The green paper on policing, the Youth Crime Action Plan 2008 and the DCLG white paper 'Communities in Control: real people, real power' have been added to the downloads section.
Just click on the relevant category (DCLG, Home Office) in the sidebar to find them.
The green paper on policing should finally be published on Thursday this week and there is a lot of speculation in policing circles as to its contents. Will there be directly elected Police Authorities ? Less targets ? Greater citizen involvement in priority setting ? A compulsion to provide better and more regular policing information at neighbourhood level ? Crime mapping ? Well, yes, yes, yes, yes and yes is my guess.
However, one thing that doesn't need the use of the crystal ball is the content of the white paper 'Communities in Control: real people, real power' that was published last week by the Department for Communities and Local Government.
It's interesting that whilst colleagues regularly obsess about Home Office developments, it's DCLG that appear to continually lead and shape the broader agenda, with the Home Office coming along behind and providing the detail on the police service contribution to it.
Just to remind you, Wikipedia defines a green paper as 'a tentative government report of a proposal without any commitment to action' whilst a white paper is 'an official set of proposals that is used as a vehicle for their development into law'.
'Communities in Control' is 157 pages long and looks at seven key issues from the perspective of individual citizens: being active in your community; access to information; having an influence; challenge; redress; standing for office; and ownership and control.
The document is comprehensive in its ambition but declares itself to have a simple aim: to pass power into the hands of local communities so as to generate vibrant local democracy in every part of the country and give real control over local decisions and services to a wider pool of active citizens.
Gordon Brown describes it as 'an agenda for empowerment that reaches right across the board, from
supporting people who want to take an active role in their communities to giving them better access to information and the chance to get more involved in key local public services’. In short, comprehensive social engineering.
So, there's the ambition, what about the detail? Selective highlights would include joining up Neighbourhood Management and Neighbourhood Policing, developing the role of the Third Sector on LSP's and working with ACPO, the Ministry of Justice and the LGA to agree pilot projects for citizens to discuss ‘community payback’ and local community safety priorities.
Other things of note include:
Extending the ‘duty to involve’ (named bodies to take appropriate steps to involve people in decisions, policies and services that may affect them or be of interest to them), which comes into effect in April 2009, beyond local authorities to include a range of people and organisations including, Chief Officers of Police and Police Authorities.
Introducing the Policing Pledge. This will build on the national Quality of Service Commitment and will detail two levels of service, the national and the local. The national element which will set out what each force in England and Wales will deliver for the public, such as keeping people informed about the progress of their inquiries. The local element will set out where and how local priorities can be set in each area and agreed by people in the neighbourhood. It will also give people a way to hold Neighbourhood Policing Teams to account for tackling their local priorities. The detail will be in the green paper.
Following on from the Casey Review, better information provision is high on the agenda, with regular police feedback to people about what actions are being taken at neighbourhood level being central. Massive implications for the way that the service thinks about and provides information. Similar implications for brand management and budgets. I will blog about this another day.
From this month monthly crime information about levels and types of crime will be made available.
The Government (and the Conservatives) is also considering how crime mapping can be used so that the public can compare levels of crime and performance in their area with other similar areas.
Guidance on the 'councillor call for action' is expected before the end of the year and the wider role of councillors as 'community champions' and key players in local accountability arrangements is being developed.
The citizen voice in policing is to be enhanced. Petitions to hold officials to account and a requirement for visibility are referenced. The Government is clear that they 'will make sure that people have a voice in deciding how policing is delivered, are clear about who represents their interests on crime and policing, and are able
to hold the police to account. Interestingly the paper proposes that 'citizens will directly elect an individual to represent their interests in relation to crime and policing'. Expect this to be a feature item on Thursday.
In keeping with their 'elected' philosophy, the Government are keen to see more elected Mayors. and want to 'make the move to a directly-elected mayoralty more attractive to local politicians with an expectation that directly-elected mayors, where they exist, would chair the Local Strategic Partnership and, be the new Crime and Policing representative. The municipalisation of policing marches steadily on.
And finally (never forget the money), The Home Office will support piloting the use of participatory budgeting (see my previous posts on 'community kitties' or go to particpatorybudgeting.org.uk (really nice website btw)) for local community safety budgets. They, and other government departments, are considering whether money recovered from criminals under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 should be available to be used in this way.
So we've had the ambition, now we need the detail. Bring on Thursday.
Communities in Control can be downloaded here
Now there's an interesting thing. The government has launched a competition to find innovative ways of using its criminal justice, health and education data.
The data includes mapping information from the Ordnance Survey, medical information from the NHS , neighbourhood statistics from the Office for National Statistics and a carbon calculator from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the Power of Information Taskforce is offering a £20,000 prize fund for the best ideas on how to use it.
They are particularly interested in Google style mash ups (information brought together from more than one source which, when combined, provides added value).
Examples of the sort of thing they are looking for can be found on the Taskforce website here.
