Complaints against officers

[Fedster + 1,307]

Police leaders and staff associations have expressed concerns at Home Office plans to rank forces in performance league tables.

On target? Plans for performance targets have been panned by leaders
 

Date - 22nd April 2021

By - Chris Smith

The performance target plans which have already been put before Chief Constables in a Home Office letter, could leave vulnerable people at risk and politcise  operational decision making, senior figures have warned. 

Concern was also raised that a Whitehall department which also has responsibility for UK borders and domestic terrorism – supported by 30 public bodies – would struggle to micro-manage policing.

The Police Federation said the move represented “a return to a damaging, target-driven culture”.

Chair John Apter, warned: "Scrutiny and accountability are already a large part of policing, so these proposals for league tables would risk a return to a very damaging and target-driven culture.”

The concerns were raised after details were leaked of a proposal to rank forces on five priorities plus victim satisfaction.

The six crime issues are cybercrime, murders, serious violence, organised crime, illegal drugs and serious neighbourhood incidents.

The assessments would not be published but Police and Crime Commissioners would be expected to share details with the public.

The new level of oversight was part of the “quid pro quo” resulting from the 20,000 officer Uplift programme, according to the letter sent by Police Minister Kit Malthouse.

Chiefs were told in the letter that there would be “national accountability and collective responsibility”.

Forces will be assessed on data from crime and conviction reports, drug treatment orders and hospital admissions for youth stabbings.

Mr Malthouse said the assessment would be made by the National Policing Board to “understand the trends and drive real improvements in outcomes over the next three to four years”.

The minister said the new approach “does not represent a return to force-led numerical targets”.

A government source close to the Home Office said: “It’s about tracking progress — we’re giving forces extra officers and now we want to see outcomes. Police chiefs are very competitive. Which police chief is going to want to be the worst performing police force?”

Senior officers have privately said that they also want other Whitehall departments to take responsibility for problems that are routinely dealt with by response officers.

They want the NHS and local authority social services departments to ensure children at risk don’t end up in custody suites and for the NHS to stop cost shunting by leaving officers to carry out safeguarding visits to people with serious mental health issues.

One chief constable said the Home Office couldn’t claim to give Police and Crime Commissioners greater control while setting the agenda at the top. “You can’t have both,” they said

A Fed rep shared on social media: “If targets came back, as a Supervisor I would question my lowest performing officers and set them development plans. Who would probably then offer no discretion and issue tickets for everything possible and increase their S and S.”

Concerns were also raised over the impact on minority groups such as BAME and LGBTQ+.

Andy George, President of the National Black Police Association said: “Whilst holding Chief Constables to account is very important, this risks increasing the disproportionate use of police powers on Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic communities. A national community engagement plan that understands the differing needs of communities is needed more.”

Theresa May created a unit to improve domestic violence outcomes that included Home Office officials who reported directly to her senior staff.

Rick Muir, Director of the Police Foundation think tank, said chiefs shouldn’t be surprised by the Home Office move.

“Clearly, with the formation of the Policing Board there was no question senior officers were going to be put in some kind of national performance regime,” he told Police Oracle.

“Theresa May and Amber Rudd moved away from this towards local accountability. It is a big shift; the Home Office has decided on a more central direction similar to the New Labour era.”

But tackling organised crime groups or cyber fraud cannot be done by one force alone.

Mr Muir said: “PCCs will only reflect what their local electorate are saying. It appears that the government is concerned about knife crime, organised crime and cyber crime. Those aren’t really visible to the public.”

He warned: “One of the problems with targets is that they create rigidity: there’s a basket of things and other issues get neglected.”

He also highlighted the role of HM Inspectorate in assessing performance: “It’s perfectly clear who the good forces are,” he said.

That concern is shared by the Police Federation.

Mr Apter said: “Mechanisms for holding individuals and forces to account are in place, and we are already amongst the most scrutinised professionals in the world.

“My message to government would be to stop and think before returning to the mistakes of their predecessors. Reintroducing targets in policing would be a damaging and retrograde step," he said.

