UNCLASSIFIED

United Nations
Department of Peace Operations (DPO)
Ref. DPO 2021.13

Standard Operating Procedures

Performance Reviews and

Appraisals of United Nations
Individual Police Officers

Approved by: Jean-Pierre Lacroix, USG DPO

Effective date: 1 November 2021

Contact: DPO/OROLSI/PD
Review date: 1 November 2024 or earlier if necessitated by review of
the Administrative Instruction ST/AI/2010/5 on
Performance Management and Development System

1
 UNCLASSIFIED

DPO STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES (SOP) GOVERNING PERFORMANCE

REVIEWS AND APPRAISALS OF UNITED NATIONS INDIVIDUAL POLICE OFFICERS

Contents:
A. Purpose
B. Rationale
C. Scope
D. Procedures
E. Roles and Responsibilities
F. Monitoring and Compliance
G. History
H. Contact

ANNEXURES
1. Recruitment Skillset
2. Template for workplan
3. Core competencies for each pillar
4. Performance Assessment Form
5. List of reference materials

A. PURPOSE

1. These Standard Operating Procedures set forth the principles, standards and procedures applicable
for the review and appraisal of the performance of certain categories of United Nations individual
police officers (hereinafter referred to in this SOP as “IPOs” – see 9) deployed as Experts on Mission
in United Nations peacekeeping operations (PKOs), special political missions (SPMs), and/or other
settings.
2. This SOP should be read in conjunction with the overarching Policy on United Nations Police in
Peacekeeping Operations and Special Political Missions 1, the four subsidiary guidelines that deal
with the four core pillars of a United Nations police component: police capacity-building and

1
Department of Peacekeeping Operations/Department of Field Support, Policy on United Nations Police in Peacekeeping
Operations and Special Political Missions, 1 February 2014 (DPKO/DFS 2014.01).
2
 UNCLASSIFIED

development, police command, police operations and police administration2, forming the core of the
Strategic Guidance Framework for International Policing (SGF), and DPO/DOS Standard Operating
Procedures on Assessment for Mission Service of Individual Police Officers (2019.19), Guidelines on
Specialized Police Teams on Assignment with United Nations Peace Operations (2019.34), and
DPO/OROLSI/PD Standard Operating Procedure on the Assessment and Evaluation of Formed
Police Unit Performance (2019.11 amended) and as amended.

B. RATIONALE

3. Security Council resolution 2436 (2018) emphasizes the need to have clear standards of
performance for evaluating all United Nations civilian and uniformed personnel working in
peacekeeping and calls for more accountability on the part of missions’ senior leadership. The
Integrated Peacekeeping Performance and Accountability Framework (IPPAF) developed following
a 2018 request from the Special Committee on Peacekeeping (C34), amongst others, looks at
improving in-mission unit and individual performance evaluation methodologies and analysis, and
strengthening remedial and accountability mechanisms, including through performance improvement
plans.
4. In addition to updating the principles, standards and procedures related to the reviews and appraisals
of performance, this SOP also incorporates the rating of performance based on the guiding principles
of the relevant pillars of SGF, inclusion of quarterly reviews as a form of institutionalizing regularity in
performance reviews, and the use of Performance Improvement Plans, to consistently improve
performance, in line with Security Council resolution 2436 (2018) and ST/AI/2010/5.
5. Based on the results of several surveys, the United Nations is implementing a new approach to
performance management that emphasizes continuous communication between supervisors and
their staff and the incorporation of constant feedback including peer reviews as well as staff-to-
manager suggestions. This is envisaged to make performance management as a whole much more
effective. One conspicuous feature of the new approach is the elimination of the mid-point review.
However, this approach of performance assessment has been adjusted in this SOP in consideration
of the limited tour of duty of seconded individual police officers who are mostly deployed to missions
for one year. Specifically, the quarterly reviews that are in this SOP place emphasis on continuous
communication and engagements on workplan-based milestones agreed between the officers and
their immediate supervisors. These formal quarterly communication and workplan-based milestone
engagements should not replace interspersed sporadic, daily work-related communications.
6. In addition, Heads of Police Components (HOPC’s) utilize the Police performance review and
appraisal process that incorporates, amongst others, performance agreement for senior managers;
individual officer work plans, and regular performance reviews and appraisals based on the said work
plans to support their mandate implementation to ensure alignment with mission objectives. The
performance appraisal process allows supervisors, especially the HOPC to identify exceptional
performers to be considered for future deployments, as well as those officers that fail to meet
performance expectations and who should not be considered for future deployment. An
unsatisfactory performance rating during a previous United Nations assignment disqualifies
candidates vying for future service with a PKO, SPM and/or other assignments with the UN.
7. Directives for Heads of Police Components of Peacekeeping Operations, (DPKO/PD/2006/00122)
(under review) requires that the HOPC must appraise the performance of United Nations Police
Officers in accordance with applicable DPO issuances and ensure that copy of performance appraisal

2
Guidelines on Police Administration (DPKO/DFS 2016.26); Guidelines on Police Capacity-Building and Development
(DPKO/DFS 2015.08); Guidelines on Police Command (DPKO/DFS 2015.14); and Guidelines on Police Operations
(DPKO/DFS 2015.15).
3
 UNCLASSIFIED

report is sent to the Police Division, DPO. The HOPC must complete performance appraisals that
are due to be signed by him/her prior to his/her check-out from the mission.
8. All UN Police Officers, including at the Command and supervisory levels, must be aware of this SOP
and compliance with this SOP is mandatory.

C. SCOPE

9. While the DPKO/ DFS Guidelines on Police Administration and its subsidiary upcoming Standard
Operating Procedure (SOP) Governing United Nations Police Assigned to [Mission] provide Heads
of Police Components (HOPCs), Police Chiefs of Staff (Police COS), contingent commanders and
other senior staff with a clear understanding of procedures of police performance management and
appraisals, these Standard Operating Procedures are adopted in order to present, in a factual and
documented form, the performance criteria, competence and capabilities of the concerned United
Nations Police Officers. Such records should be used inter alia in making decisions on extending the
tour of duty of officers, selection for future missions, or consideration for managerial responsibilities
with the United Nations.
10. This SOP applies to IPOs who may be:
10.1. individual police officers 3 who are deployed as Experts on Mission,
10.2. Individual police officers and civilian police policing experts 4 nominated by their
governments for service with peace operations and deployed as a part of a specialized
police team 5;
10.3. In the case of FPUs, the FPU Commander, the Deputy Commander, the Platoon
Commanders, the Section Leaders, the Operations Officer, the Liaison Officer, the
Logistics Officer, the Duty Officers and individual police officers (IPOs) at Mission and
Sector HQ’s who are employed full-time in the administration of Formed Police Units
(FPUs) 6
10.4. Individual police officers and civilian police policing experts deployed as Observers;
10.5. uniformed Government provided personnel (GPP) recruited, selected, deployed and
rotated by the UN Police Division.
11. Non-uniformed civilian GPPs deployed as part of the UN police components will have their
performance evaluated as per DPKO/DFS/DPA Guidelines for Non-Uniformed Civilian
Government-Provided Personnel on Assignment with United Nations Peacekeeping and Special
Political Missions (2015.01) and as amended.

