государственное и муниципальное управление. 2022. Т. 9. № 3. С. 332–343

Building from the above, the most interesting debate among academics and the
practitioners is on the extent at which the outcome produced by the public sector
can be measured. Hughes [2] argues measuring the outcome produced by the public
sector may worked well theoretically but difficult to be realistic. He maintains that
the setting some array performance indicators could turn outcome measurement
a complex task. For instance, performance indicators are developed at all levels
of public manager’s activity such as targets, outputs and outcomes, this could lead
managers to design indicators that favour them. For example, UK citizens believe
there is no significant decrease of crimes despite official statistics showing reduction
in the level of crimes and public safety has been restored in UK [2].
Nonetheless, the changes brought about by the introduction of performance
management in the public sector make it possible to easily assess the level
of performance achieved by the public sector organisation. For instance,
by comparing community A where public safety and order are relatively high and
community B where public safety and order are very low, one could argue that
police service organisations in community A are providing outcome for the citizens
of that community. In this sense, Mihaiu et al. [14] noted that the distinction between
outputs and outcomes as what constitutes the notion of public outcomes. Similarly,
according to Australian Productivity Commission creation of public outcome is the
extent at which policy objectives are achieved [23]. That is to say, the government
effort of restoring peace and order through police organisation is achieved.

Conclusion

The study contextualised performance management framework in Nigerian

Police Force as a public service organisation. This was done by employing input-
output-outcome model. The study considers performance of police organisation
in Nigeria as the ability to utilise its inputs to generate outputs towards
provision of outcome. The study shows how performance of police organisation
can be improved through adequate provision of inputs (human and material
resources) to enable them carry out actions as outputs (patrols, arrests, prosecution
of offenders) in order to produce outcome (peace and safety in the society). Even
though, performance of public service organisation could be difficult to measure
due to its subjective nature and lack of clear means of quantification, we argue that
the performance of police organisation can be measured by the level of peace and
safety in the society (that is absence of crimes or decreased in the rate of crimes).
The study could be useful to policy makers and police managers working to improve
and measure performance of police organisation in Nigeria. Finally, the study
is not devoid of limitations. Firstly, the study conceptually localised performance
measurement model in Nigerian Police Force; future empirical studies should test
the applicability of this model. Secondly, we could not find available performance
data from the Nigerian police organisation; other studies should search for this data
especially on inputs (number of personnel, equipment, tools etc) to empirically
measure the level of output and outcome.
МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫЙ ОПЫТ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОГО УПРАВЛЕНИЯ 341
 Bello M.M., Umaru C. RUDN Journal of Public Administration,2022;9(3):332–343

REFERENCES

1. Hood C. A Public Management for All Seasons? Public Administration. 1991;69(1):3–19.

2. Hughes O.E. Public Management and Administration: An Introduction. Fifth ed. Macmillan
International; 2018.
3. Jones M.L. Efficiency and Effectiveness in an African Public Administration Context.
International Journal of Public Sector Management. 1990;3(1).
4. Bouckaert G., Van Dooren W. Performance Measurement and Management in Public Sector
Organizations. Public Management and Governance. 2016;174–187.
5. Van Dooren W., Bouckaert G., Halligan J. Performance Management in the Public Sector:
Routledge; 2015.
6. De Waal A.A. Is Performance Management Applicable in Developing Countries? The Case
of a Tanzanian College. International Journal of Emerging Markets. 2007;2:69–83.
7. Kasim B.B. Organizational Performance Management: A Tool for Enhancing Effectiveness in Public
Service Delivery in Nigeria. Public Policy and Administration Research. 2016;6(10):59–64.
8. Adejokun S. Nigeria Is 17th Least Peaceful Country in 2021-Global Peace Index. The Tribune.
17.06.2021. URL: https://tribuneonlineng.com/nigeria-is-17th-least-peaceful-country-in-
2021-%E2 %80 %95-global-peace-index/. Accessed: 30.05.2022.
9. Andrews R. Performance Management and Public Service Improvement. Public Policy
Institute for Wales. 2014;3:23–25.
10. Government at a Glance 2015. OECD Paris. 2015. URL: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/
governance/government-at-a-glance-2015_gov_glance-2015-en. Accessed: 30.05.2022.
11. Rutgers M.R., Van Der Meer H. The Origins and Restriction of Efficiency in Public
Administration: Regaining Efficiency as the Core Value of Public Administration.
Administration & Society. 2010;42(7):755–779.
12. Alford J. The Implications of ‘Publicness’ for Strategic Management Theory. Exploring Public
Sector Strategy. Ed. by Scholes G. Pearson Education; 2001: 1–16
13. Manzoor A. A Look at Efficiency in Public Administration: Past and Future. Sage Open.
2014;4(4):1–5.
14. Mihaiu D.M., Opreana A., Cristescu M.P. Efficiency, Effectiveness and Performance
of the Public Sector. Romanian Journal of Economic Forecasting. 2010;4(1):132–147.
15. Noordegraaf M. Public Management: Performance, Professionalism and Politics. Macmillan
International Higher Education; 2015.
16. Moore M.H. Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government: Harvard University
press; 1995.
17. Smith P. A Framework for Analysing the Measurement of Outcome. Measuring Outcome
in the Public Sector. 1996.
18. Maslov A. Measuring the Performance of the Police. Miscellaneous Agency. 2016.
19. NPF Press Release 2022. URL: http://npf.gov.ng/information/pressdetails.php?. Accessed:
30.05.2022.
20. Office H. Improving Performance: A Practical Guide to Police Performance Management.
London: HMSO; 2008.
21. Adaku O. Lcak of Resources, Operational tools Limiting Police Performance Says IGP.
The Guardian; 2021.
22. Afolabi B.M., Joseph L., Babatunde O.A. Policing in Nigeria: A Performance Appraisal
2009–2014. Adekunle Ajasin University Journal of Financial & Social Issues. 2016;4(1):181–207.
23. Commission A.G.P. On Efficiency and Effectiveness: Some Definitions. Productivity
Commission Staff Research Note. 2013.