Given the current interest from both Labour and the Conservatives in crime mapping and localism, this seems particularly timely.
In the immortal words of Bobby Pickett and the Cryptkickers, if you have an idea for using all this data, it seems like a great time to 'do a monster mash'. there's a fair chance that 'it will catch on in a flash'.
I recently ran a Citizen Focus workshop for Tim Jacques and his excellent team at Lancashire Constabulary's Northern Division. During the day Tim talked about the considerable service improvements and customer benefits that Operation Quest was delivering.
(Operation Quest focuses on improving operational processes like call handling and incident management, helping forces improve their performance and save money. Merseyside, Suffolk, the Met, Avon and Somerset, Cheshire, Lancashire and Thames Valley have all been involved in Quest projects).
It seemed to me like good news worth spreading and something that other colleagues might be interested in knowing about, so I asked if Tim would put together a short overview for this website. He kindly agreed and his thoughts are set out below. Thanks Tim.
Operation Quest in Lancashire Constabulary’s Northern Division focused on the way we managed and resolved incidents reported to us.
The starting position was that despite grading of all incidents from the public for allocation of police resources there were a considerable number of incidents that were not managed effectively, in the main grade 3 (respond within 8 hours) and grade 4 (24 hours) jobs.
This culminated in the following outcomes:
* Logs stacked on the system and not resolved.
* Skeleton crimes being created due to 72 hour crime recording rules – generating significant activity to either upgrade these crimes or get them ‘no crimed’ once the complainant had been seen.
* Repeat attendance at some locations by different staff.
* Broken promises to the public that we would attend within a certain time limit. Either we did not turn up or we went at a totally different time when the member of public would not be present (inappropriately, we thought it was their fault not ours!)
* Increased call taking demand from customers enquiring as to what was happening with their reported incidents and when the police were attending.
* Increased outgoing calls from our comms ops to customers explaining that due to “unforeseen circumstances’’ we would not now be attending or we would be delayed.
* Police Officers attending incidents who did not know the customer was already far from satisfied with the police response and being surprised at hostile or negative responses from customers.
The aim was to improve the quality of service offered at first contact to provide the customers with a specific time period of their choice when they could see a police officer.
This led to:
* Increased training given to Communication room staff in grading incidents and those that could be resolved on the telephone
* A number of crime related incidents that did not require initial police attendance were sent direct to crime input bureau
* Members of the public were offered either a surgery appointment at a designated police station at a time and place convenient to them or a scheduled appointment at a venue chosen by them. One officer per response team, per shift (earlies and lates) was dedicated to this task working generally alongside the team but removed from the requirement to “respond.’’
The benefits so far realised
* Officer time savings equating to 420K – 470K annually have been realised in the Northern Division, Similar or higher levels are expected in the other five Divisions.
* The number of open deployable incident logs fell by on average 91% since QUEST project went live.
* Response times to urgent incidents have improved by over 40%
* Substantial shift in the way incidents are graded. Grade 5 (telephone resolved) incidents have increased by 47% and grade 3 incidents (target 8hr response time) have more than halved as many are now scheduled as grade 4 (24 hours)
* Repeat calls received by the control rooms (i.e. irate customers) have fallen by 80%
* Call handling performance has been maintained; 99% of 999 calls and 98% of national calls are answered within target times.
* 98% of customers were satisfied with the service received via scheduled deployments and surgeries and 59% felt the service was better than expected.
Other benefits:
* Staff on scheduled appointments have a managed workload and are able to take refs and finish at a given time. It is now extremely rare that they are in service recovery when dealing with an incident.
* Demand has been spread throughout the day instead of the peaks experienced pre quest on the late shift.
* Increased capacity for response officers
* Supervisors have the ability to ensure an even spread of workload across the team by nominating which officer undertakes scheduled appointments.
* Communications room say they are working in a less stressful environment.
It really has been a win win for both customers and police officers, with both groups positive about it’s impact.
Is it just me, or has the claim staking and delineation of organisational self interest ahead of the green paper reached fever pitch ? Please, please, let the green paper happen soon, before the posturing and media manipulation overwhelm us all and materially affect the public view.
I thought that it might be kind of interesting to do an overview piece on the various 'stated' (i.e. quite often articulated in the media for public consumption and therefore not necessarily a true refection of a deeply held position) views and stances.
ACPO are restless. Whether that's because they sense an opportunity, or because they want to make a point ahead of the publication (thought leaders or political distance), I'm not sure. But restless they are.
CC's Sara Thornton, Peter Fahy, Martin Richards and Sir Ian Blair have all been publicly vocal in calling for a different approach to be taken to central targets. ACPO President Ken Jones has also weighed in on this one.
KJ has offered up a view on 'foundation forces' that has attracted a bit of attention over the weekend (ACPO have apparently submitted this one to the Home Office as part of the green paper process). Foundation forces are apparently forces that, similar to foundation hospitals, would be allowed to decide their own priorities locally.