3
For the purpose of this SOP, an individual police officer is an officer who serves in a Member state (MS) - based police or
other law enforcement agency and has been selected and deployed by the UN PD to a PKO, SPM and/or other
assignment.
4 For the purpose of this SOP, a civilian policing expert is a civilian staff from MS-based police, other law enforcement

agency or other public administration entity with expertise in areas that may or may not be core policing responsibilities but
are critical for the functioning of a host-country police or other law enforcement agency. Civilian policing experts fall within
a PKO’ and/or SPM’s authorized police strength but do not exercise police powers. Depending on a country’s needs,
civilian policing experts may be selected individually or as part of a Specialized Police Team (SPT).
5 The performance of the whole SPT, however, if deployed on the basis of a project, will be based on the project’s

benchmarks, expected accomplishments and outputs as outlined in the project document that had been endorsed by the
mission and the seconding State(-s) through an exchange of notes (Guidelines on Specialized Police Teams on
Assignment with United Nations Peace Operations (2019.34).
6 See 2017.09 Standard Operating Procedures on the Assessment of Operational Capabilities of Formed Police Units (FPUs)

(FPAT/AOC SOP) (as amended)

4
 UNCLASSIFIED

12. Performance appraisals of Corrections personnel recruited and deployed by the Judicial and
Corrections Service (JCS) of the United Nations but deployed as part of UN police components
will be as governed by DPKO-DFS SOP on Government Provided Corrections Personnel on
Assignment with United Nations Peacekeeping Operations and Special Political Missions
(2014.07) and as amended.
13. Performance appraisals for UNPOL officers holding staff positions on individual United Nations
Contracts in the professional, general service or field service categories are governed by
Administrative Instruction ST/AI/2010/5 on Performance Management and Development System
(as amended), as distinct from the process outlined in this SOP.
14. Performance assessment and evaluation of specialized capacities deployed as part of, and
embedded within Formed Police Units, e.g. canine handling, close protection, crime analysis,
forensics, investigation, public order management, special weapons and tactics (SWAT), guard
units and riverine policing, is governed by the DPKO/DFS Policy on Formed Police Units in United
Nations Peacekeeping Operations (2016.10) and as amended, and the DPO/OROLSI/PD
Standard Operating Procedure on the Assessment and Evaluation of Formed Police Unit
Performance (2019.11 amended)
15. Performance evaluations of non-commissioned officers and lower ranking members of Formed
Police Units, meaning and implying any officer within the FPU excluded by para. 10.3, shall be
done in accordance with the applicable standards of the concerned police contributing country,
and the standards established in the SOP on Assessment and Evaluation of Formed Police Unit
Performance (2019:11 amended).
16. This SOP does not cover matters related to Conduct and discipline.

D. PROCEDURES
D.1 General Principles
17. IPOs are deployed to peace operations/ other field presences following selection and recruitment
procedures 7 in which s/he would have demonstrated having at least one or more of the designated
skills (See Annex 1) within the four key functional areas of UN policing (administration, command,
operations, and capacity building and development) needed for that particular peace operation/ field
presence. Similarly, a civilian policing expert would have demonstrated having the required special
expertise to strengthen the capacity of the host country police or other law enforcement agency in
question, in line with the UN police guidance on capacity building and development.
18. UN Police supervisors are expected to utilize these procedures to systematically appraise IPOs
performance. Police Supervisors, regardless of rank, shall give subordinates ongoing informal
feedback throughout their Tour of Duty (ToD) as to an officer’s performance in their role, and in
particular on any weaknesses that require further improvement.
19. Performance should not only be subject to formal reviews, but in fact be continually evaluated and
when a performance shortcoming is identified, the staff member should be proactively assisted to
remedy the shortcoming. If the performance shortcoming was not rectified following remedial action,
administrative action can be taken. The overall performance is assessed through ongoing feedback
with supervisors and periodically formalized through a written appraisal that should be fair and
transparent and based on the delivery of required tasks.
20. UNPOL supervisors should handle performance issues by taking preventative actions to avoid
performance problems before they occur. Such proactive actions include communicating clear

7 DPO/DOS Standard Operating Procedures on Assessment for Mission Service of Individual Police Officers (2019.19),
5
 UNCLASSIFIED

performance goals and expectations to officers under their supervision, providing regular and
frequent feedback on performance; recognizing outstanding performance, both informally and
formally, and ensuring that officers under their supervision are making the most of continuous learning
and development opportunities. Proactive/ Corrective actions do not mean redeploying /
transferring officer/s to another unit.

D.2 Standards
21. Workplans. Upon entry into the mission area every IPO shall receive a job description from his/her
immediate supervisor. Upon receipt of the job description, the Officer should develop his/her work
plan in consultation with his/her immediate supervisor no later than two weeks after assignment. The
individual workplan should be cascaded from the sub-unit/unit/ section level workplan which are
developed annually, and which should itself cascade from the Component level workplan. The
essential elements of the individual workplan shall consist, amongst others, of goals/ objectives,
related actions and success criteria, where the goals/ objectives should link to the goals/ objectives
of the sub-unit/unit/ section, to the pillar work plan goal/ objectives, and ultimately to the UNPOL
component's goals/objectives. The workplans may be in a matrix form similar to what is in Annex 2.
22. Periods of evaluation. Formal performance assessment/ review/ evaluations of all IPOs (and senior
FPU officers (i.e. FPU Commanders and Platoon Commanders)) is obligatory upon completion of
each period of three months of continuous8 service in the Mission, or if deployed for a lesser period
than the normal deployment of one year, to any such specified period, which will also constitute as
the End of Cycle Performance Evaluation/ Overall Performance Evaluation for the IPO concerned.
23. Performance Reviews. During a normal deployment of one year, Performance evaluation after the
first three months shall be referred to as the “First Quarterly Review”; at the end of six months shall
be referred to as the “Mid-Point Review”; after nine months as the “Third Quarterly Review” and after
one year deployment, as the “End of cycle Performance Evaluation/ Overall Performance
Evaluation”. (See Fig.1)

Deployment/ extension with WorkPlan

First Quarterly End of Cycle

Review; PIP developed Performance
Evaluation/
MId-point Review; PIP revised/ updated Overall
Performance
Evaluation
Third Quarterly Review;PIP revised/ updated

Fig. 1

24. The First and each subsequent Quarterly Review/ Mid-Point Evaluations will address specifically the
performance of tasks and duties assigned as per the officer’s workplan. During these Quarterly
Reviews, Performance Ratings will be recorded for each of the IPO’s workplan objectives/ goals in
the Performance Assessment Form (PAF) (see Annex 4).

