Overview

This module discusses the concepts of the extended police family including a historical review of its creation and underpinning supporting legislation. It explains the structure of UK police services and the roles of people working in them, for them and alongside them in the form of partner organisations and volunteer roles. The course then discusses community safety and the frameworks designed to support the concept including the role of communities themselves. Theory explaining crime, criminality and victimisation is discussed and some of the possible preventative interventions are explored. Finally, the module explores the drivers and resistors effecting partnership working in respect to the prevention of harm. Guest speakers will support learning in discussion sessions delivered by North Wales Police employees working within the community safety framework.

Assessment Strategy

-threshold -(D) Written submission only poorly focused on question and with some irrelevant material and poor structure. Arguments presented but lack coherence. Several factual /computational errors. Knowledge of key areas/principles only and author shows weaknesses in understanding of the subject area. Limited evidence of background study with no original interpretation and many weaknesses in presentation and accuracy. Answers the questions in a limited way and demonstrates a basic understanding of the topic however most claims are unsupported or supported only by evidence from invalid sources. Little content is cited and referenced to Harvard standards. Only major links between topics are described with limited problem solving. Presentation shows many weaknesses and inaccuracies in structure (Presentation aims. Order of points. Clarity of layout. Conclusions. Use of PowerPoint), argument. Content shows little relevance to topic with poor use of concepts and language. Research-based knowledge and understanding of the topic is weak which is unsupported by examples, cases and illustrations. Delivery shows weakness in timing and pace, ease of expression and presenter tends toward reading aloud from script. Little confidence is evident through audience engagement (e.g. eye contact), tone of voice and body language. Questions and debate resulting from the presentation are not responded to adequately. Bibliography and referencing are poor or not evidenced.

-good -(B) Written submission tends to focus on question but also with some irrelevant material and weaknesses in structure. Arguments presented but lack coherence. Has several factual / computational errors. Reasonable knowledge of key areas/principles is apparent and author understands the main elements of the subject area. Limited evidence of background study evident with no original interpretation and some weaknesses in presentation and accuracy. Some claims are supported with evidence from valid sources and some sources are cited/referenced to Harvard standards. No original interpretation is evidenced and only major links between topics are described with limited problem solving. Author shows limited evidence of background study. Presentation shows weaknesses and inaccuracies in structure (Presentation aims. Order of points. Clarity of layout. Conclusions. Use of PowerPoint), argument. Content shows adequate relevance to topic with acceptable concepts and language. Research-based knowledge and understanding of the topic is fair using adequate examples, cases and illustrations. Delivery shows some weakness in timing and pace, ease of expression and presenter tends toward reading aloud from script. Confidence is acceptable through audience engagement (e.g. eye contact), tone of voice and body language. Questions and debate resulting from the presentation are responded to with some hesitation. Bibliography and referencing are acceptable and tend to be Harvard compliant.

-excellent -(A) Highly focused, well structured and presented written submissions with logically presented and defended arguments. No factual/computational errors. A comprehensive knowledge with detailed understanding of the subject area with evidence of extensive background study. Original interpretation shown with confidence which engages in dialogue with reader.All claims supported and evidenced from valid sources and referenced to Harvard standards.Presentations show clear structure (Presentation aims. Order of points. Clarity of layout. Conclusions. Use of PowerPoint). A strong flow to the argument with avoidance of repetition.Content shows clear relevance to topic with suitable concepts and language. Research-based knowledge and understanding of the topic is sound using good choice of examples, cases and illustrations. Delivery shows timing and pace, ease of expression and avoidance of reading aloud from script. Confidence is apparent through audience engagement (e.g. eye contact), tone of voice and body language.Questions and debate resulting from the presentation are responded to without hesitation. Bibliography and referencing are accurate and Harvard compliant.

Learning Outcomes

• Be familiar with key organisations involved in maintaining community safety

• Examine effective partnership working to prevent harm

• Examine how partnership working responds to theoretical frameworks explaining crime

• Examine the role of the community in community safety

• Understand key concepts in relation to the extended police family