Citizen-led policing in Aotearoa: The police perspective

Abstract

Over recent decades, encouraged by austerity politics and a sustained process of responsibilisation, citizen-led policing has experienced a resurgence. The scale of their involvement has led some to argue that citizen volunteers are now a ‘vital' resource in meeting the many challenges facing contemporary policing. After a long period of neglect, a recent ‘wave' of empirical research shows academic interest is again growing. However, even this expanding body of research remains limited with just one side of the police/citizen ‘partnership' typically in focus. The overwhelming majority of studies have explored the experiences of citizen volunteers, while research foregrounding the perspectives of the other key partner, the police, have received scant attention. This article presents research findings on New Zealand Police's perspective on its partnership with Community Patrols of New Zealand, Aotearoa's largest and most established form of citizen-led policing. Drawing on a nationwide survey and follow-up focus groups with Police Liaison Officers (PLOs)-who act as the primary interface between NZP and community patrols and hold responsibility for sustaining a partnership involving over 4,500 volunteers-the research reveals the partnership yields substantial benefits but also faces serious challenges. The findings underscore the need for more consistent organisational support, clearer role expectations, and better integration of PLOs into NZP’s broader strategic approach. As the first study of its kind in Aotearoa, it sheds light on a hitherto hidden but critical aspect of citizen policing.

Introduction

Citizen involvement in policing has a very long history (Bullock, 2015; Britton & Callander, 2016). Indeed, as Dobrin (2017) notes, volunteers have played an integral role since “the inception” of the policing concept. Prior to the “new” police, a conventional though contentious point of origin for “modern” state-funded policing (Brogden, 1987), most forms of local policing were citizen-led (Paley, 1989). State or government “monopolisation” of policing is therefore an aberration from a much longer history of community self-policing (Bayley & Shearing, 2001, p. 1; Muir, 2024). Throughout the 19th and into the 20th century, however, citizen involvement progressively declined (Emsley, 1996) and by the 1970s public participation had been all but reduced to crime reporting and calls for assistance (Brown & Iles, 1985). Revitalising citizen involvement and reaffirming policing by consent (Rogers, 2016) were key aims driving both the development of community policing and major attitudinal shifts towards volunteers (Garland, 2001; Jones & Newburn, 2002). Previously viewed “as nuisances or dangerous vigilantes,” from the 1980s police began recognising volunteers as “co-producers” of safety. As it became “axiomatic” that the public should take more responsibility (Bayley & Nixon, 2010, p. 7), police began actively courting citizen participation (Bayley & Nixon, 2010, p. 7–8). Over recent decades, then, encouraged by a sustained process of “responsibilisation” (O’Malley & Palmer, 1996; van Steden & Mehlbaum, 2019) and further fuelled by the politics of austerity (Innes, 2010; Pepper, 2022; Rogers & Wintle, 2021; Westall, 2021), citizen-led policing has experienced a resurgence (Ayling, 2007; Britton & Knight, 2021). More than just a “shared endeavour” (O’Connor et al., 2022, p. 152), the scale of citizen involvement has led some to argue that volunteers are now “essential” and a “vital” resource in meeting the many challenges facing contemporary policing (Britton & Callander, 2016; Westall, 2021, p. 2092; Wolf & Bryer, 2020, pp. 43–44). Moreover, as Rogers and Wintle (2021) and Dickson (2021) suggest, volunteers can also “bridge” the police and community gap and help “peel back” the “blue curtain” (Dobrin & Wolf, 2016, p. 221). Thus, among other “assumed benefits” of engaging volunteers are “enhanced legitimacy” through “bringing police and communities more closely together.” (Britton & Callander, 2016, p. 5). For Muir (2024), deploying volunteers in public-facing roles adds valuable capacity, facilitates more “proactive and preventative” policing, and helps improve trust and confidence in police among low trust communities.

Aotearoa New Zealand has a similarly long history of citizen policing. Indigenous forms of community self-policing predate New Zealand Police (NZP) by decades (Fleras, 1980). Māori Wardens, an Indigenous national association of volunteers, trace their historical antecedents back to the late 1850s (Waitangi Tribunal, 2014, p. 254), while from “day one” of the colony magistrates were authorised to swear in “Specials” (Casey & Collinson, 2004, p. 12; Hill, 1986). Though a standing Special Constabulary was never established, “Specials” were nonetheless recruited en masse during several periods of disorder (Hill, 1995). Although the extent of their involvement has ebbed and flowed, an experience shared with the United Kingdom (Millie, 2019), the United States (Dobrin & Wolf, 2016; Greenberg, 2005), and Australia (Bondy et al., 2004), volunteers have long been part of Aotearoa's policing apparatus. From the early 2000s, however, there has been a notable expansion that straddled both “austerity” and an extended police funding freeze (Davison, 2014; Vance, 2014, 2015) and more recent “unprecedented” financial investments in NZP (Leask, 2018; Hickman, 2024).