8
For the purpose of these Standard Operating Procedures, continuous service shall be understood to include any periods
of compensatory-time-off, annual leave, sick leave or any other duly certified period of absence from Office.
6
 UNCLASSIFIED

25. Performance ratings of each of the IPO’s workplan objectives/ goals during each of the periodic
reviews will be based on the progress of the particular workplan objective/ goal while employing
the core job-related competencies of the respective pillar under which the IPO is deployed, see
Annex 3. One goal may have several activities – ratings will be based on goals, and not on
activities
26. Job-related competencies are based on/ reflect the guiding principles of UNPOL work under their
respective functional area/ pillar vis-à-vis Command, Operations, Capacity Building and Development
or Administration to which the officer has been deployed. These competencies, while briefly illustrated
in Annex 3 for each pillar, are elaborated further under the respective UN Guidelines on Police
Command, Police Operations, Police Capacity Building and Development and Police
Administration 9.
27. However, “Core Job-related competencies” are those most critical for the function and will be
identified in the officer’s workplan. IPOs under the Command and Operations Pillar will have five (5)
of the most relevant Job-related competencies as their “Core Job Related Competencies”; IPOs
under the Capacity Building and Development Pillar will have all five (5) of the Job-related
competencies as their Core Job Related Competencies, and IPOs under the Administration Pillar will
have all three (3) Job related competencies as their Core Job Related Competencies. At the same
time, Reporting Officers may also record remarks, if relevant, on other competencies, including if
applicable, from other pillars during the quarterly performance evaluations under the Remarks area
of the PAF. Please see Annex 3: Job-related competencies for each pillar from which the Core
Job-related competencies will be derived.
28. These competencies together with progress of the Workplan objective/ goal define the level of
completeness and quality of the service delivery/ mandate implementation in respect of the officers
Workplan objective/ goal.
29. For example, using Fig.1, if an IPO uses all the required Core Job-related competencies to
exceed the required progress of her/his Workplan Objective/ goal, s/he is expected to get an
Excellent rating for that particular Objective/ goal. However, if an IPO uses all the listed Core
Job-related competencies to achieve fully functional/ compliant with requirements workplan
objective/ goal, s/he is expected to get a Satisfactory rating for that particular Objective/ goal. In the
same token, if an IPO falls short of utilizing all the listed Core Job-related competencies to
exceed the required progress of the particular workplan objective/ goal, s/he is expected to get a
Satisfactory rating for that particular Objective/ goal.
30. At the same time, all UN Police Officers are required at all times to “reflect the values of integrity,
professionalism and respect for diversity of the United Nations in both his/her professional as well as
their personal life and perform his/her duties diligently, impartially and with dignity, in a way that
upholds and advances human rights norms, standards and practices” 10.
31. Reporting and Reviewing Officers must be fully conversant with the core job-related
competencies of their respective pillar/s and should be able to explain the rating that they give based
on these competencies. While these competencies are detailed in the UN Police Policy and the
respective guidelines, a list is shown in Annex 3.

Value Rating Criteria

9
See Guiding Principles in each of Guidelines on Police Administration (DPKO/DFS 2016.26); Guidelines on Police
Capacity-Building and Development (DPKO/DFS 2015.08); Guidelines on Police Command (DPKO/DFS 2015.14); and
Guidelines on Police Operations (DPKO/DFS 2015.15)
10
Policy on United Nations Police in Peacekeeping Operations and Special Political Missions (DPKO/DFS 2014.01) page
6.
7
 UNCLASSIFIED

Excellent - Exceeds the Required The evaluated workplan objective/s/

workplan objectives/ goals goal/s exceeds required progress, thus
contributing to substantial advancement of
* This rating must be well supported
sub-unit/unit/ section’s mandate
by statements of specific actions in
implementation; and/or enabling the sub-
4 the particular workplan objective/s/
unit/unit/ section to function at high
goal/s and its/their specific
operational capability.
contributions to positive impact on the
sub-unit/unit/ section ’s mandate Officer extensively used all of the
implementation; and/or operational required core job-related competencies
capability/ies for the respective SGF pillar.
The evaluated workplan objective/s/
goal/s are fully functional/ compliant
with requirements enabling good
advancement of the sub-unit/unit/
Satisfactory - Meets the Required section’s mandate implementation; and/or
3 enabling the sub-unit/unit/ section to
workplan objectives/ goals
maintain a good operational capability.
Officer used most of the required core
job-related competencies for the
respective SGF pillar
The evaluated workplan objective/s/
goal/s are minimally functional/
compliant with requirements, however
they do/es not/minimally advance (s) the
sub-unit/unit/ section’s mandate
Needs Improvement - Not yet at implementation; and/or, do not/ minimally
2 enable (s) the sub-unit/unit/ section to
Required workplan objectives/ goals
maintain the required operational
capability.
Officer minimally used any or all of the
required core job-related competencies
for the respective SGF pillar.
The evaluated workplan objective/s/
goal/s are not functional or compliant
with requirements and thus causes the
sub-unit/unit/ section to insufficiently
Unsatisfactory - Significantly below implement its mandate; and/ or operate
1
Required workplan objectives/ goals below the required operational capability.
Officer minimally/ failed to use any of
the required core job-related
competencies for the respective SGF pillar
Fig. 2 Quarterly Reviews Performance Rating Criteria for each workplan objective/s/ goal/s

32. Performance Improvement Plans. As performance issues/ shortfalls often first show up during the
initial few weeks or months of deployment, this initial period provides a key opportunity for UNPOL
supervisors to address performance gaps and take action. As such, the “First Quarterly Review”

8
 UNCLASSIFIED

process shall include the development of a “Performance Improvement Plan (PIP)” for all personnel
under review which should be agreed between the concerned IPO and the Reporting Officer 11.
33. In the development of the PIP, the UNPOL whose performance is being reviewed shall be informed
of the workplan objective/s/goal/s in which s/he needs to improve, what is needed to be improved to
bring the performance up to exceeding required progress, what assistance will be provided, the risks
or challenges and the timeline for the officer to demonstrate the required improvement. A
performance improvement plan is developed and agreed upon by the officer by both the IPO Officer
whose performance is being reviewed and the supervisor. In case of disagreement on any of the
issues in the PIP, the Reviewing Officer may be required to resolve issues of disagreement.
34. The PIP shall form part of the overall performance appraisal and as such recorded within the
“Performance Appraisal Form”.
35. “Mid-point” and “Third Quarterly” Reviews. During the “Mid-Point Review”, in addition to providing
performance ratings against tasks and duties as per the officer’s workplan objective/s/ goal/s, the
Reporting Officer shall discuss and note in the relevant section of the “Performance Appraisal Form”
(i) progress in the PIP and any additions/ amendments/ exclusions therein; (ii) changes, if any,
proposed and agreed between the officer and the reporting officer on the workplan and the PIP; (iii)
the comments of the Officer under review; and (iv) the reporting officer’s overall assessment on the
progress of the implementation of the Officer’s workplan objective/s/ goal/s as well as the PIP.
36. The “Third Quarterly Review” will be undertaken in the same format as the First Quarterly Review
except that the timeline for any elements added to the PIP shall not exceed the Officer’s expected
end of duty date. The “Third Quarterly Review” will be critical in addition if an IPO is being considered
for extension. Any IPO who has not shown progress against both the performance ratings as well as
the achievement of elements of the PIP shall not be considered for extension.
37. End of Cycle Performance Evaluation/ Overall Performance Review ratings. The End of Cycle
Performance Evaluation will represent the accumulation of the quarterly performance reports and will
additionally address “Overall Performance” in which the Reporting Officer shall evaluate the Overall
Core job-related competencies (also used in “Quarterly Performance Reviews/ Appraisals”), core
values, the core competencies of skills, attributes and behaviours, and the managerial competencies,
as applicable. In the evaluation of such parameters for core values, the core competencies of skills,
attributes and behaviours, and the managerial competencies, the Reporting Officer may consult the
relevant guidelines of the United Nations Office of Human Resources Management which define the
competencies. 12
38. In the End of Cycle Performance Evaluation, the following values and competencies shall be included
and contribute to the determination of the Overall Performance Rating, in addition to satisfying the
relevant criteria for the respective rating as per Fig. 3.
38.1. Core values - shared principles that underpin the work of the Organization and guide the
actions and behaviours of concerned United Nations Police Officers or civilian policing experts
in carrying out their individual work. All United Nations Police Officers and civilian policing
experts are expected to behave in accordance with the core values and will be appraised on
their compliance with these values specifically:
38.1.1. Personal integrity;
38.1.2. Professionalism including advancement of intuitional knowledge management,
especially best practices and lessons learned; and

