Proposal
for method of assessing Competence
Re: PSI Act Criteria on Competence
Compiled by Ian D. Withers on behalf of
The World Association of Professional Investigators
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 categories of work undertaken across the Sector, this
does not really assist, in that it will be impracticable to "measure"
specific competence over a wide range of the various categories 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 "across-the-board" accepted practice and to
turn that into a specific standard. A Student can then demonstrate
performance of that same Task to the specified 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 adequate 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, categories 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 surmise 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 every one 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 suggested 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 category 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, 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 suggested to the ISG that a submission to the SIA does need
to be urgently made to clarify the following additional areas of concern.
a) What efforts have been made, and will be made to develop reciprocal
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 affecting
the Competence Criteria Check. It is EU Compliant, AND will meet the
standard as set out in the Statutory Instrument which applies to EU
Migrants.
Ian D. Withers (NVQ 4 - Investigations)
WAPI - Chairman (& ISG Representative)
Fellow & a Founder Member of WAPI
Member of NALI - National Association of Legal Investigators (USA)