Community Patrols of New Zealand (CPNZ), an independent nationwide organisation and easily the largest manifestation of citizen policing, exemplifies this expansion. The primary body responsible for governance and strategic direction is the national trust board but there are also 12 District Support Leaders and support teams that connect local, regional and national levels. At the local level, independent affiliated patrols are led by a local patrol leader and Patrol Committee. Although required to follow national standards, local patrols enjoy much autonomy with patrol leaders/committees responsible for managing patroller conduct and their own internal disciplinary matters. CPNZ patrols work with rather than for police. Since its formation in 2002 its affiliated patrols have grown from a handful to 160 in 145 locations, and its volunteer patrollers from fewer than 150 to over 4,500 (Community Patrols New Zealand, 2024). In 2024, acting as non-confrontational “eyes and ears,” CPNZ volunteers “gifted” over 120,000 patrol hours, travelled over a million kilometres and reported almost 40,000 “incidents” to police (CPNZ, 2024). Their range of duties has also expanded. In addition to “observing and reporting,” they also now deliver crowd control, traffic management, CCTV monitoring and assistance during civil emergencies. Through their long-standing partnership with NZP, CPNZ patrols aim to make a meaningful contribution to crime prevention and safer communities across the Motu [nation] (Bradley, 2017). Citizen volunteers, and CPNZ volunteers in particular, are an especially prominent feature of Aotearoa's pluralised policing landscape (Bradley, 2017).

To date, despite their much-lauded contribution (Coster, 2022), and calls by the police minister for volunteers to do even more (Williams, 2023), research documenting Aotearoa's experience with citizen-led policing is mostly non-existent (Bradley, 2017; Scarpello, 2023). This stands in contrast to other jurisdictions where, after a long period of neglect, a recent “wave of empirical studies” (van Steden & Melhbaum, 2022, p. 544) in the United Kingdom, Netherlands, and Canada shows academic interest in citizen policing is again growing (Britton & Knight, 2021). Notwithstanding such growth, however, even this expanding body of research remains very narrow in scope with just one side of the police/citizen “partnership” typically in focus (Millie, 2019; Pepper, 2022). The overwhelming majority of studies have explored the roles, motivations and experiences of citizen volunteers (Britton & Knight, 2021; Callender et al., 2018; Pepper, 2022) while the perspectives and experiences of the other key partner, the police, have received scant attention and what little does exist is significantly dated (Phillips & Terrell-Orr, 2013). While a growing body of U.K. research has included police perspectives on the Special Constabulary (Britton et al., 2021; Callender et al., 2021), in most jurisdictions, including Australia (Rogers & Wintle, 2021), England and Wales (Millie, 2019), Canada (O’Connor et al., 2022), the United States (Dobrin & Wolf, 2016) and Aotearoa, empirical research foregrounding the police experience of non-warranted citizen policing is especially scarce (for a rare exception see Britton et al., 2021; Phillips & Terrell-Orr, 2013). As Britton and Knight (2021 p. 2047) point out “Beyond the context of UK Special Constables, the field of empirical studies remains very limited.” Thus, van Steden and Mehlbaum (2022, p. 544) assertion that citizen patrols are “an understudied social phenomenon” more accurately reflects the meagre body of work focused on the perceptions and experiences of police than the growing volume of empirical work on volunteers per se.

In Aotearoa, at least, this deficit was finally addressed through an independent exploratory empirical study of Police Liaison Officers (PLOs); a nationwide collection of officers tasked with working alongside volunteer patrols. While the CPNZ/Police partnership operates at various levels of the NZP hierarchy, it is PLOs that provide the key interface and who therefore routinely “represent” NZP. Underscoring their importance, and notwithstanding support among the top echelons of NZP, this research reveals that it is PLO investment in fostering and sustaining local collaboration that is critical in determining the efficacy of volunteer patrols and in maintaining the partnership. Beyond occasional references in other plural policing research (see Bradley, 2017; Scarpello, 2023) almost nothing is known about PLOs, the role they play or the nature of their interactions with CPNZ patrols. The research therefore aimed to explore, for the first time, PLO experiences of working with CPNZ's “enthusiastic volunteers” (Scarpello, 2023) and their perceptions of the CPNZ/NZP partnership more generally.

The remainder of this article consists of four parts. The first presents an overview of the methods of data collection, a nationwide survey of PLOs and follow up Focus Group (FG) discussion, and data analysis. Parts two and three present survey and FG data on the PLO role and the nature and frequency of their interactions with community patrols. Part four, in contrast, presents responses to open-ended survey questions and FG commentary on PLO perceptions of the partnership in broader terms. This article deepens our understanding of citizen-led policing in Aotearoa, and adds to the scant international evidence base, by presenting, for the first time, the perspective and perceptions of those operating on the “front-line” of the CPNZ/NZP partnership.

Part one: Research design: Data collection and analysis

In February 2022, a research proposal was submitted to the NZP. Following extensive consultation, the NZP Evidence Based Research Centre (which vets all external proposals) confirmed approval in June. Ethics approval was also granted by the University ethics committee. The research consisted of two data collection methods: a nationwide online survey of PLOs followed by in-person FGs facilitated and hosted by the author. A list of all serving PLOs (N = 132), containing e-mail addresses, was supplied by the national manager: “Community Prevention Partnerships” (NZP) and all were invited to participate. The Participant Information sheet explained the study's purpose, that participation was entirely voluntary and that respondents could withdraw at any time. It also explained the independence of the research and that submission of a completed survey was taken as implied consent. Following reminder emails, the survey yielded a response rate of 72% (n = 95). With responses submitted from every police district (n = 12), it provided a reliably representative national “snapshot” of PLO practice, experiences, opinions and perceptions.