11
A member of the police component of the peacekeeping operation or special political mission who has been designated
as such by the Head of the Police Component or his or her delegate and who has worked as the direct supervisor of the
United Nations Police Officer subject to the appraisal for a period of not less than one (1) month.
12
Using PAS: A Guide for Staff and Supervisors, United Nations Office of Human Resource Management, undated
9
 UNCLASSIFIED

38.1.3. Respect for diversity (including comprehensive integration of women's rights and
gender equality commitments).
38.2. Core competencies of skills, attributes and behaviours - the skills, attributes and
behaviours, which are considered important for all United Nations Police Officers and civilian
policing experts, regardless of their level and pillar of deployment. The eight core
competencies of skills, attributes and behaviours are: communication; teamwork; planning and
organizing; accountability; creativity; client orientation; commitment to continuous learning;
and technological awareness
38.3. Managerial competencies - the skills, attributes and behaviours that are considered essential
for United Nations Police Officers with managerial or supervisory responsibilities. The six
managerial competencies are: managing performance; vision; leadership; building trust;
judgment/decision-making; and empowering others. Managing performance must be included
among the managerial competencies selected for all United Nations Police Officers who
supervise others.
39. The ratings and criteria set out in Fig. 3 below shall be used for the purposes of determining the
Overall Performance Rating. For an officer to get the “Exceeded Expectations” 13 or “Successfully
met expectations” rating, all corresponding criteria must be satisfied. If an officer gets any one of
the corresponding criteria for “Partially met expectations” and none of the criteria corresponding to
“Did not meet expectations/ Unsatisfactory” rating, s/he shall be given “Partially met expectations”
rating. Any officer satisfying a minimum of one criterion corresponding to “Did not meet expectations/
Unsatisfactory” rating shall be given the “Did not meet expectations/ Unsatisfactory” rating.

Level Rating Criteria

• Achieved all of his/her workplan objective/s/goal/s and readily
completed significant and unexpected goal that was added to
her/his workplan
• Contributed to a greater degree than expected to achieve the sub-
unit/unit/ section’s workplan objective/s/ goal/s; or enabling the sub-
unit/unit/ section to function at high operational capability
• Outstanding demonstration of core competencies and values
• Delivered outputs beyond expectations, by using innovative
methods, in a timely manner and to the highest calibre
Exceeded
4 • Introduced new ideas and processes to improve UNPOL mandate
Expectations
implementation/ support to host-state, resulting in efficiency gains
• Performed functions at higher levels in addition to her/his own
function for an otherwise unforeseen period
• Performed functions in an unexpected situation for a period longer
than six months and in addition to delivering on her/his workplan
• Demonstrated excellent and significant progress toward identified
goals in each of the quarterly performance reviews
• Excellently overcame all performance shortfalls identified in PIPs
and demonstrated high standards of progress

“Exceeded Expectations” rating must be well supported by statements of specific actions and their contributions to the
13

UNPOL component’s goal, and should be endorsed by the Reviewing Officer and signed off by the HOPC
10
 UNCLASSIFIED

* This rating must be especially well supported by statements of

specific actions and their contributions to the UNPOL component’s
goal

• Completed all personal workplan objective/s/ goal/s consistently

well to enable good advancement of the sub-unit/unit/ section’s
mandate implementation
• Completed all critical activities assigned during the tour of duty in a
timely manner
• Always kept supervisor informed of work issues, alterations and
status to her/his workplan and the related objective/s/ goal/s.
• Effectively contributed to and applied personal and professional
skills, knowledge and aptitude to achieve the sub-unit/unit/ section’s
workplan objective/s/ goal/s; or enabling the sub-unit/unit/ section to
Successfully
function at high operational capability
3 met
expectations • Demonstrated ethical work habits, relationships, coordination and
collaboration to complete assigned projects and tasks, and
consistently met deadlines with high efficiencies.
• Solidly contributed to innovation within assigned sub-unit/unit/
section’s workplan and beyond.
• Demonstrated strong team skills, learning aptitude and maintained
calm under pressure
• Demonstrated clear progress toward identified goals in each of the
quarterly performance reviews

• Failed to complete all personal workplan objective/s/ goal/s

consistently well to enable the required advancement of the sub-
unit/unit/ section’s mandate implementation
• Completed some of the critical activities assigned during the tour of
duty
• Did not always keep supervisor informed work issues, alterations
and status to her/his workplan and the related objective/s/ goal/s
and was subsequently addressed, especially at the quarterly
performance reviews

Partially met • Failed to successfully meet all the requirements of the PIP and failed
2 to source assistance
expectations
• Demonstrated ethical work habits, relationships, coordination and
collaboration to undertake assigned projects and tasks, and but
failed to meet deadlines consistently
• Did not have complete understanding of one or more important
areas of work and/or policy implications
• Showed inconsistency in performance of all assigned
responsibilities
• Used unreliable methods, including non-SGF-compliant methods
for completing assignments.
11
 UNCLASSIFIED

• May have been present and punctual and demonstrate good

interpersonal skills, but technical abilities are inconsistent
• A plan of action has been put in place to correct deficiencies, and
the supervisor sees progress in the staff member correcting the
identified performance problems

• Tried/ or actually circumvented established procedures

• Work of officer caused the sub-unit/unit/ section to insufficiently
implement its mandate; and/ or operate below the required
operational capability.
• Did not meet defined success criteria or performance expectations
for the majority of the goals/key results
• Quality and quantity of work were inadequate/ outputs did not meet
the minimum requirements expected
Did not meet • Demonstrates little or no contribution to sub-unit/unit/ section goals
expectations
1 / • Failed to meet own work objectives
Unsatisfacto • Officer’s poor work ethics resulted in missed deadlines/incomplete
ry work
• Work relationships with colleagues were strained
• Failed to respond to needs of mandate implementation
• Showed lack of response to the PIP
• A plan of action had been put in place to correct deficiencies, and
the supervisor saw little to no progress in the staff member
correcting the identified performance problems

