|
Proposal
for method of assessing Competence
Re: Private
Security Industry Act 2001
Criteria on Competence
Compiled
by Ian D. Withers
The World
Association of Professional Investigators
Originally
submitted on November 20. 2004
THE
COMPETENCE CRITERIA
A
PROPOSAL FROM THE WORLD ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL INVESTIGATORS
In
response to the suggestion originating from the SIA and discussed by the
ISG, namely to determine a broad consensus as to both the Competence
Criteria and mode of verification to be applied by the SIA to Applicants
for the PI Licence to be implemented as from January 2006.
1)
Objective(s)
The PSI Act requires the SIA to establish that those
applying for a Licence under the Act comply with Criteria to be
determined by the SIA. The Criteria has been determined (by the SIA) to
be as follows;
a) Confirmed Identification
b) CRB Check
c) Competence
There may be additional Criteria as the SIA move closer
to the deadline date.
2)
Competence
For the purpose of this Proposal, I am not including
the many suggested requirements or conditions which many feel are
necessary to establish proof of "competence" (such as DPA registered,
free from CCJ's etc, etc.)
As has been the case over the past two years, and
particularly over the last two weeks on most eGroups, there is a very
wide and diverse perspective on what establishes competence. A simple
"breakdown" of these individual opinions tends to create two distinct
categories,
I would suggest that these are as follow;
a)
Experience
Experience comes in many forms, from Police or Military
Service, operating a PI Agency, working as a PI over a period, the
actual day-to-day workload varies considerably and covers the whole
spectrum of investigations. Whether or not one has experience in one or
all of the work categories is, in my submission not an element in the
determination of "competence" - rather if one has been undertaking a
particular type of investigative work for the past number of years, he
has proven his "competence" just by the fact that he has remained in
business? not just from the point of being a Businessman! he has also
presumably satisfied his Clientele over the period.
Thus proven experience is a strong and reliable basis to
determine that one is Competent.
b)
Qualifications
There are both Vocational and Academic Qualifications,
and many differing views as to their value in real life!!
Vocational Qualifications, specifically the NVQ is a
workplace based qualification, as such one has to be in active
employment to be assessed. The NVQ for Investigations presently has two
Levels; Level 3 designed for those in operations, doing the work on an
everyday basis, and Level 4 for Case Managers or Supervisors. Those with
NVQ have demonstrated the performance of specified (investigative) tasks
to a set standard, as such they have been deemed as "Competent"
Academic Qualifications have bestowed a great deal of
Theory and Application, and the Holders are undoubtedly more than
"competent" at dealing with their Specialities, be it in practice or
consulting. However, many such Qualified Persons/Graduates will not have
had the opportunity to become "streetwise" - probably an essential
aspect of Competence in a practising PI.
3) The
Standard of Competence
The "Key"
question is;
How will the SIA determine or "measure" Competence??
We do know that the Competence Level to satisfy the SIA
is to be less than the Level required for an NVQ in Investigations.
Whereas the Sector has worked tirelessly to formulate an
extensive List of the catagories of work undertaken accross the Sector,
this does not really assist, in that it will be impracticable to
"measure" specific competence over a wide range of the various
catagories of investigations.
However, we can look at the methodology of assessment as
applied in NVQ and draw on that experience to help base the future
competence criteria upon.
NVQ Assessment is based upon a set of "Standards" these
standards are generated by Academic Professionals whose role is to
determine the "accross-the-board" accepted practice and to turn that
into a specific standard. A Student can then demonstrate performance of
that same Task to the specifed standard, if he does so, he has
demonstrated competence in so far as that particular task or standard is
concerned.
However, the difficulty for the SIA is to have an
adaquate set of standards which could be applied quickly and effectively
that the Applicants could be assessed or tested against.
So looking at the recently issued (updated) NVQ
Framework, we can determine that there are a number of "defined" Core
Competences which apply to all in the Sector, irrespective of particular
work types, catagories or specialisation.
For the purpose of this Proposal I have extracted from
both Level 3 and 4 the following required Core Competencies that are
required to be assessed in one, other or both NVQ Levels.
Contribute
to the effectiveness of Investigation Teams
Contribute
towards the development of intelligence for an investigation
Gather
information from a Witness
Gather
information from a Suspect
Progress
investigations to implementation
Investigate
sources of information & develop intelligence for an investigation
Analyse &
evaluate evidence arising from investigations
Manage
information for action
Thus one can reasonably summise that if you can prove or
demonstrate that you can deal or have dealt with these Core
Competencies, you have proven yourself to be Competent
For those who at this point are thinking (or Screaming)
what has this got to do with investigating !!!
Note,
These Core items are common to all aspects of all
investigations, whether you are a CID Officer, Process Server, Repo
Agent or a Fraud Specialist - they apply to you - to everyone in our
Sector! In fact each and everyone of us operating our own Agency, or
working for a PI Agency actually do perform and work to these standards
every working day.
Thus if this is the deemed minimum standard of Competence
(as Mandatory Units in NVQ Assessments) It is presumably more than
enough to determine Competence at the stated "lower than NVQ" level
indicated by the SIA ?
The problem
is now, how do the SIA apply a Test or Assessment??
