Policing in the 21st century: The Police Debate - Part 1 of 5 - Have Your Voice Heard

The police service is facing its biggest challenge for a generation with the current policing reform consultation heralding fundamental changes in the policing landscape. The Home Office consultation paper "Policing in the 21st Century" identifies the need to improve efficiency and effectiveness in the service, whilst managing the careful balance between the demand from citizens for visible policing, tackling low level crime, and the continuing need of Forces to focus on serious and organised crime, and counter- terrorism.

'Policing in the 21st century: reconnecting police and the people' is a consultation document released by the Home Office on 26th July 2010. The consultation closes on 20th September 2010.

An expert panel was brought together to explore ways in which the government can take forward these reforms. The debate focuses on the paper's proposals around accountability and structure with discussions around the impact of directly elected Police and Crime commissioners and how will these reflect the needs of diverse local communities, as well discussing the potential role of the new National Crime Agency and how this will impact existing national policing priorities. Panel members were:

Rt, Hon Nick Herbert MP – Minister of State for Policing and Criminal Justice

Cllr Mark Burns-Williamson – Deputy Chair, Association of Police Authorities and Chair, West Yorkshire Police Authority

Mark Rowley – Chief Constable, Surrey Police and ACPO Futures lead

Nick Gargan – Deputy Chief Constable and Deputy Chief Executive, National Policing Improvement Agency

Irene Curtis – Chief Superintendent, Lancashire Police and Vice President Police Superintendents’ Association of England and Wales

HAVE YOUR VOICE HEARD

We have been invited to participate in the debate process online via the police debate group on Linked In. As this is our link to the site, the reader may join Linked In to access the debate. Alternatively, to make participation easier, we will be posting the  consultation questions in the key areas asked by the Home Office over a five part series of articles.

We have all witnessed the ACPO betrayal of the rank and file troops with leaking of the "Secret Document" this week. We followed our first article on this subject with "The Case Against ACPO", providing further evidence supporting the growing argument that these questions are too important to be left to ACPO alone and that the front line troops must have their voices heard.

On these pages and on other sites, here and here, we will be posting the consultation questions, collating the responses (anonymous is ok), and presenting them to the panel for inclusion within the debate. We believe the panel should recognise and include the Police Federation in the debate process now, so protecting the interests and presenting the views of the rank and file. The Federation should not be an afterthought, left to fight over policies and strategies already forced home by ACPO. ACPO are the managerial and strategic presence, the Federation should be empowered to stand alongside them in these early stages so that the most balanced and fair outcomes are arrived at. 

In the meantime, this is your chance to let the panel know your views about the crucial reforms being considered in UK policing. Either on here, on the other sites we have linked above or directly via the Linked In debate pages, let us know your thoughts and experiences.  

The debate process is in five parts, each of which contain a series on consultation questions. To see the consultation questions under each section, click the links below, each of which has been allocated a seperate posting from these pages. From time to time, we will post our own responses and those from other contributors from other sites.

1. Policing in the 21st Century: "The Challenge"
2. Policing in the 21st Century: "Increasing democratic accountability"
3. Policing in the 21st Century: "Removing bureaucratic accountability"
4. Policing in the 21st Century: "A national framework for efficient local policing"
5. Policing in the 21st Century: "Tackling crime together"

So, let's jump right in with 1. Policing in the 21st Century: "The Challenge"

The Home Office consultation paper, 'Policing in the 21st century: reconnecting police and the people', sets out Government proposals to make police in England and Wales "more available and responsive, more accountable, more effective, and deliver better value for money".

The key features of the government's proposed reforms include:

1. electing policing and crime commissioners to hold police forces to account and strengthen the bond between the police and the public
2. a powerful new National Crime Agency to lead the fight against organised crime and strengthen our border security
3. greater collaboration between police forces to increase public protection and save money
4. phasing out the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA)
5. cutting bureaucracy, removing restrictive health and safety procedures and freeing up police officers' time
6. a clear role for everyone, including members of the public, in cutting crime through beat meetings, neighbourhood watch schemes and voluntary groups.

What are your broad views on this overarching challenge?