"In previous years when they have been used we have seen forces focus on targets to the exclusion of other issues. This is not good for the public and certainly no good for the victims of crime,” he said.

“These league tables would also restrict the ability of forces to focus on local issues, because Chief Officers would be chasing targets which were judged on criteria set in Whitehall. If, despite these warnings this is pursued it will fail, and it will be damaging."

A Home Office spokeswoman said: “The public expects the government to work with the police to cut crime and keep them safe.”

View On Police Oracle

[skydiver + 1,099]

What you measure is what you get so you can guarantee that we will put resources into whatever the government decides will be a target and that will take resources from other areas.  

[SimonT + 1,185]

I remember the targets and they were great. You had to get X number of detections a month or trouble. So every dnd was a S5 poa and people called up for every shoplifting. 

Not for domestics or missing people, welfare checks on an elderly person. No detections there. 

Then crime was massively up. So then every S5 poa became a dnd.

The great wheel rolls on. 

[Zulu 22 + 4,571]

2 hours ago, SimonT said:

I remember the targets and they were great. You had to get X number of detections a month or trouble. So every dnd was a S5 poa and people called up for every shoplifting. 

Not for domestics or missing people, welfare checks on an elderly person. No detections there. 

Then crime was massively up. So then every S5 poa became a dnd.

The great wheel rolls on. 

Exactly, just a massaging of figures. Bleeding offenders dry for tic offences, and there have been many cases of abusing that system. 

Edited April 24, 2021 by Zulu 22

[BizzieBee 100]

56 minutes ago, SimonT said:

You had to get X number of detections a month or trouble. So every dnd was a S5 poa and people called up for every shoplifting.

It also made lazy, incompetent officers leave the station and actually do some work to some sort of standard. 

Targets will always bring about an unhealthy culture. For me, the entire Supervision and ‘Leadership’ models need looking at before targets.

Policing doesn’t adapt very well to change. It never has done. But the rank structure is shockingly poor, as is some of the people in post. 

Better supervision = better workforce. You wouldn’t need as many to achieve the same result and you’d get your detections. 

[SimonT + 1,185]

In my experience it makes the lazy officers hard to manage. If you say they must achieve X then they will, then that's your lot. Back into the cave and they can demonstrate clearly they are meeting expectations. 

 

I don't disagree with the leadership model, it sucks. 

I have been told to go for promotion but the first hurdle is making up some projects to show off. Not be good enough. That seems to be entirely beside the point. 

Edited April 24, 2021 by SimonT

[BizzieBee 100]

7 minutes ago, SimonT said:

 

In my experience it makes the lazy officers hard to manage. If you say they must achieve X then they will, then that's your lot. Back into the cave and they can demonstrate clearly they are meeting expectations. 

 

I see your point and agree. But surely that’s better than them doing absolutely nothing and being allowed to get away with it due to exceptionally poor supervision? 

[SimonT + 1,185]

But creating a bad system to try and fix a bad system punishes all the others. Better to have some competent supervision brought in. 

I have officers who are low on arrests, low on intel but they can smash out a 4h statement for a stalking like no one's business. But there is no detection there. Only a supported victim and properly obtained evidence. 

If they were awful at everything then that's different. But if you say X Is important, unless is intelligently decided then it just undermines everything that isn't X. 

[BizzieBee 100]

Amen! 

I quite like the idea of bringing back day books - particularly with new technology where it’s easily recordable on the move (IF they move, of course...) 

Proper supervision can include this in one-to-ones. Which also never happens. 

[Dave SYP + 2,961]

I’ve never been a fan of performance targets set by the paymaster. It smacks of a bean-counter culture and micro-management readily follows. There are enough accountants (usually at Supt. and above) already!  The role of a police officer isn’t (shouldn’t be) about money. Loss of flexibility and using discretionary judgements could certainly be compromised and have a negative effect on community policing. I agree that mostly, performance monitoring should come from within the service.