Real Policing

Yesterday I spent a considerable amount of time (10 hours, to be precise) filling out the online feedback form under the police reform section on the Home Office website.  The form itself is divided into four sections and asks 35 separate questions relating to reducing bureaucracy, neighbourhood policing, local accountability and managing resources.  To answer some of the questions only requires common sense and a general idea of the complexities of policing while, towards the end, a more specialist knowledge of policing, economics and logistics is helpful.  From my understanding the feedback forms will be scrutinised by the review team in preparation for Sir Ronnie Flanagan’s interim report on policing due at the end of August.  Whilst the feedback form asks for the public’s ideas and suggestions in order to ensure the review’s success, it does not explicitly ask for the public’s views or concerns which are just as much an integral part of the review’s success as their ideas and suggestions. 

Although I appreciate that not everyone has the patience to commit several hours out of their day to filling in a protracted feedback form, nevertheless, we have yet another opportunity to make our views known.  We increase our chances of bringing about the kind of police force we are paying for and for which our rank & file officers joined by providing our feedback.  Is it not better to increase our chances of getting what we want by making our views known than getting what we didn’t want by remaining silent?.  Please click on the link below then click on the accompanying notes which must be read before the form is sent as the notes themselves include the questions the answers of which must be entered on the feedback form.  Please feel free to e-mail me at info@realpolicing.co.uk if you need any guidance in completing the form and I shall e-mail you the confirmation I received from the Home Office which includes the answers I provided.         

Lastly, I have been contacted by a member of Parliament who is interested in presenting the Real Policing petition on the floor of the House of Commons in the near future.  I have a handful of national media commitments during September and will be aiming to submit the petition sometime thereafter.  I shall keep you updated of my commitments on the home page of the Real Policing website.  All the best.  I shall be back with you again soon.

Johnno.

http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/police-reform/flanagan-police-review/feedback-form/

…of Tuesday’s blog came an article in Friday’s The Daily Telegraph which revealed that there were fewer police constables in England and Wales despite a rise in funding.  According to Home Office statistics, the number of PCs fell by almost 500, from 108,279 last year to 107,806 on March 31st this year.  As a result, there were fewer constables per head of the population than in the previous year, a drop from 207 per 100,000 people in March 2006 to 205 per 100,000 this year.  The article also highlighted the concerns of some senior officers that due to the oncoming period of budget cuts the number of police constables will be difficult to sustain.  An increase in numbers is considered highly unlikely.      

On 7th June, 2007, a debate took place in the House of Lords regarding policing in England and Wales.  During his opening comments, Lord Dear explained that there are 264 officers per 100,000 people in England and Wales, compared with France where there are 387; in New York, 457; and in Chicago, 467.  Considering there are approximately 625 people per square mile in Britain, it would not be unreasonable to expect the number of officers to be akin to that of larger North American cities with similar population density.  If Home Office statistics are to be believed, there are 205 constables per 100,000 people which is considerably less than the 264 previously stated.  This put me in mind of a quote I heard recently that statistics are like a bikini.  It’s not what they show, it’s what they don’t show. 

What they do show is that there are inadequate resources to effectively meet demand.  For members of the public who believe that more money spent has not resulted in a better service, the prospect of the reduction in officer numbers will merely fortify their frustration.  What the statistics don’t show is how limited resources will be worked to death to maintain the current level of service many already consider unsatisfactory based on their own experiences or what they see as the lack of a regular police presence.  For response officers operating at minimum staffing levels it means their predicament looks set to worsen. Similarly, the alleged success of Neighbourhood Policing Teams (NPTs) ought to be considered in light of their impact on the reduction in the number of 24/7 response officers. 

Moreover, critically low officer levels coupled with the wasteful bureaucratic employment of their time has resulted in the inefficient system of policing we currently have.  The benefit of any increase in numbers, which in the immediate future appears unlikely, will be limited as long as inefficient practices remain.  Furthermore, Government initiatives and legislation in the absence of sufficient officers on the ground to impliment and enforce them will do little to placate those among a dissatisfied public who believe they are not receiving value for money.  The Government must accept that what police forces have on the ground is simply not enough, as their own statistics have confirmed.           

The Hansard debate in the House of Lords lasted three hours and addressed the need for police reform in a coherent manner.  The importance of the subject matter dictated the duration of the debate.  Please click on the link below although do allow yourself plenty of time as it takes almost as long to read.    