Although I haven't seen the detail on the ACPO proposal, I think that the Lib Dems make a reasonable point on the issue. Lib Dem Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Huhne's view is that "Foundation forces which earn independence from central government by meeting central government targets miss the whole point of local policing"
The Federation response, articulated by Vice Chairman Simon Reed, was typically forthright and suspicious. “As to forces having foundation status, I do not understand what ACPO mean, as chief officers already have autonomy over how they allocate budgets and deploy resources. Targets could be abolished overnight; we don't need a new initiative with a new name to return to traditional policing methods and allow officers to use their judgment and experience to tackle crime. Perhaps this is part of ACPO’s hidden agenda to remove national standards for training and equipment? A move that will be extremely detrimental to policing and one we will fiercely oppose.”
Another issue which plays into the green paper is that of effective leadership and, not surprisingly, ACPO have a view here too. They see the current position as regards chief officer posts as evidencing 'a hugely talented leadership' and see the green paper as an opportunity to 'ensure the leadership potential within the service continues to be developed to its full potential'. Setting out their own organisational aspirations, KJ states that ACPO "would like to see accountability for the quality of police leadership, it’s development and regulation, given to ACPO, along with fast track processes created and operating to identify and fast track those with exceptional potential.”
Meanwhile, the Superintendents Association is strangely quiet on...well, pretty much everything..
Taking a wider view, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) released their contribution to the debate last week: 'A New Beat: Options for More Accountable Policing'.
Arguing that a one-size-fits-all approach isn't appropriate, the report calls for different models of police accountability to operate in different areas. the thrust of the report is that there is insufficient effective local accountability and that different models (directly elected police commissioners, directly elected police authorities, giving local authorities greater influence over community policing and some say in the appointment of local police commanders, directly elected mayors having powers to hold the police to account, elected police boards) provide better responsiveness to local people.
Home Secretary, please let it be published soon...
I have been asked by the folks at the Participatory Budgeting Unit to draw your attention to an event that they are holding on the role of pb and community empowerment.
The event, which will be addressed by Hazel Blears, will take place in Manchester on the 15 September. Full details here.
This week saw the publication of the review by Louise Casey (former head of the Government's Respect Task Force) entitled 'Engaging Communities in Fighting Crime'.
The review, which has taken eight months and has involved hearing the views of nearly 15,000 members of the public and front-line staff, bills itself as 'a common sense view on what needs to change to reduce crime, create safer communities and increase public confidence'.
I have heard a number of varying comments about the review as it has progressed, but you can only take as you find, and this review certainly does appear grounded in common sense. The style is easy and informative and, for the most part, makes perfect sense.
Ms Casey sets the tone for this ranging report by declaring that 'Nothing short of a revolution is needed in the way that the consumer is served – and by consumer we mean primarily ordinary, law abiding citizens and victims of crime'. You won't get an argument from me there. I have found that the normal approach to this issue across the service, is one of incremental timidity. Incrementalism being the antidote to innovation.
The report looks at five broad areas: putting victims, witnesses and other law-abiding citizens first; fighting crime and delivering justice for communities; a new approach to crime statistics; the citizen's role in tackling crime; and freedoms and accountability.
Throughout the review, Casey makes convincing arguments for simplicity, consistency and a more joined up, unified, delivery. She notes that 'the public want a police service that delivers to the same standards, that has a familiar ‘identity’ wherever they live, and to know what they can expect from it – irrespective of their postcode'.
The report helpfully outlines the top ten policing approaches the public said they want to see. They can be found here.
TEN KEY FACTS FROM THE REVIEW
• 55% of the public say crime is the most important issue facing Britain today.
• Only 33% of the public are confident that the Criminal Justice System meets the needs of victims, but 79% agree it respects the rights of offenders.
• 73% of the public say that hearing about someone being a victim of crime in their local area affects their feelings of safety and makes them cautious, angry and sad.
• 91% of the public think the basic approaches and standards of service delivered by the police should be the same wherever they live.
• Better parenting is the top thing (58%) the public say would do most to reduce crime and 58% of the public think that Friday night is the most important time for youth facilities to be available.
• 90% of respondents to the review think the public are not told enough about what happens to those who have committed crime.
• When asked what is the most important issue facing Britain on crime, the top answer from the public (29%) is that sentences are too lenient.
• 90% of the public agree that community punishments for crime should involve some form of payback to the community.
• When asked who they would trust as a source for national statistics on crime, the top answer from the public (48%) was an independent watchdog.
• 75% of the public are prepared to play an active role in tackling crime.
Neighbourhood Policing is well scrutinised by the report with wide variations in some fairly basic elements of Neighbourhood Policing being identified, including:
• What Neighbourhood Policing is called locally
• What forces call the public meetings they hold to identify local concerns, agree priorities and feed back results
• How local neighbourhoods are identified
• How local teams are resourced
• Variability in uniforms for PCSOs and;
• How information on local crime is provided (The top approaches to crime information provision that the public wants can be found here)
There was a very strong call, particularly in public events held during the review, for greater consistency in the posting of police officers to local neighbourhoods. People wanted to see the same officers spending a reasonable amount of time getting to know the area and the community, and providing a chance for the community to get to know them, before being moved off to other posts or duties.