Fig. 3 Determining the Overall Performance Rating (Criteria and ratings)

40. Appraisals are to be professional, objective, transparent and impartial and, to the extent possible,
shall highlight positive as well as negative aspects of an officer’s competence, as reflected in the
performance of their duties or discharge of responsibilities towards completing all personal workplan
objective/s/ goal/s consistently well to enable good advancement of the sub-unit/unit/ section’s
mandate implementation.
41. The final overall rating for the IPO or civilian policing expert’s performance during the appraisal period
should be determined fairly.
42. While “Exceeded Expectations” ratings require well supported and extensive documentation and
endorsement by the Reviewing Officer 14 and signed off by the HOPC, Reporting Officers shall also
provide a narrative with examples in the Overall Performance Assessment why an officer was given
the respective “Successfully met expectations”, “Partially met expectations”, or “Did not meet
expectations/ Unsatisfactory” rating; and a way forward on what could be done for her/him to be
supported in the future. In the case of “Did not meet expectations/ Unsatisfactory” rating, the
Reporting Officer shall ensure that specific, repeated examples of unsatisfactory performance had
been communicated to the staff member both verbally and in writing, along with specific expectations

14
The Head of the Police Component or his / her delegate for the review of performance appraisals
12
 UNCLASSIFIED

and suggestions for improvement. An IPO who receives an Unsatisfactory performance rating during
an assignment with the UN is disqualified from future service with a PKO, SPM and/or other
assignments with the UN. 15
43. Reporting. All appraisal reports, recorded in the “Performance Appraisal Form for United Nations
IPOs deployed as Experts on Mission” (Attached as Annex 4 and hereinafter referred to as
“Performance Appraisal Form”), shall be professional, objective, transparent and impartial and shall,
to the extent possible, highlight positive as well as negative aspects of United Nations IPOs and/or
civilian policing experts conduct and competence as reflected in the performance of their duties or
discharge of their responsibilities.

D.3 Procedures
44. The Performance Appraisal system shall be explained to each IPO or civilian policing expert by
his/her first line supervisor during his/her orientation in which the first line supervisor will outline the
goals of the mission and the Unit/Section, as well as the work standards and expectations that the
first line supervisor has of his/her IPO. These expectations and standards are to be cascaded down
from the already developed Mission Plan, UNPOL component and unit workplans16. This orientation
should take place within five (5) days of assignment.
45. Reporting Officers shall assess their subordinates’ performance against that for which the IPO was
selected and deployed (Core Job-related competencies); and the IPO or civilian policing expert’s
workplan objective/s/goal/s.
46. Supervisors are to provide ongoing and regular feedback with regards to the performance of all IPO
or civilian policing expert which the supervisor will periodically formalize through a written appraisal
that should be fair and transparent and based on the delivery of required tasks
47. An IPO has the right to request a performance evaluation from his/her superior when redeploying or
departing from the Mission. However, the minimum time served in the Mission to enable a fair
evaluation to be made must be three months. Where IPO or civilian policing experts are redeployed
to a new post after the first quarter and before six-months of initial deployment, his or her first
supervisor is responsible for completing the first quarter and mid-point reviews.
48. The respective IPOs Reporting Officer shall meet with the IPO prior to completing the evaluation to
receive input from the latter on all the performance indicators and discuss any goals that were set
during the initial orientation or previous evaluation.
49. Before finalizing the appraisal with any IPO or civilian policing expert, the Reporting Officer shall
discuss the appraisals of all IPO or civilian policing experts who report to him/her with the Reviewing
Officer. This will help to ensure consistency and fairness across the unit.
50. With regards to overall rating, the narrative of the Reporting Officer shall highlight all the
accomplishments or shortfalls in the examples.
51. The Performance Assessment Form shall then be shown to the concerned IPO or civilian policing
expert. The concerned IPO or civilian policing expert shall be required to comment on his/her
appraisal report before it is submitted to the Reviewing Officer. If, for any reason, the concerned
United Nations Police Officer is unwilling (see rebuttal procedures in para. 55) or unable to make
comments within fourteen days of the Review, the Reporting Officer shall make appropriate remarks
in this regard and submit them to the Reviewing Officer for final review.
52. The Reporting Officer finalizes the Performance Assessment Form by adding the narrative comments
which should specifically demonstrate how the IPO or civilian policing expert has carried out his/her

15
DPO/DOS Standard Operating Procedures on Assessment for Mission Service of Individual Police Officers (2019.19)
16
For relationship between the mission plan, component/ unit and individual workplan, please see: DPKO DFS Manual on
Mission-based Police planning (2017.13)
13
 UNCLASSIFIED

work and his/her accomplishments and shortfalls of the reporting period. Overall comments are
especially important with high or low ratings and should be consistent with the assigned overall rating.
53. The Performance Assessment Form will then be submitted to the Reviewing Officer who will review
its consistency and will make the required narrative comments.
54. The Reviewing Officer shall ensure that the grading of the concerned United Nations Police Officer
or civilian policing expert is consistent with the remarks made by the Reporting Officer. The HOPC’s
delegate is considered in all cases to be Reviewing Officers and is finally responsible for objective,
transparent and fair evaluation of United Nations Police Officers’ performance
55. Rebuttals. IPOs or civilian policing expert may seek to rebut the rating through an internal review
process. In instances where the concerned IPO or civilian policing expert does not agree with his/her
overall rating and/or the narrative of his/her performance appraisal, he/she may send a written
rebuttal note to this effect to the HOPC or his/her designate with a copy of the performance appraisal
form within fifteen (15) days of the signature of the Reviewing Officer. The HOPC or his/her designate
shall review these documents and shall take a decision based on his/her assessment and the findings
of the panel on Performance Assessment as constituted under the following paragraph.
56. On a quarterly basis, a panel chaired by the HoPC or his/her delegate, the Police COS and one other
member, shall be organized and facilitated by the Chief Police Human Resource Management Unit
(PHRMU). The panel shall review all Final/ Overall Performance appraisals and ensure that personal
bias has not influenced the evaluations, either by inflating the evaluation or being overly critical in the
evaluation. In particular, the panel shall consider whether appraisals rating officers as “Exceeded
Expectations” are warranted. The panel will also consider rebuttals of “Successfully met
expectations”, “Partially met expectations”, or “Did not meet expectations/ Unsatisfactory” ratings, if
any. Findings of the panel are to be communicated to the HOPC who will sign off the completed
appraisal and send to respective Reviewing and Reporting Officers to be communicated to the
concerned IPO.
57. Procedures in regard to dealing with underperforming IPOs and the issuance of awards and
commendations to good or excellent performers are dealt with in the respective mission’s “Standard
Operating Procedure (SOP) Governing United Nations Police Assigned to [Mission acronym]”.
58. One copy shall be given to the concerned IPO and another copy shall be placed in his/her personnel
file in the mission.
59. Recording and reporting. Appraisal reports shall be prepared in two (2) original signed copies.
60. A final performance appraisal must be completed prior to the check-out and end of tour of duty of the
concerned IPO. All completed appraisals are to be electronically maintained by the Police COS.
61. Each appraisal report duly processed and signed by all relevant officials, shall be uploaded to the
profile of the IPO in respective module in DPO/Police Division’s FSS.