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/27/npcs127.xml

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldhansrd/text/70607-0002.htm#07060771000004

The time is over-ripe for a touch of levity.  A retired West Yorkshire Police Inspector sent me the below e-mail after researching the increase in the number of officers in his force over a 32 year period.  I cannot say I’m altogether surprised by the Inspector’s findings which are no more of a cause for celebration than the former Home Secretary John Reid’s delight that his department had placed 14,000 extra officers on the beat since 1997.  Firstly, those officers were more likely put behind a desk than on a beat.  Secondly, after having done my sums that worked out at an average of 32.5 officers per force per year.  However, with resignations, retirements and transfers etc, I expect the net gain swiftly turned into a net loss.  Yet, the Inspector appeared more perturbed by the lack of tea making facilities than the marginal increase in West Yorkshire’s head count.  Hell hath no greater fury than a copper dispossessed of facilities with which to make a cup of rosy lea!  When he referred to it as a scandal I had to laugh.  Talk about priorities!!!

Hi Johnno

I am a retired Police Inspector of the West Yorkshire Police. Here are some FACTS about the increase in police officers in that force in the past 32 years.

The figures quoted are from research by me and from the Chief Constable’s Annual reports. In 1974 Leeds City Police (in which I joined and served) amalgamated with several smaller city and borough forces in the West Yorkshire area to form the West Yorkshire Metropolitan Police. The strength of the force at that time was 5103 officers. In the Chief Constables report of 2006 the strength is given as 5685 - that is an increase of only 582 officers in 32 years !!! This equates to 18.2 officers per year, which does not even cover retirements and ill-health retirements etc. (The same report also shows that that the Force has 3670 civilians and 461 Police Community Support Officers) BUT due to the demand from all sectors of society the thin blue line is as taut and thin as it can get. Officers are now expected to patrol in schools; hospitals; airports; not forgetting all the sporting events. All these taking them away from working the beat where they should be. There is no wonder there is not enough bobbies on the beat.

By the way - in the West Yorkshire Force there are NO canteens and NO bars in any of the police stations (except at Training School) so officers cannot even get a cup of tea never mind a warm meal when they are on duty. If they do not bring their own food to work they go hungry, or buy junk fast food. This in itself is a scandal. I hope this is of use to you. I have written to my local newspaper and the Sunday papers in the past on the above subject but it was never published - I wonder why?

I believe all serving and retired officers know the truth don’t they.

Kind Regards

A retired Surrey officer kindly sent me an article which appeared in last week’s Mail on Sunday.  The article, entitled ‘Half of all Criminals Aren’t Even Hauled Before a Court,’ revealed that last year only 40-50% of offences bought to justice involved conviction in the courts.  This figure was down from 68% in 2003.  The article questioned the apparently arbitrary practice of cautioning an offender in lieu of sending them to court.  It also questioned the proportionality of cautioning for such offences as rape, violent assault and threats to kill.  The most telling statement in the article, which I am in no doubt is the cause for what many may regard as soft justice, concerned the Government’s counting rules and how cautions carry the same weight as court convictions.  Few would argue currently that quantity has not replaced quality. Such is the levelling effect of targets that there is no longer a distinction in terms of gravity.  It’s either a detection or it isn’t.  What is alarming is how the relative functionality of the justice system and its ability to cope is dependent upon the status quo and current undesirable practices.           

For those who are unfamiliar with the caution process allow me to explain.  A caution is authorised and administered by a sergeant although in some cases it may be authorised by the local Crown Prosecutor.  A caution can only be administered as a result of an offender’s admission of guilt.  Where there is no admission a caution cannot be offered.  I say offered as the caution itself has to be accepted by the offender, which in most cases it is.  It’s not likely that someone of reasonably good character and a previously clean slate would refuse a caution just to have their day in court.  A caution is not a conviction although it remains on a person’s record for a period of five years.  The offender also has to be suitable for a caution which means that any offending history must meet certain criteria.  It is possible for a person to be cautionable for an assault whilst having been cautioned within the previous five years for a disimilar offence, such as criminal damage.  However, it is not permissible to caution ad infinitum and more than two cautions within a five year period on a person’s record is uncommon. 