The report concludes that 'the public see Neighbourhood Policing as the policing they experience as a whole in their local area. Police forces, on the other hand, tend to see Neighbourhood Policing as a distinct and fairly small piece of their organisation, with most policing covered by other business areas such as so called ‘response’ policing'.
Casey is clear that 'Neighbourhood Policing Teams should become the ‘face’ of engagement and communication with local communities on crime and justice as a whole, and should be given the necessary support to achieve this'.
She also covers the Neighbourhood Policing/Neighbourhood Management issue and concludes that ' It is not just about merging Neighbourhood Policing with the more specific Neighbourhood Management Pathfinders...Neighbourhood Policing cannot succeed without the integration of relevant council services, and the help of other organisations like housing associations, regeneration agencies and health services who work in and with the community'.
However, she is also clear that 'A greater willingness to work together on behalf of the public is required from all sides...the public want and deserve a more seamless service; and work to achieve integration needs additional focus and pace'.
The report makes a number of recommendations which will undoubtedly be echoed and amplified in the forthcoming green paper. Overall it concludes that 'public confidence and engagement would be improved significantly if the police, local government and other criminal justice agencies took action together and presented a more united and seamless front to local communities on crime'. Hard to argue with that.
At 120 pages long, it's not a short read, but it is an interesting one. The full report can be found here.
Conventional wisdom appears to have it that in any fight there is tactical merit in landing the first blow. Well, in the fight for control of policing, the Local Government Association, in anticipation of the forthcoming green paper on policing from the Home Office, has landed its blow and staked out its territory. Their blow takes the form of a discussion paper entitled ‘answering to you - policing in the 21st century’, and an enlightening little read it is.
A role in the hiring and firing BCU Commanders, local control over finances and priorities, dissolution of Police Authorities, commissioning of services from the BCU, the paper has all sorts of good things.
So, here are the LGA’s 12 ways to improve policing:
The first component in the LGA’s reformed tripartite structure is to change the home secretary’s responsibilities for local policing.
The second is the merger of police authorities and local authorities, so local police accountability is exercised through local authorities.
Third is the introduction of community safety charters between the local authority and its local community, against which the local authority and the local police can be held to account by local people.
Fourth is the creation of Community Safety Finance Account’s in local authority budgets to safeguard spending on policing and community safety functions.
Fifth comes the consideration and debate by councils of Community Safety Finance Accounts in their own right during the budget setting process.
Sixth is for merged police and local authorities to set the strategic context of police budgets, and to be able to amend that context as necessary.
Seventh is for local authorities to play a role in collaboration with chief constables in the police workforce modernisation agenda.
The eighth component is for the BCU commanders to be given fully devolved budget responsibility, with existing BCU funds to be given to CDRPs/CSPs to commission services from their BCU commander
Ninth is for the concept of chief constables’ operational independence to be replaced by operational responsibility.
Tenth is for BCUs to become more accountable to the communities they serve through:
• an increase in the number of BCUs, with their size dictated by their local policing functions;
• their boundaries coterminous as much as possible with local authority boundaries;
• BCU commanders to be subject to oversight from local authority scrutiny committees
through the introduction of the provisions in the Police and Justice Act; and
• local authorities to be given a role in the appointment and dismissal of BCU commanders.
The eleventh component is for neighbourhood policing to become a mainstream police activity.
and finally, the twelfth component of the LGA’s reformed tripartite structure is:
• the establishment of Safer Ward Partnerships to bring local ward councillors and neighbourhood policing teams together to tackle crime at a street level; and
• for ward councillors to become local community safety champions for their wards, in the interim through the introduction of the Councillors Call for Action provisions in the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007.
The context that the paper paints of current policing also makes for interesting reading. The full report (28 pages) can be found in the downloads section.
The reality is that there is a lot of very good, practical citizen focus work taking place in forces around the country each and every day. 'Stuff' that is making a real difference to the quality of service provided.
So I have decided it's about time that I started to recognise that great work in this blog. I am therefore introducing an occasional 'kudos to...' spot to acknowledge all the good things that are going on.
I know that the people who are making a difference and getting on with making things better, aren't doing it for any particular personal glory. However, sometimes it's just nice to be able to recognise the good work that is being done and give kudos where they are deserved.
So. My first 'kudos' goes to Mark Chatterton in Hampshire. Mark and his team have grasped the citizen focus concept and are cracking on with some nice practical things that will improve the customer experience in Aldershot. Mark tells me that:
'We are now completing our enquiry office update at Aldershot. There is now a coffee machine installed for our staff to provide drinks for those that have to wait. We have also installed a newspaper and magazine rack. Strangely they are being used and the fear that things will be damaged or stolen have not proved correct!