E. REFERENCES
62. Relevant minimum references, as well as Headquarters-level guidance documents is found at Annex
5.

F. MONITORING AND COMPLIANCE

63. All UN presences with United Nations Police Officers deployed as Experts on Mission must comply
with these Standard Operating Procedures.

14
 UNCLASSIFIED

64. The UN Police Advisor, Heads of Missions or their delegates, and the Heads of Police Components
shall monitor compliance with this document. Senior police officers at all levels, including
commanders and supervisors, are also responsible for ensuring respect within their chains of
command.
65. Copies of this SOP should be easily accessible at Mission headquarters and regional offices (where
applicable).

G. HISTORY
66. This SOP supersedes the existing “Department of Peacekeeping Operations, Standard Operating
Procedures: Performance Appraisals of United Nations Police Officers, 19 December 2006 (2006.29,
DPKO/PD/2006/00132)”.
67. This SOP should be read with the other relevant documents, including Security Council and General
Assembly resolutions, administrative issuances, policies, SOPs, and other references listed in Annex
5 to the SOP or otherwise issued pertaining to the performance assessment of personnel of the UN
Police component.

H. CONTACT
68. The contact for this SOP is the UN Police Adviser.

APPROVAL SIGNATURE

Jean-Pierre LACROIX
Under-Secretary-General for
Peace Operations

Date: 25 October 2021

15
 UNCLASSIFIED

Annex 1 SKILL SETS AND EXPERTS PROFILES OF RECRUITMENT

SKILL SETS AND EXPERTS’ PROFILES

Areas of SGF Experts' Profiles
1.1. Supervision/management of police infrastructures/units
1.2. Commanding police operations
1 Command 1.3. Organizational planning
1.4. Liaison functions in various areas + negotiation and mediation
1.5. Other (to be specified)
2.1. Planning and running critical police/security operations in regard to elections,
demonstrations, public events etc.
2.2. Public order and FPU-related, including COE, Logistics and FPU
Administration
2.3. Special police (SWAT, rapid reaction units, counter terrorism, undercover
operations)
2.4. VIP protection and security
2.5. Riverine police operations.
2 Operations
2.6. Incident control and Search and Rescue Operations
2.7. Protection of Civilians, child, women and vulnerable people protection
(GCVPP, SGBV)
2.8. Crime prevention (community policing, juvenile crime, domestic violence)
2.9. Crime/data analysis, crime trend recognition
2.10. Generic police patrol duties
2.11. Other (to be specified)
3.1. Project/program management
3.2. Institutional building
3.3. Reform and Restructuring
3.4. Donor Aid Coordination
3.5. Change management
3.6. Advisory assistance
Capacity 3.7. Police infrastructures administration
Building and
3.8. Procurement, logistics, asset management, fleet management, tenders and
3 Development
contracts.
(incl. civilian
experts) 3.9. Fiscal management, budget development, payroll system management,
financial auditing.
3.10. Communication: radio and data communication system establishment and
management, police radio network installation and maintenance.
3.11. Civilian expertise with police authority, i.e forensic pathologists, crime
analysts, profilers, etc (to be specified)
3.12. Training organization and management;
3.13. Curriculum and training plans development;

16
 UNCLASSIFIED

3.14. General training (including in-service/field training) delivery in the areas of

basic and specialized training, advanced and leadership training, general policing,
police legislation, ethics, human rights, etc.
3.15. Training-the -trainers
3.16. Tactical training: self- defence, arrest, search, detention, escorting, etc.
3.17. Weapons handling training (non-lethal and firearms)
3.18. Traffic management, traffic safety, including all vehicles related policing
issues
3.19. Security of Airports and other large strategic infrastructures
3.20. Border security, customs, immigration etc.
3.21. Transnational crime operations, INTERPOL, illicit trafficking in drugs,
weapons, human beings, money laundering, economical crime
3.22. Livestock protection
3.23. Fire Prevention and Fire Fighting, Civil Protection, Natural Disasters
management
3.24. Crime investigation (crime scene management, suspect/witness
interviewing, human rights violation etc.)
3.25. Criminal intelligence analysis and management
3.26. Criminal records/data base management
3.27. Forensic, including crime scene and evidence preservation, fingerprints,
ballistics, firearm examination, DNA, pathology, handwriting and fraudulent
documents identification, money counterfeiting, etc.
3.28. Traditional policing (paramount, tribal, nomad-focused, etc.)
3.29. Cyber crime
3.30. Other (to be specified)
4.1. Logistics, asset management, fleet management
4.2. Human resources management.
4.3. Internal affairs, discipline management, professional standards
4.4. Audit/inspection of police units;
4.5. Public relations
4 Administration
4.6. Legal support, drafting of police acts, policies and guidelines.
4.7. Weaponry: armoury management and inspection, gunsmith, weapon safety
and storage, shooting range construction, explosives
4.8. IT: database development and administration, system design, computer
programming, network specialists.
4.9. Other (to be specified)

17
 UNCLASSIFIED

ANNEX 2 Suggested Template for workplan

Pillar:____________________ Unit/ Section:______________ Position:________________________

Last Name:______________________________ Other Names:____________________________
ID Card Number:__________________________
(Acronym of mission)
POLICE COMPONENT
Initial Goal/ Objective (SMART) 17 Alignment to which higher Related activities 18 Resource/ Deadline Success criteria 19
level objective (specify support
based on Section/ Unit/ requirements
component workplan)

17 Specific - What do you want to accomplish? Who needs to be included? When do you want to do this? Measurable - How can you measure progress and know if you’ve
successfully met your goal?; Achievable - Do you have the skills, resources, time, etc. that is required to achieve the goal?; Relevant - Why am I setting this goal now? Is it aligned
with overall objectives? Time-bound- What’s the deadline and is it realistic?
18 Related Activities - What steps do I need to do in order to accomplish the goal?
19 Success criteria - What will this goal look like once it’s successful?
18
 UNCLASSIFIED

Annex 3: Job-related competencies for each pillar

1. Each pillar has distinct requirements for activities conducted under the that particular pillar
which is shown below.
2. Quarterly rating will be based on the demonstration of “Core Job Related Competencies”.
3. IPOs under the Command and Operations Pillar will have five (5) of the most relevant Job-
related competencies as their “Core Job Related Competencies”. These will be determined
based on the level at which the IPO operates – for example, an IPO who is in a Command Pillar
and supervising others within the sub-unit may include relevant HR, including capacity building
and resource management competencies (e.g. See Nos. 2, 6 and 16 within the competencies
listed below) as part of their Core Job Related Competencies.
4. IPOs under the Capacity Building and Development Pillar and IPOs under the Administration
Pillar will have all five (5) of the Job-related competencies listed below as their Core Job Related
Competencies.
5. Reporting Officers may also record remarks, if relevant, on other competencies, including if
applicable, from other pillars during the quarterly performance evaluations under the Remarks
area of the PAF.
6. Any extraneous/ crosscutting activity will also be detailed in the remarks.