Certainly, a caution would not be suitable for particularly serious offences in addition to those where there exists what are known as ‘gravity factors.’  If the gravity factors are such that they demonstrate an intent to commit a serious offence then it is possible to bypass a caution and simply charge a person who has no offending history.  An exception to this would be where there was an admission of guilt from the offender but the aggrieved was unwilling to support police proceedings.  I can only assume this was the justification for cautioning twenty-two rapists, although I remain rather sceptical about the other eight-thousand.  Where there is an admission of guilt to an allegation of rape or other offence of similar gravity, it is debatable whether or not the Crown Prosecution Service ought to authorise charge anyway.  However, the CPS have their own government targets to reach and would not be inclined to authorise charge where there is no realistic prospect of a prosecution.  What is unsettling is the realisation that without the arbitrary use of disposal methods such as cautions an already over-burdened criminal justice system would almost certainly succumb to considerable pressure if those who ought to be charged actually were.  In view of the fact that the CPS are struggling to manage their current caseload, with many cases taking several months or even years to come to trial and the Government seeking alternatives to prison, the criminal justice and penal system simply could not cope with an increased workload or, for that matter, more convictions, particularly those justifying a custodial sentence due to the severity of the offence or the prolific offending history of the defendant.   

To be sure, the methodology relating to case disposal whether or not there is a realistic prospect of a prosecution, is indeed arbitrary, sometimes unjust and almost certainly driven by the need for police forces to satisfy centrally imposed detection targets.  Why else are street cautions for cannabis possession and fixed penalty notices for shoplifting, criminal damage or disorderly behaviour (half of which apparently go unpaid) meted out so readily? Why else are cautions given to those who actually ought to be charged along with those who are more deserving of a discretionary ticking off than a caution?  Exactly why those who were not hauled before the courts but should have been is just as much a matter of public concern as those being criminalised who shouldn’t have and has more to do with generating detections in order to satisfy government targets than bringing offenders to justice.  As a result, only a reported forty-two percent of the public believe criminal justice agencies are effective in punishing criminals.  Therefore, approximately two-thirds have been alienated from the justice system and those who serve to protect them.  The Government and indeed the public need no more proof that policing according to targets has failed parlously.  Justice according to targets has fared no better.  Regardless of how distasteful the idea of soft justice is it is an unfortunate necessity in order to prevent the justice system in its currently weakened state from entering into complete meltdown.

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=469115&in_page_id=1770&ct=5

In March, 2007, former Home Secretary John Reid announced a review on the future of policing.  Dr. Reid appointed former Northern Ireland police chief Sir Ronnie Flanagan to carry out a review of policing and produce an interim report by the end of August, 2007.  The interim report will consist of recommendations intended to address the challenges of reducing bureaucracy and also improving neighbourhood policing. The final report, to be produced by the end of the year, will address four key issues: reducing bureaucracy and promoting better business processes, sustaining and mainstreaming the (perceived) success of neighbourhood policing, ensuring that the public are driving local policing priorities and also how the police service can manage its resources effectively.  In response to the interim report, an eleven page memorandum was sent to Sir Ronnie on 29th June, 2007, by Police Federation chairwoman Jan Berry.  The federation’s response, outlining its thoughts on phase one of the review relating to bureaucracy and neighbourhood policing, came as a result of its visits to different forces where officers related similar experiences of restricted practice.  The findings of the federation regarding police efficiency, in addition to that which compromises it, provide the yardstick by which to measure the cogency of Sir Ronnie’s Flanagan’s report. 

Firstly, the federation memorandum addressed the issue of bureaucracy.  The point was immediately raised that despite past initiatives intended to reduce bureaucracy the overall levels of police paperwork have actually increased.  It stated that the forms made obsolete were among those which officers did not routinely use.  In addition, the federation contended that many of the documents completed by officers were done so in order to make the life of administrative staff easier, as officers completed the same information numerous times (see BBC Radio Five Live 9/5/07).  The federation have suggested a reversal of this trend whereby officers have only to enter details once after which any duplication can be completed by support staff and thereby increasing the amount of time officers spend policing our streets.

Moreover, the federation addressed the concerns surrounding the Crown Prosecution Service as another considerable contributing factor to the amount of time officers spent completing bureaucratic tasks.  Of particular concern was the amount of time spent completing case files in addition to the quantity of evidence CPS solicitors require before they are prepared to authorise the charging of an offender (see Serving the CPS 19/4/2007).  The federation expressed its support of efforts to reach an agreement with the CPS on reducing file content to comprise only relevant material as opposed to requiring every superfluous detail.  Similarly derided was the amount of time police officers spent on prisoner processing and post-charge case file preparation.  In lieu of sufficient support staff to complete tasks left to front line officers, such crippling bureaucracy has a considerable impact on resourcing levels which in turn affects the ability of front line officers to adequately respond to and protect the public from becoming victims of crime.  It is not unusual for the majority of a shift’s officers to be tied up in custody whilst the streets remain unpoliced and relatively unprotected.                          