We are also about to install a TV for use by those waiting and we have got some things for children to keep them occupied if they are at the station. This is the basic things such as colouring materials and give away merchandise.
All of this cost little - but will make a difference'.
Good job Mark. Kudos to you and your team.
I am often asked if there is a single document which sets out the broad thrust of the Government’s reform agenda. In truth, up till now, there hasn’t really been one. However, something which makes a pretty noble stab at outlining the current picture is the recently published ‘delivering public service transformation 2008’ from the Local Government Association, the Delivery Council and the Improvement & Development Agency.
The document is very clear that ‘Partnership is the only game in town’. In considering the scope and implications of the proposed reforms, it asserts that ‘No single organisation will have the knowledge, skills or resources to deliver the outcomes being envisaged – indeed, the financial pressures on many smaller authorities, in particular, will make partnerships the main source of capacity to meet local aspirations. Partnership will be required between central and local government, across tiers of local authorities, between organisations in the public, private and Third Sectors and between local, regional and national bodies. It will also be required with citizens and businesses themselves, as taxpayers and service users’.
The report, which builds on a similar report issued in 2007, provides a nice overview of emerging issues, including the new RIEPS (Regional Improvement & Efficiency Partnerships). The practical amongst you will be pleased to know that accompanying the report are a number of recent case studies and practical guides.
Something which may also prove helpful is the articulation of a number of what the report describes as ‘remarkably constant’ key success factors. They include:
strong leadership, both political and managerial;
a shared vision amongst partners, focusing on agreed local outcomes;
a real commitment to understanding the needs of local citizens and businesses and engaging with them;
a clear recognition of the important role that front-line staff will play;
effective arrangements for partnership working, including governance structures;
a desire to exploit technology and share infrastructure, both locally and nationally;
the ability to manage and sustain complex programmes of change.
Want to increase your detections without all that time consuming investigative work? Then, if the American experience is anything to go by, perhaps now is a good time to look at reinvigorating your PR and advertising approach to Crimestoppers.
‘Ring, ring = Ca Ching’ seems to be doing it in Florida and other parts of America where economic times are hard.
Apparently calls to the Southwest Florida Crime Stoppers hot line in the first quarter of this year were up 30 percent over last year. San Antonio had a 44 percent increase and cities and towns from Detroit to Omaha to Beaufort County, North Carolina, all report increases of 25 percent or more in the first quarter, with tipsters telling operators they need the money for rent, light bills or baby food.
Sgt. Lawrence Beller, who answers Crime Stoppers calls at the Sussex County, N.J., sheriff’s office said “For this year, everyone that’s called has pretty much been just looking for money. That’s as opposed to the last couple of years, where some people were just sick of the crime and wanting to do something about it.”
Not only have the number of tips increased, several program coordinators said, but people are also more diligent about calling back to find out if and when they can collect.
Jim Cogan, director of the Silicon Valley Crime Stoppers program in California, said most of the rewards offered by his program used to go unclaimed. But with large numbers of foreclosures and heavy job losses, Mr. Cogan said, “now we’re seeing rewards get picked up right away and our tipsters being frustrated when tips aren’t available as quickly as they need the money.”
Of course, not everyone is after money, but the National Crime Stoppers organisation acknowledges that the faltering economy was a significant factor in the increased calls. As the mobile advertising boards cruising Jacksonville, Florida say “Crime doesn’t pay but we do”
So. What can we learn from the American experience ?
Have you taken a look at your Crimestoppers activity and results recently ? Is there an active (and effective!) PR programme in place? Is it targeted to the areas of your patch where you think that you are going to get results? Have you done any ACORN or Mosaic profiling of your key offenders? Is that matched to your Crimestoppers PR programme?
Might just be time to dust it all off and make the ‘ring, ring = Ca Ching’ connection.
(Full story in the New York Times. Here)
OK, slight change in emphasis on the participatory budgeting situation.
The PB people have had talks with the APA and DCLG and have slightly amended their workplan.
At the moment they are working up some of the broader criteria around PB pilots, and are interested in what you think those criteria should be and how the pilot should generally be approached.
Several people have responded to the last post on the topic and expressed interest in pursuing a pilot. Hold on a little while, is now the guidance, but please do contribute to the debate with your ideas on the criteria, structure and general approach to the pilot concept.
The PB Unit tell me that they will keep me updated on emerging issues and progress towards establishing pilots. I, in turn, will pass it right along to you.
If you want to pass along views, let me know.
Kit Malthouse has been appointed Deputy Mayor of London with responsibility for policing. He will chair the Metropolitan Police Authority until October, when the law changes to allow BoJo to take the role.
Kit who ? Exactly. Kit is interesting not because he’s Kit, but because of who he’s connected to and the views that he articulates (although he does have a nice looking website ).
