The Police Foundation’s Future of Neighbourhood Policing project set out to bridge the gap between the end of the Neighbourhood Policing Programme in 2008 and 2025, by which date the Policing Vision’s promise of a more proactive preventative form of local policing is due to be realised1. It has done so by investigating how and why neighbourhood policing has changed in England and Wales since 2008, and what it looks like in 2017/18, then using this new knowledge as a platform to establish sound principles for delivering sustainable, preventative, integrated and publicly connected local policing services for the future. The exercise was necessary for four reasons. First, because localism has fragmented the national narrative of neighbourhood policing; second, because, including for rhetorical reasons, the meaning of the ‘neighbourhood’ label has become opaque; third, because progress towards a shared national goal requires an understanding of where we are now; and fourth, because it is clear that – in the context of funding cuts, shifting priorities and new patterns of demand – neighbourhood policing has not fared well, with warnings of ‘erosion’ to capacity and capability repeatedly issued2. A broad set of research methods were employed: police workforce data was analysed, police forces were asked to provide information on past developments and future plans, focus groups were conducted with 14 sets of neighbourhood police officers and PCSOs across seven police forces, force leads and national stakeholders were interviewed and practitioners were asked for input through a web survey. In total, force-level input was secured from 31 out of 43 territorial police forces alongside a rich pool of practitioner insight. These investigations led to a number of conclusions3: Neighbourhood policing has diversified considerably since 2008. Workforce data analysis indicates that from a relatively consistent starting point, forces have pursued different and often contrasting strategies in relation to their neighbourhood and broader local policing models (eg consolidation versus radical redesign, specialism versus generalisation, civilianisation versus de-civilianisation etc.). On the ground, variation is apparent within as well as between forces. Local iterations can be universal or more targeted, high or low intensity, pragmatically allowed to dissolve into general local policing or reconfigured to accommodate this more ‘hybrid’ remit. Alternatively, neighbourhood policing can be reformed and refocused with either a community or harm/vulnerability focus, if the latter this can be thematic or case-based. The traditional outputs of neighbourhood policing have been eroded. Front line practitioners consistently report that the number of staff available for core neighbourhood work has diminished substantially during the period while the demands on local policing have intensified and changed. The result has been significant attrition to the outputs and outcomes traditionally associated with neighbourhood policing; community engagement, visibility, community intelligence gathering, local knowledge and preventative proactivity are consistently reported to be in decline. However erosion is only part of the change narrative. Neighbourhood policing has undergone two distinct shifts in purpose since 2008, towards vulnerability/harm prevention and towards servicing reactive demand. Police force statements about the current purpose and meaning of neighbourhood policing demonstrate how ‘traditional’ aspects such as community engagement, problem solving, partnership working and reassurance, now sit alongside an emphasis on vulnerability/hidden harm, demand reduction, evidence based practice and early intervention. Although pragmatic rather than idealistic, neighbourhood personnel have increasingly also been used to service reactive demand; 14 from 22 responding forces said neighbourhood personnel were abstracted to some extent or a lot (with the rest saying a little). Some forces have designed the abstraction into a broader ‘neighbourhood
It is the mass of the living organisms in a particular area of the ecosystem at a particular time . It even includes the animals , plants and microorganisms .
It is the total mass of the community or the average mass per unit area .
The biomass of the phytoplankton are always more than the biomass of the fish .
Hence the correct statement would be (A) greater than standing crop of fish .
<span>I found these studies about d</span>eforestation in 2009<span>, 2/3 of the world forests were in 3 top countries: 1) </span>Russia<span>, 2) </span>Brazil<span>, 3) </span>Canada