Next was raised the issue of the Home Office Counting Rules and the National Crime Recording Standard - a nationwide framework established to ensure the consistency of crime recording whose inflexibility has further encumbered and constrained practical policing methods.  Chief among the federation’s concerns was the Home Office directive of classifying 183,000 common assaults (an offence which requires no injury) as a violent crime.  The financial cost to the service of investigating an offence which until a few years ago was not considered a police matter amounts to £43 million pounds annually.  Ludicrously, two school children pushing and shoving each other without causing any injury is dealt with in the same manner as a higher level assault for no other reason than to satisfy the inflexible dictates of NCRS whilst providing a tick in the detection box.  Expending resouces in such a profligate fashion would still be unjustifiably excessive even if resources were not an issue.  Similar concerns were also expressed regarding the difficulty officers face filing even the most minor crimes as undetected without first having completed an extensive list of enquiries (see NCRS for Beginners 13/4/2007).  What constitutes a reasonable and proportionate investigation of low-level crime must be considered in the light of its impact on the capacity of limited resources to deal with such offences in a manner which can only come at the expense of investigating more serious crime.

Lastly, the federation expressed sufficient concern regarding the alleged success of neighbourhood policing teams (NPTs) to request the delay of any further roll-out.  Citing the government’s assertion that NPTs will reduce the pressure on response teams, the federation’s research suggested that early initiatives were struggling to make any real impact.  According to NPT officers they are frequently called upon to fill the gaps in the capabilities of response officers whose own numbers have been significantly reduced in order to staff NPTs.  In many cases NPT officers have been abstracted to answer calls the response officers were unable to attend.  The reverse situation has also been experienced by similarly frustrated response officers (see At the End of My Rope 25/6/2007).  The need for regular abstractions illustrates how inadequately resourced the police force is to provide both response and neighbourhood policing to a standard expected by the public without compromising officer and public safety.  With many sections of response teams operating below minimum staffing levels prior to the implimentation of NPTs it is difficult to share in the Government’s optimistic view of NPT’s success.  It would appear the government did not take into account the critically low levels of response officers before pillaging their numbers in order to staff NPTs.  Both NPT and response officers also reported how their work was predominantly driven by the pressure to achieve detection targets which resulted in an increased focus on minor crimes and considerably undermined their discretion to employ practical policing methods where appropriate (see Five of the Best 13/5/2007).

Without doubt, the perennial burdens on the police force remain bureaucracy, paperwork, resources and targets whilst funding, resources and efficient work practices can only contribute to its relative effectiveness.  No real revelation, of course.  However, a greater emphasis on one element alone won’t necessarily provide a knock-on effect sufficient to bring about change elsewhere.  An inefficient and inadequate system will remain that way no matter how much money or resources are committed or pledged as a result of government reviews, initiatives or election mandates.  The ability of the Government to protect our interests and security at a national level ought to reflect its ability to protect us within our own communities.  The key to an effective police force lies in careful consultation with those who do the job on the street.  The first step to establishing what works or at least has the potential to do so is to identify that which does not.  Reduce bureaucracy, paperwork and targets whilst increasing resources and maintaining funding and let’s see how we go from there.  Perhaps it’s as simple as that.      

http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/police-reform/flanagan-police-review/

http://www.polfed.org/Sir_Ronnie_Flanagan_Response_Part_one.pdf

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/1704256.stm

Welcome back to Metropolitan Police Inspector Mark Scoular after a five-year hiatus.  In today’s The Sunday Telegraph, Inspector Scoular expressed the same horror at the state of policing as felt by the majority of his fellow rank and file colleagues, the Police Federation, ex-officers and, most importantly, members of the British public.  Only career politicians with neither the working nor the expert knowledge of the job and senior officers ignorant of what goes on on the ground appear to be among those who are not voicing similar concerns.  Instead, they are telling us statistically how well the police are doing at detecting crimes many of which their greater visibility could have prevented.  I wonder whether Inspector Scoular could be prevailed upon to sign the real policing petition? 

Incidently, my open letter to Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has been sent to her Parliament e-mail address on three separate occasions along with the link to this blog.  However, I have yet to receive a response.  Whilst I appreciate the premature demands placed upon Ms. Smith, nonetheless, a reply is still expected.  In the event that Ms. Smith does oblige I shall post her response here.  Next week I shall be taking part in the filming of a much welcomed documentary regarding modern policing.  I shall update you with more details nearer the date of transmission as I do not wish to undermine the intentions of the programme’s producers. 