Kit is connected to Sir Simon Milton (Chair of the Local Government association and articulater in chief (is there such a thing?) of the ‘the Chief Exec should be in charge of local policing’ agenda). Sir Simon is apparently close to David Cameron. Sir Simon also has a job in the new administration, but is thought to be keeping the Chair of the LGA.
So, what Kit says is interesting and to be studied for signs and portents of any likely Conservative positions.
The following are a selection of views from Kit’s website. Looks like it’s going to be an interesting time to be in the top team at the Met…
‘Crime: is primarily an educational and social issue. Yes the police must do better, and yes we need them on the streets, deterring crime and disorder and dealing with it when it does happen. But the roots of crime lie in childhood and particularly the early and teen years. Our jails are full to bursting, and yet still crime plagues us. The long-term solution lies in effective street based deterrent policing hand in hand with investment in our education system.’
‘The Police: The Met is there to serve the people of London, not control them. They are not the masters, and too often they seem to assume they are. But It is an organisation that has come in for a lot of stick over the last few years, from all sides, and so they have become defensive and inward looking. The Commissioner has become too political, pronouncing on policy and lobbying politicians is not an appropriate role for a senior policeman. But we also need to remember that we cannot run the City without the Police. They are the men and women who run towards trouble, not away from it, and who daily put their lives at risk. And for that they deserve our gratitude and respect. The relationship between the Met and the people of London has deteriorated dangerously over the last few years. It is no one's fault, but it needs mending. The Met needs reform and reorganisation. Our relationship with the police needs to be re-cast. The non-political role of the Commissioner and lines of accountability need to be made clear. And the police need a better deal from Politicians and the public. We are on the same side after all.’
Have you already started integrating Neighbourhood Policing with Neighbourhood Management ? Do you have in place, or are you developing, the structures which will support joint neighbourhood delivery ?
If the answer is yes, then you may be interested in getting involved in developing a pilot scheme for your Force or BCU with the Participatory Budgeting Unit and the Home Office.
Apparently the Home Office are keen to start some police PB pilots with those police authorities and BCU’s who already have neighbourhood policing in place and working well with neighbourhood management.
PB you will recall means ‘engaging people in taking decisions on the spending priorities for a defined public budget in their local area...residents and community groups discussing spending priorities, making spending proposals, and voting on them, as well giving those local people a role in the scrutiny and monitoring of the process’
I’ve been speaking to the PB Unit and at the moment they are at the ‘looking for expressions of interest’ stage. Crucially, they are interested in finding people and places that are already bringing the two neighbourhood delivery mechanisms together. That way PB will just be an extension to the existing integration operation rather than a totally new and stand alone issue. The key factor is that the structural integration teething issues are already recognised and being addressed and therefore wouldn’t impact on any extension into a PB pilot.
So, if that sounds like you and you would be interested in exploring the possibility of starting a pilot scheme, let me know and I will put you in touch with the fine folks at the PB Unit.
So. BoJo is the new Mayor of London.
Watching the campaign has been fascinating, as the candidates have articulated the national parties agendas and contextualised them for London.
The Conservatives in particular have pursued an aggressive 'localism' agenda.
Policing has been a key plank of that agenda and continues to be so. Boris's first announcement on taking over........vowing to cut crime and the 'scourge' of minor crime on London's transport system. According to the TimesOnline Boris held a meeting with the Met Commissioner and demanded tough action on crime. “I made it very clear that I want to see a dramatic reduction in crime, beginning with driving out so-called minor crime, particularly in the areas for which the mayor has responsibility, and above all on public transport,” he said.
While Boris has no power over Sir Ian’s appointment he has apparently told Tory colleagues that he will demand that Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, fires the commissioner if progress is not made in cutting crime.
So, what is the Conservative agenda ? Well, a key plank of it is the local accountability that it believes that 'crime mapping' will bring.
The Conservatives like the 'crime mapping' concept. They published a document setting out their thoughts on it two weeks ago (here). In essence, they will require all forces to publish their local crime information online on a monthly basis and separately in map form.
This doesn't mean something quaint based on ordnance survey maps, but something more akin to the American way of mapping. Something interactive, based on Google maps (check out crimereports.com) .
There is a clear wind of change blowing through the Conservatives approach at the moment. Technology and innovation is definitely IN. Check out David Cameron's recent speech arguing that 'Innovation must be at the heart of public policy'
Interesting times.
Young and trend-conscious
Idealistic, optimistic, and flexible
Hard workers; highly entrepreneurial
Socially responsible; particularly concerned about the environment
Ethnically diverse
Very comfortable with technology; like to multi-task
Have a hunger for feedback and rewards
Spiritually traditional
This is not a recruitment advert for a job. It’s a list of the characteristics of Generation Y people. That’s those people born since 1978. Or to put it another way, possibly the current majority of your front line service delivery staff.
I have spent a lot of time recently talking with colleagues about communications and effective customer segmentation and in particular; the effective segmentation of the internal audience.