The online survey was organised into three main sections and consisted of closed and open-ended questions. The first focused on the role and function of PLOs, the second on the nature and frequency of PLO/patrol interactions while the third sought insight into PLO perceptions on the strengths and weaknesses of the partnership in more general terms. Responses to closed questions are briefly presented as descriptive statistics. However, it is the richer, qualitative responses to open-ended questions, along with FG commentary, that are given primacy throughout this article.

The second data collection method involved a series of follow-up, in-person FGs informed by key themes and talking points derived from the survey responses. FGs were held in Auckland, Rotorua, Napier, Wellington and Christchurch; each selected on the basis that most respondents were based in and among these districts. COVID-related restrictions delayed completion of the FGs until 2023. All were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. In total, 39 PLOs took part. To protect the identities of those involved the specific locations of FG participants are not disclosed.

Data analysis

Qualitative data from open-ended survey responses and subsequent FG commentary were analysed using Braun and Clarke's (2022) thematic analysis framework, selected for its suitability for identifying “patterned meaning” across applied organisational contexts. In line with Braun and Clarke's (2022) iterative six-phase framework, survey responses and FG transcripts were read multiple times to achieve familiarity with the data. Preliminary observations were noted, and initial codes were manually created across both data sources (survey and FGs). Codes were then clustered to generate initial themes that captured shared patterns of meaning that coincided with the main survey sections. Themes were refined through constant comparison within and across datasets (survey and FGs) and reviewed iteratively to ensure they were clearly distinct. Additionally, the data gathered from FGs were used to deepen, interrogate, and in some cases challenge preliminary patterns and themes first identified in the survey. The main themes are supported with illustrative quotations drawn from both written survey responses and FG discussion.

Part two: The PLO role

As the key interface between patrols and police, PLOs perform a crucial role in “anchoring” the NZP/CPNZ partnership. Because so little is known about them the survey opened with questions designed to generate basic familiarity with who and what PLOs are. This included their role/function, whether PLOs were permanent or temporary, time served and whether they had received any training or induction.

Having been a feature of the CPNZ/NZP partnership for over a decade, it was surprising to find some contestation over the meaning of “PLO.” Survey respondents explained that PLO is not an official job designation or title, and in contrast to “community constable,” is not a standalone position. In the FGs several participants explained that community patrols were just one among other community groups they worked with and one part of a wider community “brief,” and therefore questioned the “PLO” label:

I work with Coast Guard, neighbourhood support, CPNZ, and volunteers but I wouldn’t say I’m a ‘PLO’, I’m not actually sure what that is?

It's just part of my community portfolio, yeah we liaise, so if you want an official term, I guess we’re Liaison Officers.

Another FG participant noted that some officers performed the role by default than by designation:

…I wasn’t even asked, you just do it. When you work in a small community you deal with the High School, community groups, churches, it's one of those things you just do.

To get a sense of their experience and longevity respondents were asked whether the role was permanent or temporary and how long they had occupied the position. Two-thirds (66%) were “permanent” and almost a third (33%) selected temporary and/or “filling in.” However, FG participants explained that “PLO,” like so many other police roles, was frequently “rotated” and therefore questioned the meaning of permanent:

Are any police roles permanent anymore? I guess it's ′permanent‘ until your rotations up.

In another FG several participants highlighted the negative impact of “rotation,” while pointing out that it was an organisational wide issue:

It's source of frustration we’re hearing across the country, patrols feel undervalued whenever their PLO transitions off to wherever.

Obviously, it doesn't help when someone's just holding the fort … rotation means patrols are constantly watching PLO's come and go.

Described as organisational “churn,” rotation was identified as a weakness that affected various aspects of the NZP/CPNZ partnership, not least the continual need to rebuild familiarity and trust with replacement or “acting” PLOs.

In terms of experience, almost a third (32%) had performed the role for 5+ years, 13% had served between three and years and a further 11% between one and three years. Over half of the PLOs in this study (56%) had amassed considerable experience and provided stability and continuity. Illustrating the problem of rotation, however, more than a third (37%) had been in place for less than a year, over half of whom (19%) had less than three months experience. Thus, overall, almost one in PLOs were still coming to terms with the role.

Primary duties

Survey respondents were asked to describe their primary functions and duties. This fundamentally important question aimed to explore the range of duties performed and the extent to which those in the role understood what it involves. In common with the Netherlands (van Steden & Mehlbaum, 2019) and England and Wales (Britton & Callander, 2016; Millie, 2019), respondents noted not only a wide variety of activities performed, but arguably more important the responses also reflected a startlingly wide understanding of the PLO role; one that was often at odds with “official” descriptions (see CPNZ, 2019). Indeed, such was the variation in understanding that it was difficult to summarise concisely. Responses ranged from the specific, “liaison,” “face of police,” to more generalised descriptions including “community policing” and “providing oversight.” Of more concern, however, over one in ten (12%) responded with “Not sure” or “Don’t know.”