In regards to the petition, I would like to take the opportunity to thank those of you who have signed so far.  The fact that the number of signatories has reduced considerably recently is no cause for concern as this was never intended to be a campaign which would produce instant results.  Furthermore, I have come to recognise the role of the media in generating publicity which in turn generates signatures.  However, certain sections of the media appear somewhat disinclined to report on the campaign unless it is newsworthy in its own right or ties in with a similar story of theirs.  Such is the nature of a relationship which is reciprocal on their terms and with which, at present, I shall abide.  Nonetheless, we must press on and make our voices heard if we are to achieve the efficient police force both we and our rank and file officers deserve.  Please click on the link below to read more on the commendable Inspector Scoular.  All the best to you.  I shall be back with you again soon.

Johnno.        

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/08/npolice108.xml

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=MAVFS5EYDGONTQFIQMGCFF4AVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/exclusions/thinklocal/nosplit/crime1.xml

If there’s one thing that’s guaranteed to rouse my deepest passions it’s favouritism.  Generally speaking, those who deserve to be treated differently are the ones who don’t pull their weight.  I’ve asked myself whether jealousy is the reason why I vehemently disapprove of favouritism but I can’t say so.  It has more to do with fairness and respect than jealousy.  Good work should always be rewarded, or at the very least, acknowledged.  During my service I never sought to impugn the efforts of my colleagues when my own good work went unnoticed.  We all did the same job and worked hard to manage paperwork and reach personal detection quotas.  However, some had to work harder than others and team detection targets gave rise to two rather unsettling and ongoing incidents of favouritism in order to achieve a monthly quota.  Team detection targets were intended to compare team performance and measure productivity but with particular consequences for officer development and morale.

In August, 2003, I had the misfortune to be working alongside the one officer who I would remotely consider a bully.  As is characteristic of most bullies, this officer chose his recipients among those who were less likely to defend themselves.  Prolific in terms of detections, he specifically targeted town centre car parks for cannabis users.  On an evening or night shift he self-effaced with alarming regularity.  When radio control called him up for a job he excused himself by stating he was busy stop-checking a vehicle.  He returned to the station several hours later with numerous evidence bags containing the spoils of his night’s work.  The productivity of this officer was easily measured in terms of detections and such that the sergeants left him to his own devices.  His contribution enhanced monthly team performance figures in a manner that those who spent time attending non-crime domestic incidents, searching for missing persons, arresting and processing drink drivers and attending traffic collisions or sudden deaths did not.  However, the latter would still be expected to reach their personal quota in addition to attending the aforementioned incidents which, by their very nature, had nothing on the end of them in terms of a detection.

Similarly, another sergeant under whom I served operated a system of favourites which allowed two experienced officers dispensation to actively seek detections at the expense of the rest of the team.  Both officers were spared the relentless allocation of live investigations and were designated on a daily basis as the immediate response car.  Their remit was to attend immediate response calls which were fewer in number than the more routine calls but were generally more likely to result in a detection.  These officers were free to roam and fulfill both their personal target and, consequently, the team target.  The remaining officers played a supporting role by attending the more routine calls where a detection was less likely whilst having to investigate their own allocated cases.  They too were still expected to reach their own personal monthly target.  The justification for the favoured officers’ tenure as the immediate car was that they were the most productive whilst in it.  That is hardly surprising when they were the least encumbered by live investigations and with a remit to attend only immediate response incidents which lend themselves commodiously to detections whilst creating an opportunity between calls to actively seek them.  The contribution of the two officers to the division’s performance figures was not inconsiderable and their efforts were recognised with the divisional commander’s commendation.

Regrettably, the above examples had particular consequences for both morale and officer development.  A popular criticism among supervisors is that less experienced officers lack both the instinct and the practical skills for proactive policing.  That is an unfair criticism as long as they are denied the equal opportunity (when paperwork allows) to develop sound street policing skills.  Fledgling officers will continue to develop at a much slower rate as long as they play a supportive role to those colleagues favoured to generate detections in order to meet team performance targets.  For every inspector or chief inspector who presides over a system of target driven favouritism, your complicity deserves censure and ensures the gradual, rather than rapid, development of your less experienced officers who are already restricted by an inefficient system of paperwork and reactive policing.  With regards to officer morale, the effects of detection driven favouritism on those who joined to disrupt the activities of hardened criminals but are frustrated in their efforts to do so ought to be neither dismissed nor downplayed.  Impeding development for the sake of performance figures merely serves to reinforce manifest inefficiency and also the disillusioned mindset of those who are once again prevented from doing the job they joined to do.