Command Pillar
1. Demonstrates when to lead, command and manage
2. Manages human resources effectively
3. Recognizes situations and reacted accordingly
4. Balances competing responsibilities
5. Understands own roles in a complex setting
6. Prioritizes capacity-building
7. Protects, promotes and respects human rights.
8. Zero tolerance for misconduct, including sexual exploitation and abuse
9. Facilitates the flow of information
10. Manages expectations
11. Fosters awareness of the local context
12. Treated community members as partners
13. Employs intelligence-led policing strategies
14. Comprehensively integrates gender equality commitments
15. Provides constructive feedback when necessary
16. Manages performance

Operations Pillar
1. Conducts operations as part of the UNPOL component and in an integrated manner
2. Utilizes legal frameworks that comply with international norms and standards in criminal
justice and crime prevention, human rights and humanitarian law as a basis for all operations

19
 UNCLASSIFIED

3. Cooperates with military counterparts within established limits to develop collaborative

strategies and joint operational implementation to bridge the functional gap and ensure
convergence of effort.
4. Recognizes the political context of UNPOL work, undertaking their activities in coordination
with the host-State police where possible and where appropriate in order to develop the
host-State capacities and to ensure their true ownership, as well as the sustainability of
these efforts
5. Promotes the concept of policing by consent by utilizing all the four cornerstones of
community-oriented policing - Consulting with communities; Responding to communities;
Mobilizing communities; and Addressing and solving the recurrent problems
6. Utilizes criminal intelligence or, in other words, processed information on crimes and
criminality, to plan, prioritize and allocate resources in undertaking crime reduction strategies
7. Prioritizes preventative deployments and proactive investigations over reactive law
enforcement.
8. Conducts or supports the host-State authorities to undertake targeted operations aimed at
preventing and/or disrupting criminal activity of actors posing the most serious threats to
peace

Capacity Building and Development Pillar

1. Support to police policy formulation (e.g. reform of police-related legislation, internal police
policies, SOPs and procedures);
2. Stakeholder engagement (e.g. informing, educating and empowering host-State
stakeholders concerning police matters);
3. Support to policing services (e.g. helping the host-State police to excel in the job of policing/
teaching the profession of policing);
4. Support to enabling services (e.g. making sure that the host-State police administration
(budgeting, human resources, infrastructure and fleet management, procurement is
transparent, effective and efficient);
5. Support to police accountability mechanisms (e.g. assisting the host-State police in
establishing effective internal oversight and performance measurement mechanisms,
strengthening of external accountability mechanisms, helping establish host-State police
performance measurement system).

Administration Pillar
1. Complies with all relevant UN regulations, rules, policies and procedures governing the UN
police component administration, especially Standard operating procedure governing United
Nations police assigned to a mission (SOP)
2. Ensure the most efficient use of resources
3. Maintains the highest standards of integrity in the conduct of work
4. Subject to security-related concerns, ensures transparency in actions and decision-making
processes.
5. Takes ownership for respective responsibilities, including taking responsibility for delegated
work, delivering timely work outputs and results, and operating in compliance with UN and
mission-level regulations and rules.

20
 UNCLASSIFIED

ANNEX 4 – PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT FORM

NATIONS UNIES
UNITED NATIONS Mission des Nations Unies
United Nations Mission [Nom de la mission en Français]/
[Mission Name in English] ‫اﻷﻣم اﻟﻣﺗﺣدة‬
‫ﺑﻌﺛﺔ اﻷﻣم اﻟﻣﺗﺣدة‬
[‫]اﺳم اﻟﺑﻌﺛﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻹﻧﺟﻠﯾزﯾﺔ‬

PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT FORM FOR UNITED NATIONS POLICE OFFICERS DEPLOYED AS EXPERTS IN THE
[Mission Name in full]
Part A Personal Information of UN Police Officer
Information on the United Nations Police Officer

Last Name:

First and Middle Name:

Nationality:
ID Card Number:
Date of entry into the Mission:
Primary SGF Recruitment Stream and Expert
Profile 20
Secondary SGF Recruitment Stream and
Expert Profile 21 (if relevant)

20
DPO/DO Standard Operating Procedure for Assessment for Mission Service of Individual Police Officers (2019.19)
21
Ibid
21
 UNCLASSIFIED

PART B QUARTERLY REVIEWS (Ratings are from Fig. 2)

First Quarter From: To: Mid-term From: To: Third Quarter From: To:
Initial Goal/ Rating 22 Remarks 23 Rating Remarks 24 Rating Remarks 25
Objective (copied
from IPOs
Workplan)

22
Ratings are from Fig. 2 – one from “Excellent”, “Satisfactory”, “Needs Improvement”, or “Unsatisfactory”. One goal may have several activities – ratings will be based on goals,
and not on activities.
23
Supervisors are to explicitly identify each of the “Core Job Related Competencies” that the IPO is assessed on.
24
Ditto
25
Ditto
22
 UNCLASSIFIED

PART C PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT PLAN (PIP)

Mid-term Assessment Third Quarter Assessment:

Initial Goal/ Objective • Clearly identify the issue that needs addressing Rating 26
Remarks Rating Remarks
(copied from IPOs
Workplan) • Determine remedial action required

Final Remarks by Reporting Officer on PIP and any further actions required
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

26
Ratings are from Fig. 2 – one from “Excellent”, “Satisfactory”, “Needs Improvement”, or “Unsatisfactory”. One goal may have several activities – ratings will be based on goals,
and not on activities. If two or more goals in the PIP are rated as “Unsatisfactory”, the HoPC will consult with the Police Division in regard to additional actions required to
ensure performance improvement.
23
 UNCLASSIFIED

PART D OVERALL PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT/ END OF CYCLE PERFORMANCE

ASSESSMENT (Ratings are from Fig. 3)

I. GOALS
End of Cycle/ Overall Performance Assessment From: To:

Initial Goal/ Objective Rating 27

Overall Remarks
(copied from IPOs
Workplan)

II. CORE JOB_RELATED COMPETENCIES (5 from respective Pillar – Command,

Operations, Capacity Building and Development or Administration)
Assessment Ratings: 1-Unsatisfactory; 2-Needs Improvement; 3-Satisfactory; 4-Excellent 28
COMPETENCY 29 1 2 3 4 Remarks (if needed)

27
Ratings are from Fig. 2 however, in this case, it will be for the whole year – one from “Excellent”, “Satisfactory”,
“Needs Improvement”, or “Unsatisfactory”. One goal may have several activities – ratings will be based on goals, and
not on activities.
28
This rating must be well supported in the Remarks
29
Additional Competencies may be added by the Supervisor/ Reporting Officer for Annual/ Overall performance
appraisals as appropriate.
24
 UNCLASSIFIED