During the FGs it became apparent that few participants had thought about this prior to being prompted, and even fewer had discussed the role with colleagues because, as one participant explained “PLOs rarely meet.” During FG discussions, some FG participants discovered that even in the same area/region PLOs had a very different understanding of what the role entails, had access to different resources and support, and therefore had quite different experiences. Having first outlined the lack of guidance for incoming PLOs, one participant suggested:

If my experience is anything to go by, we probably all do it differently.

Indeed, FG discussions revealed the uncertainty surrounding the PLO role and function was often due to the variability among and between districts, further compounded by the absence of training and/or systematic induction processes.

There were also mixed views on what the PLO role ought to involve. Views ranged from being “just a point of contact,” through to inviting patrollers to station “line ups” ¹ and, informed by analysis of local crime trends, issuing detailed instructions on where to patrol. In terms of the former, a typical comment was: “I’m just the link between the patrol and police.” In a different FG another participant similarly opined: “basically I’m just a contact so they have a name, email and phone number.” Yet another expressed similar sentiments while emphasising the “independence” of CPNZ patrols:

CPNZ is a standalone organisation, they should run themselves … my job is the go-between … that's it.

Others, however, particularly those more experienced PLOs outside of the main centres, expressed a starkly different view. In one FG a side discussion among participants highlighted not only the lack of previous conversation, and a degree of uncertainty about the role, but also a high level of support for patrols:

P1: Well liaison, but also support … cheerleading for the job they do.

P3: Direction too, and crisis management, managing relationships.

P1: That's really interesting, listening to this makes me realise the role's actually quite wide….

Survey respondents were also asked whether they had read NZP's “official” PLO role description. It is interesting to note that while 42% claimed to have read it, with 14% “unsure,” there was nonetheless wide variation in understanding what the role is or should be.

PLO training, handovers and induction

In the wider literature, when training is discussed, it typically refers to the adequacy, or otherwise, of the training delivered to volunteers (Callendar et al., 2018; Millie, 2019; Pepper, 2022). In contrast, an important consideration of this study was to understand the extent to which PLOs were trained and thus adequately prepared for the role. The absence of training, and non-existent or superficial “handovers,” was a key finding of the survey and a recurring theme in FG discussion. Survey responses revealed that 84% had not received any training, while just one in 10 had been through, at best, a superficial handover process. Several FG participants identified this as the primary reason for role uncertainty and inconsistent practice across the motu (country):

I needed advice but had no handover or training.

I never got any briefing, I was learning as I went.

There's no formal induction. There's not even a title as such. I was just told to do it.

FG participants were asked whether training or induction would be helpful. Most supported training, or at least a more systematic induction:

I needed it, my only training was being told to go to the monthly meetings.

The consistency is obviously all over the place, training would help.

They all seem to operate differently, so training for the way your patrol operates is needed.

Conversely, another participant suggested that guidance on the limits of the role would be helpful:

Training might be useful, but in terms of where to draw the line. My patrol wants me available 24/7, so what's the expectation?

Those PLOs that wanted training and/or induction offered a common justification; to ensure consistency and continuity to maintain the momentum and morale that had been built up over time.

Part three: PLO and patrol interactions

The second section of the survey canvassed respondents on the nature and frequency of their patrol interactions. The responses reveal diverse modes of communications that include e-mail, telephone, police radio, face-to-face, and notes left on “Comms boards.” In contrast to their popularity in Europe (Pridemore et al., 2019) and Australia (Kelly & Finlayson, 2015), none reported using social media platforms.

Survey respondents were asked to indicate how frequently they met patrollers in person. While most recognised the importance of personal contact, the responses once again revealed inconsistencies. Overall, 52% reported having face-to-face contact with patrollers at least once a month. In contrast, over a quarter (27%) reported meeting only “occasionally” and a further 10% never met face to face. Among the latter were PLOs that communicated exclusively via e-mail and/or those whose “interaction” consisted of “intel sheets” left for patrollers on station Comms boards. During FG discussions many PLOs struggled to understand this, given the central role played by “intel” in the process of tasking and directing patrols. However, a partial explanation offered was that “temporary” PLOs, those “holding the fort,” may not feel the same obligation to meet patrollers face to face and/or share information.

There was much greater consistency and certainty, about the purpose of meeting face to face with respondents identifying three broad reasons:

to exchange information, including intelligence on local incidents and crime trends

to “update” and task/direct patrols and

to discuss any “issues” and more generally “catch up.”

Intelligence sharing and information exchange

Through overt mobile surveillance, volunteer patrols provide “capable guardianship” and visible deterrence (Cohen & Felson, 1979). In supplying police with extra eyes and ears, they also represent a “force multiplier” that can significantly increase police capacity (Ayling, 2007). As both Larson et al. (2011) and Pepper (2022) note, the additional capacity supplied by volunteers allows officers to attend to more pressing tasks. However, to achieve their objectives patrols must move beyond mere “presence” to a system for sharing and acting on relevant information. One of the most important interactions between PLOs and patrols, then, is effective intelligence exchange; a key expectation of the NZP/CPNZ memorandum of understanding (MoU) (CPNZ, 2019).