4)
ENTER THE "CC" (Competence Credits) SYSTEM
(WAPI's
suggeted method of Competence Assessment)
We suggest that the determination of whether or not an
Applicant should be granted a PI Licence be based on a simple "scoring"
system, requiring the Applicant to list details of experience and
qualifications.
For each catagory of experience/qualifications there
should be allocated a number of Credits (Points). The SIA would
calculate the number of Credits/Points from the Application/Renewal -
and from a working level of 100 Credits/Points determine the number to
establish reasonable evidence of competence. (Expressed as a Percentage)
Even if an Applicant could produce evidence to show 1000
points (CC's), his Competence will be based on only 100 of these (Like
Poker - only the best 5 cards count).
How will
this work??
For example Competence Credits could be awarded along
lines similar to these;
Ex Police Officer - 3 credits per year of service,
5 credits per completed Specialist Course
PI who operated his/her own Agency - 3 credits per year.
An employed Investigator - 2 credits per year
Professional Association Membership - 5 credits
Recognised Courses/Seminars - 5 credits per study/lecture
day
OFT Licensed - 10 credits
eGroup Member - 2 credits
Professional Degree in Sector related Subject - 20
credits
NVQ 3 - 30 credits (Because Competence already proven)
NVQ 4 - 50 credits ( Ditto )
Commendation/Reference from Court/Lawyer/Client - 2
credits
Please note these are just examples not absolutes, there
are many other aspects which could have a Credit Value placed.
Who
determines the credit values ?
The SIA do so using a (SITO ?) Standards Specialist
How can
these be presented to the SIA ?
On the Application Form, with evidence in support
(photocopies of Certificates etc)
The SIA check and apply the credits to the Application,
and determine if sufficient credits for a PI Licence.
What level
for a Licence ?
The SIA decide how many credits deem competence.
In year 1, they may decide that 40/100 is enough, in year
2 this may be 50/100 and by year 5 it could be 75/100 ??
Why the
changing number of credits?
Taking into account EU Law, it MAY be unlawful to deny a
Licence for an Applicant to continue to exercise his livelihood, so the
standard may be lower at the onset to prevent possible legal challenges.
The only possible legal basis to deny a Licence appears to be as in the
HRA - Public Interest or National Security. Once the foundations are
laid, then the standard can be increased to force new Applicants to
achieve a higher level of competence.
Getting
Credits ?
Besides past experience and qualifications, there are and
will have to be more opportunities to earn credits. Using the US
example, each Seminar or Convention is allocated a credits value to be
awarded to those to attend and complete the Course, Lecture, Seminar
etc. Day Tutorials will no doubt spring up to deliver Education and
Skills Training on Sector Specific Subjects, each could have a credits
value allocated by the SIA or it's appointed Standards
Consultants.(Possibly based on the number of Tutorial/Training Hours)
5)
Continuous Education Credits ?
WAPI also support the concept of Continuing Professional
Education - the annually earned credits may become a requirement for
License Renewals, such as a minimum of 10 points over the past 3 years,
(common in the USA for PI Licence Renewals) The value and objective
being to enhance our professional standards by continually being updated
on both law and practice in our Sector.
You may wonder why I suggest allocating credits for
Association and eGroup Memberships ? This (in my view) demonstrates an
interest in access to information learning and discussion. One is more
likely to be up-to-date on Sector Matters if aligned to an eGroup or
Association than otherwise.
6) Other
Concerns?
Last, I wish to suggest to the ISG that a submission to
the SIA needs to be urgently made to clarify the following additional
areas of concern.
a) What efforts have been made, and will be made to
develop reciprical recognition of EU and Foreign PI Licenses.
b) As the Act specifies "Licensable Activities" as the
basis to be licensed, the question that begs, If a PI is based in, and
contracts in England & Wales - but only conducts activities overseas, is
he thus exempted from the requirement to be licensed?
Or will the Jurisdiction of Contract be the defining
Issue?
c) As the Register is to be Public, Are the SIA to
consider categories of License to encompass "Undercover" Operatives who
may be seconded/hired for specific Assignments, where specialised skills
are required ? For example, if a PI hires a Fork Lift Driver to work
undercover in a factory, the activities performed will be licensable
activities, once the assignment is completed the Sub Contractor will
resume normal work outside the PI Sector. Is there to be, or can there
be a Special Licence which is not on the Public Register ?
d) As above, paid Informants - who perform licensable
activities to illicit information within an enclosed situation ?
e) Visiting PI's from other EU States/Overseas - Is there
to be, or can there be a Temporary Licence, and if so, can this be
applied/issued after arrival on a Case? (Similar to the London
Congestion Charge, Apply within a specified time, even if performing
licensable activities pre-application)
I am sure there are many other points, and hope that this
WAPI approved Submission can form the basis of a fair and equitable
method of effecting the Competence Criteria Check.
Author: Ian
D. Withers (NVQ 4 - Investigations)
WAPI -
Chairman (& ISG Representative)
Member of
NALI - National Association of Legal Investigators (USA)
Fellow of
WAPI - World Association of Professional Investigators
CEO of
Priority Investigations Ltd -
http://www.pilimited.com
 |
