Techie1

Make detective work attractive again to stop numbers decline, says forum head

54 posts in this topic

I don't think pay is the solution,  the problem appears to be your force because in mine people queue up to become DC's. They have to limit the number of people allowed to take the exam. Many do it just to get out of response! 

It's a nationwide issue so I'd suggest your force is an exception in that case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

5 hours ago, Sierra Lima said:

I don't think pay is the solution,  the problem appears to be your force because in mine people queue up to become DC's. They have to limit the number of people allowed to take the exam. Many do it just to get out of response! 

I think the lack of detectives is widely recognised as a national problem. To me, moving onto CID just to get out of response suggests that there are problems with response that need addressing and to go somewhere else just to avoid doing what they are currently doing doesn't seem to be good motivation for any career move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

And if I'm honest, I genuinely feel for any secondary investigations having to deal with this new bail act. I did the Ncalt the other day, headache!


Sent from my iPhone using Police Community

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

Posted (edited)

15 hours ago, Prae said:

For starters I work exactly the same shift pattern as response as a DC and the rest of your arguments apply to Sergeants as well, should they be paid less because they don't go to every incident a response cop does?

I think the issue with sergeants is that they have line management and supervisory responsibilities that justify the additional pay.

 

15 hours ago, Prae said:

Like a Sergeant, a DC has to put a great deal of effort into passing a difficult legal exam and goes through a fair bit more training than a response cop. Similarly they manage a lot more risk and have extra responsibilities that don't even occur to most on response.

Yes, but there are also other people who have a lot of training and professional accreditation - some way more than CID officers. Collision Investigators spend about 3-4 years doing professional training before they are signed off as competent, gained a number of external skills and accreditation as well as professional qualifications. They have to do way more continuing professional development. Training school instructors often gain additional external qualifications for adult education and the like. Detectives in CT do additional training and accreditation that comes from the NCA. Firearms officers, public order officers, surveillance officers, advanced and TPAC trained drivers, bodyguards and so on all also do additional training.

 

15 hours ago, Prae said:

Indeed the reason many give for not wanting to be a DC is because they want to come to work, do a bit and go home afterwards to forget about work - even in this thread. For many sitting on response is the easier option.

For some people response is an easier option. But response also need experienced officers to help guide and develop the new officers and to provide some experience on the teams. Don't also underestimate response officers. As @Growley has pointed out above, response is a challenging place to work, being a slave to the radio, being run ragged all the time and being able to switch constantly between different things, thinking on your feet and dealing with practically anything that you might be sent to. That level of flexibility and versatility is almost a specialism in its own right and that shouldn't be overlooked. We need those officers, but they don't have as varied and interesting careers if they sit there for 30 years - that's their choice, but it's also their loss.

Edited by Policey_Man
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

10 minutes ago, Policey_Man said:

Yes, but there are also other people who have a lot of training and professional accreditation - some way more than CID officers. Collision Investigators spend about 3-4 years doing professional training before they are signed off as competent, gained a number of external skills and accreditation as well as professional qualifications. They have to do way more continuing professional development. Training school instructors often gain additional external qualifications for adult education and the like. Detectives in CT do additional training and accreditation that comes from the NCA. Firearms officers, public order officers, surveillance officers, advanced and TPAC trained drivers, bodyguards and so on all also do additional training.

Exactly.

If a person makes an argument that the extra training and responsibility of DCs is what justifies a pay rise, then to remain logically consistent you need to equally accept that other specialist roles carry similar (often higher) standards of training and responsibility.

If the job wants to start paying DCs more, then it needs to be up front and say it's outright because they can't fill the jobs otherwise. Any nonsense about it reflecting their training and responsibility is just going to rub other specialist roles up the wrong way; especially considering many of those roles require a higher standard of fitness, regular retraining to maintain the skill and for the officer to go into undesirable, often dangerous situations.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

3 minutes ago, Growley said:

Exactly.

If a person makes an argument that the extra training and responsibility of DCs is what justifies a pay rise, then to remain logically consistent you need to equally accept that other specialist roles carry similar (often higher) standards of training and responsibility.

If the job wants to start paying DCs more, then it needs to be up front and say it's outright because they can't fill the jobs otherwise. Any nonsense about it reflecting their training and responsibility is just going to rub other specialist roles up the wrong way; especially considering many of those roles require a higher standard of fitness, regular retraining to maintain the skill and for the officer to go into undesirable, often dangerous situations.

Interestingly enough, when the new Constable pay scale was brought in, there was a caveat in the regs that stated that Chief Constables could choose to pay new Constables more than the minimum amount if they could justify it with a business case, such as lack of suitable candidates or unable to attract applicants to the area. So this type of retention payment / bonus, isn't new to the Police service. I don't think it has ever been used to my knowledge, but it's there. If we're talking about giving detectives additional pay to attract them to the role, then you are right, this is what the discussion should be focused around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

10 hours ago, NCFPA said:

And if I'm honest, I genuinely feel for any secondary investigations having to deal with this new bail act. I did the Ncalt the other day, headache!


Sent from my iPhone using Police Community

I think it's better!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

Interestingly enough, when the new Constable pay scale was brought in, there was a caveat in the regs that stated that Chief Constables could choose to pay new Constables more than the minimum amount if they could justify it with a business case, such as lack of suitable candidates or unable to attract applicants to the area. So this type of retention payment / bonus, isn't new to the Police service. I don't think it has ever been used to my knowledge, but it's there. If we're talking about giving detectives additional pay to attract them to the role, then you are right, this is what the discussion should be focused around.


It has been used.

Certain forces will pay new recruits more if they meet a set criteria for example having a CKP certificate, previous experience as a special or police staff, a degree ect ect.

The way they pay the officers more is by starting them on a higher pay scale level than the lowest one available.



Sent from my iPhone using Police Community

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements


35 minutes ago, Bacon_sandwich said:

It has been used.

Certain forces will pay new recruits more if they meet a set criteria for example having a CKP certificate, previous experience as a special or police staff, a degree ect ect.

The way they pay the officers more is by starting them on a higher pay scale level than the lowest one available.

Nah, if I remember correctly the previous experience in policing environment (so PCSO, Special, etc) OR a policing qualification (CKP, etc) were separate provisions that had specific pathways set out in the regs. My force use the CKP provision, as do quite a few others. The recruitment and retention allowances were something additional on top of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now