Respondents were asked whether they supply their patrol with police intelligence. As expected, given the terms of the partnership, almost three-quarters (71%) supply intel themselves or otherwise facilitate access to it. Rather less predictably, a significant minority (15%) do not. During the FG discussions, participants expressed surprise at this because of the importance of intel in guiding patrol operations. By way of explanation, some respondents reported a reluctance to issue “detailed” and/or “sensitive” information. One respondent noted concerns around “breaching privacy,” while another was wary of patrollers “leaving sensitive information lying about.” It was surprising to discover an absence of specific rules governing intel distribution beyond a general provision of the NZP/MoU, which states “…Police and CPNZ will seek to develop strategies to share information.” Thus, it appears that while the majority do supply intel, the decision on whether or what to share is largely left to the discretion of individual PLOs and/or intel sections.

What is shared/exchanged?

Respondents were asked to describe the types of information supplied. Following an iterative process of coding and recoding an extensive range of responses were clustered into one of three broad categories:

intelligence on local “hotspots,” to which patrols are directed

lists of stolen vehicles and wanted offenders; and

more general breakdowns of local crime trends and specific events or incidents.

In yet another illustration of inconsistent practice, while a small minority of PLOs withhold information from patrols, other routinely supply very detailed intelligence including lists of stolen vehicles (VOIs) and wanted offenders (POIs), often containing photographs and/or specific addresses. One respondent noted “we actually give them addresses to drive past and observe.” In addition, some PLOs, particularly outside the main centres, regularly invited patrollers to attend station line ups where they are exposed to the sensitive briefings given to all attending officers.

With a regular supply of accurate intelligence more likely to render patrols effective, those respondents who do supply intel were asked how frequently it is supplied. A majority (52%) did so weekly, or fortnightly (10%), and a quarter (26%) did so monthly or “as required.” Most are therefore aware of the importance of supplying regular, reliable intelligence, and of utilising that intelligence to effectively “direct” patrols.

Survey respondents were also asked to describe any further interactions beyond sharing information. Over half (52%) noted additional interactions but a significant minority (41%) do not venture beyond the narrow confines of the MoU. Those that do, however, often interacted with patrols via training, during specific initiatives (vehicle checkpoints) and fundraising events, while social contact, including catching up over coffee, was an equally common interaction.

Noted by over 40% of respondents, the most common additional interaction was patroller training. The “correct” use of police radios and “Comms” for incident reporting, “observational techniques” and “risk assessment” were the most frequently cited training topics. Conversely, over 50% of respondents had never been involved in patroller training, despite the best practice manual stipulation that “PLO is responsible for assisting patroller training” and that “PLOs should be aware of patroller training and capability” (CPNZ, 2019).

Compliance checks: Training and vetting

The MoU with NZP (CPNZ, 2019) states that “all intending members of a CPNZ patrol will be vetted and trained.” Thus, a different, though no less important, form of interaction involves the extent to which PLOs ensure patroller compliance with mandatory training and the vetting process.

Responders were asked if they were aware that only those who had completed training were permitted to patrol or else be “stood down.” Almost two-thirds of PLOs (63%) were aware but over a third (35%) were not. Respondents were then asked whether they were actively involved in verifying compliance. With most respondents aware of these rules, the responses to this question were surprising in that six out of ten do not make any such inquiries. Many noted how they rely instead on local patrol leaders to ensure compliance with some of these expressing a preference to maintain “distance”:

You have to keep that judicial distance … if we got involved in that process, there's potential for problems. I’m not there to police them, pardon the pun.

Part four: Strengths, weaknesses, frustrations and problems

The first two sections of the survey aimed to capture, for the first time, the PLO perspective on fundamental aspects of the role and their interactions with patrols. The aim of the third, in contrast, was to explore PLO perceptions of and attitudes to the CPNZ/Police partnership in broader terms. It is worth noting at the outset that when asked who they were in partnership with, most PLOs referred to their local patrol rather than CPNZ per se. The national body was rarely mentioned in this context.

Key strengths of the police/CPNZ partnership?

PLO respondents were asked for their views on the key strengths and benefits, and weaknesses, of the partnership. Written responses to these open-ended questions were categorised into three broad overlapping themes. The final section of the survey also included closed questions exploring whether patrol activities are broadly aligned with police expectations. Responses to these questions, which formed the fourth theme, show that most PLOs have confidence in their patrols.

Survey respondents identified multiple strengths and combinations of benefits of the partnership. For example, one respondent identified improved information flows and more precise tasking and, in turn, increased patrol efficacy. This respondent also noted how patrols are increasingly called upon to perform a wider range of duties, thereby further reducing the pressure on police. This single response, then, identified three strengths and benefits all of which were reiterated in the FGs. Mindful of the overlaps between (i), (ii) and (iii), the key strengths/benefits are:

Extends/expands police capacity/frees up frontline police

Improved information sharing, community interaction and local knowledge

Financial cost savings

Patrol activities and PLO/NZP expectations.

