en

Scientific Journal of the National Academy of Internal Affairs

  • Home
  • Vol. 31, No. 2, 2026

  • A model for determining normal and critical risk levels in the activities of the national police of Ukraine based on the mean and standard deviation

  • Received 12.01.2026,
  • Revised 09.04.2026,
  • Accepted 26.05.2026
  • Published 01.06.2026
Download article Download article
Vol. 31, No. 2, 2026
  • risk assessment; risk indicators; risk-based approach; standard operating procedures; safety environment
  • https://doi.org/10.63341/naia-herald/2.2026.37
  • Pages 37-46

The research relevance is determined by the need to enhance the analytical rigour, objectivity and consistency of security environment assessments in the activities of the National Police of Ukraine, given the dynamic changes in the crime situation. Approaches to determining threshold values for risk indicators, in particular those based on the use of the median, did not adequately account for the variability of statistical data, which limited their sensitivity to changes in time series and reduced the effectiveness of management decisions. The study aimed to develop a methodological model for determining normal and critical risk levels in the activities of the National Police of Ukraine based on the use of the arithmetic mean and standard deviation. Within the scope of the study, a risk assessment model was proposed, which involved determining the normal statistical range of indicator values and establishing threshold values for identifying risk levels. On this basis, an approach to classifying risk levels (stable, elevated, extreme) was formulated, which was based on the interpretation of deviations of indicators from the mean value and was used for the formalisation of the boundaries of the transition from a normal to a crisis state in the security environment. As a result of applying the model, the quantitative limits of the normal functioning of indicators and the threshold values for elevated and extreme risk levels were determined, enabling an objective comparison of their dynamics over time. Testing of the model using the indicator of serious bodily injury resulting in death confirmed its sensitivity to changes in statistical series and its suitability for the early detection of negative trends. The proposed approach was characterised by the reproducibility of results and reduced the dependence of assessments on subjective expert judgements, thereby enhancing the soundness of management decisions in the field of public safety. The results obtained can be used in the information and analytical support system for the activities of the National Police of Ukraine to monitor risks, respond promptly to their increase and optimise the allocation of resources

References

  1. Afzal, M., & Panagiotopoulos, P. (2025). Data in policing: An integrative review. International Journal of Public Administration, 48(7), 411-430. doi: 10.1080/01900692.2024.2360586.
  2. Almasoud, A.S., & Idowu, J.A. (2025). Algorithmic fairness in predictive policing. AI and Ethics, 5, 2323-2337. doi: 10.1007/s43681-024-00541-3.
  3. Bäckman, T., Sandegård, E., & Thodelius, C. (2025). The role of digital and algorithm-based alert systems in policing mental health crises: A scoping review. Health & Justice, 13, article number 75. doi: 10.1186/s40352-025-00385-x.
  4. Brayne, S. (2020). Predict and surveil: Data, discretion, and the future of policing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  5. Chen, J., Li, W., Li, Y., & Chen, Y. (2024). Integrated assessment of security risk considering police resources. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 13(11), article number 415. doi: 10.3390/ijgi13110415.
  6. Cranshaw, T., Austin, H., Moore, J., Evans, E., Rauf, S., Groom, F., Mannix, E., Whitehouse, E., & McKinnon, I. (2025). Evaluation of the sensitivity of the health screening of people in police custody (HELP-PC) tool in Northumbria Police, UK. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 102, article number 102101. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2025.102101.
  7. Dario, L.M., Cesar, G.T., Jalbert, K., & de la Torre, F. (2024). Quantifying the impact: From prevalence to harm in evaluating police misconduct. Journal of Criminal Justice, 93, article number 102229. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2024.102229.
  8. Ezzeddine, Y., Bayerl, P.S., & Gibson, H. (2023). Safety, privacy, or both: Evaluating citizens’ perspectives around artificial intelligence use by police forces. Policing and Society, 33(7), 861-876. doi: 10.1080/10439463.2023.2211813.
  9. Halford, E. (2024). Classifying missing persons cases: An analysis of police risk assessments using multi-dimensional scaling. Police Practice and Research, 25(5), 612-639. doi: 10.1080/15614263.2024.2330623.
  10. Logan, C. (2022). Threat assessment in law enforcement: Advances in the appraisal and management of violence risk by police. In D. Canter (Ed.), Police psychology: New trends in forensic psychological science (pp. 313-335). London: Academic Press. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-816544-7.00015-2.
  11. Lyall, A., Austin, H., Alder, R., Wild, G., Reid, K., & McKinnon, I. (2023). Pre-release risk assessments: Pilot study of a novel tool in one police station in the North East of England. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 17. doi: 10.1093/police/paac082.
  12. Marciniak, D. (2023). Algorithmic policing: An exploratory study of the algorithmically mediated construction of individual risk in a UK police force. Policing and Society, 33(4), 449-463. doi: 10.1080/10439463.2022.2144305.
  13. Mugari, I., & Obioha, E.E. (2021). Predictive policing and crime control in The United States of America and Europe: Trends in a decade of research and the future of predictive policing. Social Sciences, 10(6), article number 234. doi: 10.3390/socsci10060234.
  14. Phoenix, J., & Francis, B.J. (2022). Police risk assessment and case outcomes in missing person investigations. The Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles, 96(3), 390-410. doi: 10.1177/0032258X221087829.
  15. Ratcliffe, J.H. (2016). Intelligence-led policing (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.
  16. Richardson, J., & Norris, K. (2021). Evaluating the risk assessment tools used by Australian police officers responding to domestic violence incidents: A narrative review. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 28(6), 785-801. doi: 10.1080/13218719.2020.1739576.
  17. Ryland, H., Burghart, M., Zhong, S., Fazel, S., & Yu, R. (2025). Risk assessment tools used at the policing stage for health and crime outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Social Science & Medicine, 383, article number 118457. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.118457.
  18. Skinner, S. (2024). Enhancing accountability for police use of lethal force: Global monitoring and comparative benchmarking. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 18, article number paad100. doi: 10.1093/police/paad100.
  19. Sunde, I.M. (2025). Turning legal obligations into safety: Norway’s police risk assessment system for IPV under Article 51 IC. Nordic Journal of Studies in Policing, 12(2), 1-19. doi: 10.18261/njsp.12.2.3.
  20. Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., & Russell, C. (2021). Why fairness cannot be automated: Bridging the gap between EU non-discrimination law and AI. Computer Law & Security Review, 41, article number 105567. doi: 10.1016/j.clsr.2021.105567.
  21. Zare, H., Gilmore, D.R., Balsara, K., Pargas, C.R., Valek, R., Ponce, A.N., Masoudi, N., Spencer, M., Warren, T.Y., & Crifasi, C. (2025). State-by-state review: The spread of law enforcement accountability policies. Social Sciences, 14(8), article number 483. doi: 10.3390/socsci14080483.
  22. Zimmermann, C. (2025). Statistical literacy in the police: Handling statistical information and using it for risk assessments. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 40, 442-450. doi: 10.1007/s11896-024-09689-4.