What is very clear is that, in order to deliver effective outcomes in an increasingly complex environment, the service needs to become far more sophisticated in communicating with and understanding our internal audience. In recognising the importance of ensuring that our staff are active brand ambassadors.
So why is Generation Y important and what are the key issues that drive them?
Well, Gen Y is important because most of your front line staff are Gen Y’ers and their organisational, societal and leadership expectations are very different from their predecessors, the Gen X and Baby Boomers. Or, to put it another way, the expectations of the front line are very different from the experiences and expectations of the organisations current and emerging leaders.
Generation Y’ers have high expectations of self: They aim to work faster and better than other workers. They have high expectations of employers: They want fair and direct managers who are highly engaged in their professional development. They seek out creative challenges and view colleagues as vast resources from whom to gain knowledge. They are goal-oriented: They want small goals with tight deadlines so they can build up ownership of tasks.
Gen Y’ers have not only grown up with the internet, most of them live their lives on the Internet. In contrast to earlier TV-watching generations, they do not use the Internet merely to absorb information passively. They communicate via it, through texts, blogs, and social media . Contrast this to the attitude (and competence) of many of our middle and senior managers for whom Web 2.0 is at best a mystery beyond interest or comprehension.
For some observers Gen Y’s familiarity with the interconnected world suggests that its members will respond to management styles that encourage creativity and initiative, and that they will be comfortable working in teams.
I have recently been looking at some work that has been done into the implications of Gen Y for the US military.
A report issued by the vice chief of staff of the U.S. Army observed that “Senior officers think they understand the world of lieutenants and captains, but many junior officers and others are convinced that they do not.” As an example of these differences, the report cited senior officers’ “careerism” and dogged loyalty to the military as opposed to junior officers’ preference for a better work–life balance. To the typical junior officer, it noted, “being an Army officer is a noble profession…not an all-consuming source of self-identity.” This characteristic has clear implications for the police service.
Equally germane is the observation by an American management lecturer that "Generation Y is much less likely to respond to the traditional command-and-control type of management still popular in much of today's workforce. They've grown up questioning their parents, and now they're questioning their employers. They don't know how to shut up, which is great, but that's aggravating to the 50-year-old manager who says, 'Do it and do it now.' " This presents clear challenges to the existing militaristic, hierarchical police rank and command structure.
To command-and-control organisations knowledge is power and, therefore, something to be protected. To Gen Y, however, knowledge is something altogether different; it belongs to everyone and creates a basis for building new relationships and fostering dialogue. Gen Y’ers use blogs, instant-messaging, e-mails, and wikis to share information with those whom they may never meet — and also with people across the hall or down the corridor. Their spirit of openness is accompanied by a casual attitude toward privacy and secrecy; they have grown up seeing the thoughts, reactions, and even indiscretions of their friends and peers posted on a permanent, universally accessible global record.
If you’re looking for evidence of the generational clash, look no further than the current facebook issues that most professional standards departments are currently involved in.
The Generation Y issues (leadership, performance, retention, communication etc) are as yet largely unexplored within the service. That there are issues is without doubt.
By way of a health service to readers of this blog, I bring you this story from the BBC
Apparently, keyboards can be 'dirtier than a toilet'. That made you look down and check yours out, didn’t it.
Which? have been analysing keyboards and their conclusion is that, as many people eat their lunch at their computers, leaving crumbs, the keyboards can often harbour harmful bacteria.
Microbiologist Dr Peter Wilson told the BBC that a keyboard was often "a reflection of what is in your nose and in your gut". Nice.
And sharing is not always a good thing. Sharing a keyboard could actually be passing on illnesses among office workers. According to Dr Wilson "Should somebody have a cold in your office, or even have gastroenteritis, you're very likely to pick it up from a keyboard."
Poor personal hygiene, such as not washing hands after going to the toilet, could also be to blame. To observe interesting personal habits check out washyourhands.tv
And just in case you were wondering.........
The researchers also found that, compared to men, on average women have three to four times the amount of germs in, on and around their work area.
Happy typing...
OK. It's finally happening. I've put it off long enough. It's time for this website to get a make over and redesign.
Having just carried our a review of police web sites for a client, I guess that the 'physician heal thyself' principle now applies to my own site.
So. What improvements would you like to see ? I'm only too aware that there needs to be a better search facility and that document navigation needs to be easier, but is there anything else that you want ? Do you have a view on style, on content, on presentation?
I'm talking to the web people at the moment, so let me know.
Over the last few weeks I have been involved in a number of workshops around the country which have focused on the developing performance, inspection and assessment agenda. What is clear from all of these workshops is…..that things are unclear.
A lot of work is being carried out, but the landscape remains cluttered. One of the key developing areas is APACS (Assessment of Policing and Community Safety). APACS is the new performance measurement system that has replaced the previous system (PPAF).
Just so you know then...
There are 34 Strategic Performance Indicators (SPI’s) in place within APACS in 2008/09 – this is a reduction in the 55 contained in the original consultation – located within five ‘domains’ (organisational management, promoting safety, tackling crime, serious crime and protection and confidence and satisfaction).