Extending police capacity: “Another set of eyes, another set of ears, another set of wheels”

The ability to call on and deploy CPNZ volunteers was frequently cited as a key strength. Over half of survey respondents (62%) agreed that the primary contribution of patrols lay in filling “gaps” and “freeing up” frontline officers. This echoes Ayling's (2007) description of volunteers as a force multiplier and Uhnoo and Hansen Löfstrand (2018) claim that volunteers can “unburden” the paid workforce by carrying out tasks police no longer had time for. PLOs also noted that in providing capable guardianship community patrols also extend the “reach” of the police—literally so in the case of CCTV monitoring. When viewed in the context of the significant growth in demand for police services, and the limited capacity to meet this demand (NZP BIM, 2023), the value of volunteer contributions becomes more clearly apparent.

Written responses to this open-ended survey question reflect the commonly held view that community patrols provide additional capacity by reducing police workload. The responses also highlight the fact that while the provision of extra eyes and ears remains their core contribution, patrols now perform a wider array of duties:

Filling the gap when Police are busy, workload sharing.

Freeing-up Police staff to do real Police work.

They get POIs, VOIs, areas where burgs are happening, disorder spots, concerts, school grounds.

Similarly, during the FGs, participants were near unanimous that patrols extend police capacity, and that the ability to task/direct patrols often negated the requirement for a formal police presence:

Deploying patrols is gold, otherwise we’d need at least two staff to attend.

…so police don’t need to be there unless it's something serious, if they [patrols] weren’t out there there's lots of things we’d just have to let slide.

…it frees us up, especially at night.

Information sharing and local interaction

The second frequently cited strength was an overlapping blend of information sharing and increased community interactions. Some respondents also claimed the CPNZ/NZP partnership had helped improve local community/police connections (see also Dickson, 2021; Rogers & Wintle, 2021), was generating higher levels of trust and confidence and had, in turn, strengthened police-citizen cooperation through facilitating better access to local knowledge. The following written responses to the open-ended question illustrate these common themes:

Enhanced communication, better information sharing.

Flow of information from community to police.

Fostered positive interaction with community.

Similar comments were made during the FGs:

…we closed lots of smaller stations, so patrols help by giving us that local connection.

The partnership's with the community…there's a lot of trust and confidence between us.

We get lots of information from people that wouldn’t normally contact us.

Financial implications/cost savings

The third key strength involved the cost savings rendered possible by the “gifting” of volunteer time and labour. That is, NZP enjoy extended capacity, improved community connections and access to local knowledge at relatively little cost. This finding aligns with international research on the “economic benefits” (Dickson, 2021, p. 2072) of volunteers and their “contributions of time, skills, and additional resources” (Pepper, 2022, p. 1032). As O’Connor et al. (2022, p. 153) point out alleviating “some of the demands placed on police … allow for more strategic use of limited police resources.” More specifically, in their exploration of the economic impact of volunteers in Lancashire Police, Gravelle and Roger (2009, p. 36) calculated savings of over £320,000 per year.

PLOs referred to the number of patrol hours invested and the savings NZP enjoyed by deploying volunteers over police staff. FG participants clearly recognised the financial benefits and that patrols are a valuable “resource” without which NZP would struggle to deliver a similar level of service and presence:

There's little hi vis police patrolling because our frontline has to go from job to job … if I could only double the patrol's hours.

They're our eyes … fantastic resource.

They save us heaps, there's incidents we can't attend, we’ve got 18 patrollers so we send them, nothing too serious, but think about that happening across the country, a huge saving.

Patrol activities match expectations

The fourth theme centred on the extent to which patrol activities are aligned with PLO and NZP expectations. It is reassuring that over 70% of PLOs agreed that their patrols were performing effectively and in line with expectations. However, almost one in (18%) also reported that some patrols had occasionally engaged in inappropriate or “risky” activities. In the FGs, several PLOs expressed concern about some over-eager patrollers putting themselves at risk, but also emphasising that most do not:

I’ve had to have a word about them following a VOI, they can’t be doing that stuff.

Recently, our patrol got chased out of a neighbourhood … hanging around a ‘tinny house’ watching the punters, I had to give them a bollocking.

There's been a few instances with patrollers putting themselves at risk, where police should have been called.

The MoU with police makes it clear that “CPNZ patrols are not required or expected to put themselves at risk.” Training (typically delivered by police) is the primary mechanism for communicating safe practice. If, or when, disagreements arise, including patrols taking unnecessary risks, the NZP/MoU instructs that “any issues, disputes and differences … shall in the first instance be resolved at the local level.” Hence there is a role for local PLOs in the process of tasking and directing patrols to ensure unnecessary risks are avoided. In practice, however, because patrolling is largely unsupervised, patrols are often left to decide for themselves acceptable levels of risk. Fortunately, the vast majority err on the side of caution.

Areas of weakness, sources of frustration

Most PLOs were keen to emphasise the benefits of the partnership. Nevertheless, survey respondents and FG participants also highlighted a number of significant problems and frustrations. While some of these were confined to particular patrols, others were so frequently cited they can be considered widespread. It should also be noted that PLOs reiterated issues and themes cited earlier, including rotation and the discontinuities this creates, insufficient PLO training and non-existent and/or superficial inductions.