III. CORE VALUES

Assessment Ratings: 1-Unsatisfactory; 2-Needs Improvement; 3-Satisfactory; 4-Excellent
VALUE 1 2 3 4 Remarks (if needed)

Integrity

Professionalism

Respect for Diversity/Gender

IV. CORE COMPETENCIES OF SKILLS, ATTRIBUTES AND BEHAVIORS

(Select four (4) from Communication, Teamwork, Planning & Organization, Accountability,
Creativity, Client Orientation, Continuous Learning, Technological Awareness)
Assessment Ratings: 1-Unsatisfactory; 2-Needs Improvement; 3-Satisfactory; 4-Excellent
COMPETENCY 1 2 3 4 Remarks (if needed)

V. MANAGERIAL COMPETENCIES (if applicable, applies only to managers)

Assessment Ratings: 1-Unsatisfactory; 2-Needs Improvement; 3-Satisfactory; 4-Excellent
COMPETENCY 1 2 3 4 Remarks (if needed)

Managing Performance

Vision

Leadership

Building Trust

Judgement/ decision-making

Empowering others

25
 UNCLASSIFIED

VI. OVERALL PERFORMANCE RATING

Overall Rating
(to be completed by the reporting officer)
Narrative:

4. Exceeded Expectations
(Significantly surpassing performance expectations in quantity and quality. This rating must
be especially well supported by statements of specific actions and their contributions to the
UNPOL component’s goals)

3. Successfully met expectations

(Fully achieved performance expectations for all workplan objective/s/ goal/s consistently well
to enable good advancement of the sub-unit/unit/ section’s mandate implementation during
the performance cycle)

2. Partially met expectations

(Did not meet performance expectations for all personal workplan objective/s/ goal/s
consistently well to enable the required advancement of the sub-unit/unit/ section’s mandate
implementation)

1. Did not meet expectations/ Unsatisfactory

(Did not meet the defined success criteria or performance expectations for the majority of the
goals/key results. An IPO who receives an Unsatisfactory performance rating during an
assignment with the UN is disqualified from future service with a PKO, SPM and/or other
assignments with the UN. 30)

30
DPO/DOS Standard Operating Procedures on Assessment for Mission Service of Individual Police Officers (2019.19)
26
 UNCLASSIFIED

Comments of the Reviewed IPO:

Signature of Reviewed IPO:

Name:
ID Card Number:
Signature and Date:

Comments of the Reporting Officer:

Signature of Reporting Officer:

Name:
ID Card Number:
Signature and Date:

Comments of Reviewing Officer:

Signature of Reviewing Officer:

Name:
ID Card Number:
Signature and Date:

27
 UNCLASSIFIED

Annex 5 UN POLICY DOCUMENTS AND GUIDANCE MATERIALS

1. General Assembly, Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, 17 December 1979
(A/RES/34/169)
2. General Assembly, Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations,
adopted by the General Assembly on 13 February 1946
3. A/RES/72/112 resolution on criminal accountability of UN officials & experts on mission
4. United Nations, Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement
Officials, Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of
Offenders, 18 December 1990 (A/RES/45/121)
5. Security Council resolution 2436 (2018)
6. Security Council, Resolution addressing sexual exploitation and abuse by peacekeepers
deployed under Security Council mandates, 11 March 2016 (S/RES/2272)
7. Security Council, Resolution on United Nations Policing, 20 November 2014 (S/RES/2185)
8. ST/SGB/2002/9 Regulations Governing the Status, Basic Rights and Duties of Officials other
than Secretariat Officials, and Experts on Mission
9. Secretary-General, Bulletin: Special Measures for Protection from Sexual Exploitation and
Abuse, 9 October 2003 (ST/SGB/2003/13)
10. Administrative Instruction ST/AI/2010/5 on Performance Management and Development
System
11. Secretary-General, Assessment of the Police Division, 25 July 2019 (A/74/223)
12. Secretary-General, Report on United Nations Policing, 31 December 2018 (S/2018/1183)
13. Security Council, Resolution on United Nations Policing, 6 November 2017 (S/RES/2382)
14. Secretary-General, Report on United Nations Policing, 10 November 2016 (S/2016/952)
15. Secretary-General, Operational Guidance on the Implementation of Security Council
Resolution 2272 (2016) and Select Related Measures in A/70/729, 12 July 2016
16. United Nations, Human Rights Due Diligence Policy on United Nations Support to Non-United
Nations Security Forces, 5 March 2013 (A/67/775-S/2013/110)
17. United Nations, Policy: Human Rights Screening of United Nations Personnel, 11 December
2012
18. Using PAS: A Guide for Staff and Supervisors, United Nations Office of Human Resource
Management, undated
19. DPKO/DFS Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) Governing United Nations Police Assigned to
[Mission] [Generic SOP developed and forthcoming]
20. DPKO/DFS Policy on United Nations Police in Peacekeeping Operations and Special Political
Missions, (2014.01).
21. DPKO/DFS Guidelines on Police Administration (DPKO/DFS 2016.26)
22. DPKO/DFS Guidelines on Police Capacity-Building and Development (DPKO/DFS 2015.08)
23. DPKO/DFS Guidelines on Police Command (DPKO/DFS 2015.14)
24. DPKO/DFS Guidelines on Police Operations (DPKO/DFS 2015.15).
25. DPKO/DFS/DPA Guidelines for Non-Uniformed Civilian Government-Provided Personnel on
Assignment with United Nations Peacekeeping and Special Political Missions (2015.01)

28
 UNCLASSIFIED

26. DPKO-DFS SOP on Government Provided Corrections Personnel on Assignment with United
Nations Peacekeeping Operations and Special Political Missions (2014.07) and as amended
27. DPKO/DFS Policy on Formed Police Units in United Nations Peacekeeping Operations (2016.10)
28. DPO/OROLSI/PD Standard Operating Procedure on the Assessment and Evaluation of
Formed Police Unit Performance (2019.11 amended)
29. DPO/DOS Guidelines on Specialized Police Teams on Assignment with United Nations Peace
Operations (2019.34)
30. Directives for Heads of Police Components of Peacekeeping Operations,
(DPKO/PD/2006/00122) (revised and forthcoming)
31. DPO/DOS Policy on Authority, Command and Control in United Nations Peacekeeping
Operations (2019)
32. Guidelines for United Nations Police Officers on Assignment with Peacekeeping Operations
(DPKO/PD/2006/00135), 29 June 2007 (revised and forthcoming)
33. DPKO/DFS Guidelines for Integrating Gender Perspectives into the Work of United Nations
Police in Peacekeeping Missions, June 2008
34. DPO, Directives for Disciplinary Matters Involving Civilian Police Officers and Military
Observers (DPKO/CPD/DDCPO/2003/001, DPKO/MD/03/00994)
35. DPKO/DFS Guidelines for UN police officers on assignment with peacekeeping operations
2006.00135 (revised and forthcoming)
36. Pre-deployment training materials for IPOs (developed and forthcoming)

29