Information about the authors:

Mansur M. Bello — Lecturer of the Department of Public Administration, Federal University Gusau
(Nigeria) (e-mail: [email protected]).
Chubado Umaru — Assistant Register of Office of the Deputy Vice Chancellor (Administration),
Federal University Gusau (Nigeria) (ORCID ID: 0000-0001-9769-5870) (e-mail: chubadoumaru@
fugusau.edu.ng).

342 INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

 Белло М.М., Умару Ч. Вестник РУДН. Серия: Государственное и муниципальное управление. 2022. Т. 9. № 3. С. 332–343

Методология оценки эффективности

организации нигерийских полицейских сил
М.М. Белло ✉, Ч. Умару
Федеральный университет Гусау,
860242, Гусау, Нигерия
✉ [email protected]

Аннотация. Нигерийская полиция уполномочена обеспечивать общественную безопасность

путем поддержания правопорядка. Сегодня уровень преступной деятельности, такой как, во-
оруженные ограбления, похищения людей с целью получения выкупа, убийства, этнорелиги-
озное насилие, растет во многих частях Нигерии. Несмотря на то, что предыдущие исследова-
ния указывали на факторы, способствовавшие низкой эффективности нигерийской полиции,
недостаточно внимания уделяется тому, как измерить эффективность нигерийской полиции
как организации государственной службы, особенно с использованием современного подхода
к управлению служебной деятельностью. Рассматриваются методологические основы для из-
мерения эффективности организации полиции в стране. Авторами используется литература
по управлению служебной деятельностью с привлечением практики как частного, так и го-
сударственного секторов, чтобы предложить основу для оценки и измерения эффективности
нигерийской полиции. В исследовании используется модель «затраты–выпуск–результат»,
которая может потенциально повысить эффективность работы нигерийской полиции. В ис-
следовании делается вывод о том, что, несмотря на отсутствие четкой количественной оцен-
ки результатов работы полиции, модель управления служебной деятельностью «затраты —
выпуск — результат» может стать полезным инструментом улучшения и измерения эффек-
тивности работы полиции страны.
Ключевые слова: управление эффективностью, затраты-отдача-результат, эффективность,
результативность, общественный результат
Заявление о конфликте интересов: Авторы заявляют об отсутствии конфликта интересов.
История статьи:
Статья поступила в редакцию: 01.06.2022. Статья принята к публикации: 01.08.2022.
Для цитирования:
Bello M.M., Umaru C. A Framework for Measuring Performance of Nigerian Police Force
Organization // Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Серия: Государственное
и муниципальное управление. 2022. Т. 9. № 3. C. 332–343. https://doi.org/10.22363/2312-8313-
2022-9-3-332-343

Информация об авторах:
Мансур М. Белло — преподаватель кафедры государственного управления Федерального универ-
ситета Гусау (Нигерия) (e-mail: [email protected]).
Чубадо Умару — помощник проректора Федерального университета Гусау (Нигерия)
(ORCID ID: 0000-0001-9769-5870) (e-mail: [email protected]).