Analysis of responses to an open-ended survey question identified three main weaknesses, all of which were further discussed in the FGs. However, other less frequently cited complaints will first be noted. These included problems with “confidentiality” and “station security” in those locations where patrols had access. Other less frequently cited complaints highlighted external structural factors where the problem lay not with patrols per se but with the wider NZP and/or CPNZ organisations. Examples include complaints about “excessive bureaucracy” and “convoluted” application/vetting processes. Given CPNZ patrols claim to “represent” their communities several PLOs noted that the wider community was not sufficiently familiar with, or even aware of, local patrols. Others noted the older age profile of patrollers and the need for CPNZ to “rejuvenate,” while another identified a lack of “diversity” and that patrols do not reflect the ethnic and cultural make-up of the communities they serve (see also Millie, 2019). While the lack of diversity was identified as “an issue,” particularly in the context of NZP efforts to diversify its own organisation, it was also pointed out because CPNZ is voluntary, police had little control over membership.

Three main weaknesses

While the above issues demand careful consideration, other weaknesses were cited much more frequently. PLOs were particularly concerned about three cascading weaknesses that flow from one to the other and thus serve to compound the effects of each other:

Time limitation

Inadequate organisational support

Little acknowledgement/recognition of patrols among other police.

Limited time and competing priorities

The first revolved around the limited time available to work with patrols, and the additional workload the PLO role generates. Written responses to the open-ended survey question included:

Creates work I don’t have time for.

Few available hours to work with patrols.

During the FGs it became apparent that, regardless of how committed they may be, where time was limited the PLO role came a distant second to “core” police duties. For one participant, when that happens “the role gets lost.” Similar comments were made across other FGs:

Workload means it's sometimes difficult to give them attention.

To be honest, I have to prioritise the bigger things.

Community staff are first cab off the rank for relieving, and Patrols suffer.

Organisational support

The second overlapping weakness involved inadequate NZP support for both PLOs and patrols. Again, the literature is primarily focused on organisational support provided to volunteers, rather than police (see Cheah et al., 2021) but it does consistently highlight the importance of organisational commitment to working with volunteers (Alfes et al., 2015; Callender et al., 2018).

Survey respondents were asked specifically whether they felt adequately supported. Just over half (51%) appeared satisfied but 41% were not. When asked to describe how inadequate support was manifest, many reiterated earlier themes and issues, including competing priorities, workload pressures and an absence of training. Dissatisfied PLOs were, however, united in the belief that these problems could be resolved through improved organisational support.

Among the most frequently cited concerns was a lack of financial support for patrols which, for some PLOs, indicated inadequate NZP “commitment” to the partnership and particularly among senior ranks. Survey respondents noted how the latter was sometimes manifest in a failure to accommodate (or even allow) patrols on police property. For others it was a failure to supply patrols with much-needed equipment (especially radios), a lack of commitment to patroller training and assistance with fuel costs. For others still, it was manifest in “unrealistic” demands placed on patrols. A less predictable manifestation were the risks associated with lax police monitoring while patrols are on duty. Written responses to this open-ended question included:

Insufficient support from police at senior staff district level.

Tasking patrollers with unrealistic duties.

Lack of financial support and organisational commitment.

Too little police oversight creates risk to police.

The FG discussions revealed significant frustration among those participants who questioned senior-level commitment to the partnership. It was noted, for example, that wholesale attitudinal changes towards volunteers had accompanied changes in senior leadership at both national and district levels:

I’d like to see CPNZ properly supported, over the years it's been poor … we’ve seen many changes in responsibility for overseeing CPNZ in the district.

There's Police … promising the world, but that's not what's happening. I listen to [name] promises but know it's not gonna happen … don't sit in your castle and promise the world while these guys [PLOs] are still battling away on nightshift or going to patrol meetings in their own personal time.

They get very little from us … We keep asking for patrols to get radios and a contribution to their fuel … I think the partnership's tokenistic.

We get mixed messages from the boss,he says ‘yea, we really value them’, then says patrollers can’t park in the station ‘cause of space.’

Wider police indifference

Limited time and competing priorities were linked to the third frequently cited weakness; namely a lack of respect for, indifference to and failure to acknowledge patrols among the wider police whānau (family). The importance of volunteer acknowledgement is a recurring feature of the literature. Westall (2021, p. 2091), for example, found that being “validated” and “recognised” created a sense of belonging. Similarly, “job satisfaction” among volunteers in Callender et al.'s (2018, p. 9) study was closely linked to feeling “appreciated for the time they give.” In the current study, however, some respondents referred to a “superior attitude” among colleagues not directly involved with patrols, and an indifference that sometimes bordered on hostility; a finding echoed by Van steden and Mehlbaum (2019, p. 423) who note “occasionally tense relationships with paid colleagues” who noted situations where volunteers “were ignored and viewed as ‘only temps’ … that were not worth taking the time to get to know or value.”

Other PLOs, however, while equally critical, offered some defence by referring to workload pressures with many police colleagues simply lacking the time to familiarise themselves with local patrols. Written survey responses included:

Colleagues too busy to spend time with patrols, they don’t get them.

Negative attitudes among some police toward CPNZ.

Our staff are sometimes rude and hostile, it's embarrassing.

FG comments similarly underlined a lack of appreciation across the wider organisation:

All they need is a simple thank you, some acknowledgement.

There's a mindset amongst young cops especially that patrollers are just wannabe cops. They’re not given any respect…

Here patrols can come and go. But other stations don’t even allow them in, there's a big difference with the relationship with other police.