13 of the SPIs have been carried over from the existing PPAF (Policing Performance Assessment Framework).
The Police are responsible for providing data for 19 of the 34 APACS SPIs.
The Police are only solely accountable for 10 of these 34 SPIs.
The Police are jointly accountable with partners for 17 of these SPIs. The accountability for the remaining 7 is with the Local Criminal Justice Board (LCJB), Fire and Rescue Authority, National Offender Management Service and Youth Offending Teams.
In data collection terms, a challenge. Both the Home Office and DCLG (Department for Communities and Local Government) are currently developing ‘data-hubs’ for the APACS and NIS (National Indicator set – the suite of indicators from which targets are drawn) indicators respectively. However, the timescales for this work are currently unclear.
Hope this helps a little. Next week: quantum physics for beginners !
Many thanks to GMP's Gareth Hughes for sending me the 'heads up' on this story from the Plain English Campaign which he found in the Manchester Evening News.
Apparently the PEC are upset at what they are terming 'ploddledygook'. Try saying that when you're a little 'over refreshed'.
Claiming that they have noticed an increase in the number of complaints they receive about police communication, particularly slogans. They are calling on the country’s police forces to return to basics – starting with the language used to communicate with the public.
Their favourite examples include:
* A message on Northumbria Police's website saying: "Northumbria Police is committed to tackling crime in your area."
"I suspect most people in Northumbria assumed that," said the PEC spokeswoman, Marie Clair "It would be worrying if a police force wasn't committed to tackling crime."
* A Lincolnshire Police message which said: "The ambition of Lincolnshire Police is to: focus on the citizen, achieve the highest standards of professionalism, deliver excellent performance and so inspire confidence amongst the people we serve."
"Could they have an ambition to do the opposite of those things?" said the PEC spokeswoman. "Interesting that they don't appear to aspire to catch criminals."
* Northamptonshire Police's "Mission Statement" - "Policing in partnership to: reduce and prevent crime, reduce and prevent anti-social behaviour and disorder, reduce fear of crime and disorder, increase public confidence, improve public safety, help communities to work together, bring offenders to justice."
"What else could their mission be?" said the spokeswoman. "Doesn't need saying."
* The titles Suffolk Police gave to some senior officers and staff, including: "Head of Protective Services", "Head of Citizen Focus", "Director of Criminal Justice Change" and "Director of Knowledge Architecture".
"Who could guess that these were police officers?" said the PEC spokeswoman. "What are these jobs?"
* Norfolk Police's description of its control room as "Citizen Focus Command".
"We are particularly taken by this," said the spokeswoman. "It appears to be a strange mix of Star Trek and NYPD Blue."
* A Norfolk Police press release which announced a "new look" from April 1, and said the force was replacing existing policing areas with a "County Delivery Unit", which would try to find "local solutions to local problems", had a new "strapline" saying "Our Priority is You", talked of the force's "end game", and said officers would start wearing a "wicking" shirt and a "blouson".
"Our Priority is You?" said the PEC spokeswoman. "Am I a bigger priority than catching Norfolk's top villain? And 'County Delivery Unit' sounds like a milk round. And we like the fashion tips. Blouson!? I don't know what it is, but I don't think Dixon of Dock Green wore one."
* A statement on Essex Police's website quoting a police authority chairman saying: "We believe that we have a unique style of policing in Essex, where we strive to always put the customer first."
"Unique? Do they police in a completely different way to every other force?" said the spokeswoman. "Customers? Do the police really have customers?"
* An Essex Police press release headed: "Putting you First" and saying: "There are 47 police stations in Essex: 12 of which are open around the clock."
"The opposite of what most people would conclude," said the spokeswoman. "Isn't it saying, sorry, nearly 75% of police stations are not open after 5pm?"
* A West Midlands Police press release which said: "The concept of neighbourhood policing was introduced in 2006... West Midlands Police was one of the first forces in the country to introduce neighbourhood policing."
"An example of saying what's always been happening but presenting it as new," said the spokeswoman. "Neighbourhood policing started two years ago? Surely Robert Peel introduced neighbourhood policing nearly 180 years ago."
* A Humberside Police press release saying burglaries were caused by "insecurities".
"Are we witnessing a disturbing new situation in society? Poor criminals are considering breaking into houses because they feel insecure?" said the PEC spokeswoman. "The costs of counselling could be huge."
* Hertfordshire Police's "prime example of the stating the blindingly obvious" - a poster saying "Don't Commit Crime".
"Do the public really understand terms such as 'County Delivery Unit? asks Ms Clair, "It sounds more like a milk round than policing. It seems that administrative confusion is hitting our streets when we really need to spend the resources on policing. Maybe this Ploddledygook is the latest weapon against the criminals - it certainly had me floored."
So, what's your curent favourite example of 'ploddledygook'? Do share. No names published or attributed !