Summary and conclusion

This article has presented the NZP perspective on its partnership with the largest manifestation of citizen-led policing in Aotearoa. As the key interface between NZP and community patrols, PLOs were the primary focus and insight into their experiences and perceptions was sought via a nationwide survey and FG discussions. As the first of its kind in Aotearoa, and one of very few empirical studies internationally, the research has made visible a hitherto obscure but crucial perspective on citizen-led policing. Following Britton and Knight (2021, p. 2049), the hope is that this research may yet bring into the mainstream what has thus far been “peripheral conversations regarding police volunteers.”

When canvassed on the key benefits of the partnership, three themes emerged. First, and echoing findings in the wider literature, community patrols act as a force multiplier (Ayling, 2007) and extend police capacity (O’Connor et al., 2022; Westall, 2021). In one of the few studies that canvassed volunteers and officers, and in common with the current study, Wilkins (2008) found that volunteers help “free up” officers to attend more serious incidents and, following Pepper (2022, p. 1033), help reduce frontline pressure by “carrying out tasks that otherwise might not be done.”

Second, deploying volunteers generates significant financial savings by negating the need for a police presence; a more expensive option for basic “beat work” and monitoring relatively low-level issues. Hence PLO descriptions of patrols as a “fantastic resource.” As Gravelle and Rogers (2009, p. 36) point out, volunteer schemes “have a clear economic advantage.” The third theme, and key benefit, was an overlapping blend of information sharing, improved local connections and better access to local knowledge. This is also consistent with international research findings, including those from Scotland (Dickson, 2021), England and Wales (Millie, 2019), the United States (Albrecht, 2025; Dobrin & Wolf, 2016) and Australia (Rogers & Wintle, 2021).

Despite the clear benefits that accrue from the CPNZ/NZP partnership, PLOs also highlighted various frustrations. First, inadequate training and/or induction left some PLOs uncertain about the nature of the role, leading to inconsistencies in the ways they interact with and make themselves available to volunteers. This is an important and novel finding in that while the international literature highlights the importance of training (see Britton et al., 2021; Callender et al., 2018; Millie, 2019), it is typically focused on volunteers rather than police. Clearly, if police and volunteers are to work effectively together, then both parties need a better understanding of what to expect, and what can be expected, from each other. Second, even among those who are highly supportive of local patrols, workload pressure emerged as a key barrier to full engagement. PLO availability and engagement fluctuated in response to competing demands with PLO duties ranked well below core policing responsibilities. Moreover, limited engagement is exacerbated by rotation and the disruptions and discontinuities associated with it. Third, rooted in a poor understanding of their value, PLOs highlighted an attitude of indifference to volunteers among the wider police whānau; a finding closely aligned with Callender et al. (2021, p. 16), who referred to behaviour towards U.K. special constables that “were variously disrespectful, discouraging and unwelcoming.” As van Steden and Mehlbaum (2019, p. 424) caution, if volunteers do not operate “within an appreciative environment” attracting citizens into police work becomes all the more difficult.

Key findings of this research provide specific insight into Aotearoa New Zealand's experience of citizen-led policing. However, two in particular may also extend beyond these shores and offer potentially valuable lessons for other jurisdictions grappling with similar questions about how best to incorporate citizen-led policing. First, a small collection of liaison officers carries the responsibility for sustaining the CPNZ/NZP partnership and harnessing the contributions of 4,500 volunteers. Currently, because CPNZ volunteers engage predominantly with PLOs, their connection to the wider organisation is limited and positions them somewhat akin to a specialist unit operating on the margins. Volunteers, both here and overseas, could therefore be more fully integrated throughout the organisation while preserving the independence that enables them to operate with, rather than for, police. Echoing Britton and Knight (2021, p. 2049), and Pepper (2022), this highlights the importance of building relationships with those with little or no previous experience of working with volunteers. Furthermore, as Callendar et al. (2019, p. 394) suggest, if volunteers are to be fully accepted into “the extended police family,” it requires the creation of opportunities for staff “to engage with volunteers in their day-to-day roles” and increased awareness of “the capacity and capability that this additional resource can bring.”

Second, in common with the United Kingdom (Britton & Knight, 2021), Australian (Rogers & Wintle, 2021) and Canadian (O’Connor et al., 2022) experience, this research has highlighted shortcomings and inconsistencies in the support provided to volunteers and to the officers tasked with working alongside them. As Bullock and Leeney (2016) point out, the success of “auxiliary” policing programmes “hinges” on effective management of the programme. For Aotearoa, in particular, this translates to a formal recognition and better management of PLO workload to help facilitate more regular and consistent engagement with volunteers. While mindful of the practical challenges this poses for police, it would reduce the sense among PLOs, and those occupying similar positions overseas, that working with volunteers can be a “burden.”

Finally, in Aotearoa specifically, PLOs have developed specific expertise in facilitating and supporting volunteer involvement. Their collective frontline experience makes them a valuable organisational asset whose knowledge can help improve the CPNZ partnership and a broader, more strategic development of citizen-led policing. If NZP is to maximise the contributions of community volunteers and realise the potential for proactive and preventative policing, then more consistent and sustained support across the entire NZP organisation will be required.