[Note there are separate discussion threads to cover the specifics of democratic accountability, bureaucracy, national policing framework and cross-CJ working]

WANT TO SEE ALL THE CONSULTATION QUESTIONS - CLICK HERE

THE CASE AGAINST ACPO

Following on from our last article about the betrayal of the frontline police troops by ACPO, we discovered a site called "HMP Britain" who have also thrown their focus on the activities of the boys club association and its members.

The following article is extracted straight from their pages, so any credit or crticism for its content should go to the authors.

ACPO—the Association of Chief Police Officers—was recently reported as holding a £500k “champagne gala” whilst 28,000 Police Officers face redundancy. What follows is HMP Britain’s Case Against ACPO. Feel free to add your own.

ACPO is against Liberty

Labour, with ACPO lobbying, passed laws to advance Britain along the road to a police state. ANPR, DNA retention, and the introduction of Tasers are just some of the policies ACPO have helped craft.

ACPO is a self-serving Lobby Group

Many of Labour’s policing laws were effectively written by ACPO and designed to serve the interests of ACPO’s elite against the interests of the taxpayer. The Criminal Justice and Police Act (2001) is a prime example: under this legislation, ACPO staff—and remember ACPO is a private company—became entitled to expensive gold-plated civil service pension.

Their lobbying also extended to powergrabs: the Police and Justice Act (2006) mandates ACPO Ltd must be consulted prior to changes in certain police powers. It also requires a representative from ACPO to be on of the National Police Improvement Agency. (Article written before the announcement that the NIPA would be broken up). The codes regarding PACE may only be modified with ACPO consultation.

Police Reform Act (2002) granted ACPO extraordinary powers: it made ACPO the only private corporation whose employees can hold the office of police constable. Section 96 of the Police Reform Act (2002) grants the President of ACPO the powers of arrest and powers of a Chief Constable.

ACPO has more money than it can spend

ACPO has £15 million in cash at the bank and has an income of approximately £10 million per year. It has various commercial activities: it accredits burglar alarms, sells (and promotes) its own accreditation service for the Community Safety Accreditation Scheme and makes a profit each year in excess of £300,000 by holding an annual conference.

ACPO also has a sizeable property empire but refuses to say how large it is. It is known that a small subdivision of ACPO—the Terrorism & Allied Matters Committee—spends £1.3 million on luxury apartments for its members.

ACPO is highly political

Police officers are forbidden by law from joining a political party and diligently avoid accusations of political bias. The same cannot be said of Chief Police Officers and ACPO.

In an interview on Radio 4′s Today, the President of ACPO, Sir Hugh Orde, threatened to resign if Conservative Plans for elected Chief Constables became law.

In 2007, then-President of ACPO Ken Jones spoke out in support of the Government plans–opposed by the Conservatives–to increase precharge detention beyond 28 days.

This lead to the Conservatives writing in a private election note of ACPO giving “political cover to the Labour Government repeatedly and consistently” and engaging in “gratuitous photocalls” with Gordon Brown and other ministers. It goes on to say it “shows almost no criticism of the current Government”.

ACPO is a Secretive Private Company

ACPO president Sir Hugh Orde has acknowledged that its role as a private company was “uncomfortable” and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, the police watchdog, has said its ‘status as a private limited company ‘cannot continue’.

Despite receiving much public funding, responsible for senior appointments in quangos and helping the state draft legislation, ACPO is immune to Freedom of Information laws and is not bound by the usual rules of the civil service, despite receiving many of its perks.

If ACPO were to be brought into the state and its civil service, a justifiable question would be what is the difference between the APA, NPIA (NPA?) and ACPO, and do we really need it?

AND TO THIS WE ADD OUR OWN . . . . . .

ACPO ARE SELF SERVING, DECEITFUL, SECRETIVE AND DISLOYAL TO THE ROOT AND BRANCH OFFICERS THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO LEAD WITH HONOUR

In our article this week We quoted yet another example of ACPO using the Home Office and the media to deflect attention away from their own nefarious conduct, by submitting a secret document to the Home Secretary suggesting, among forty-nine recommendations, that the pay and conditions of the federated ranks be dramatically slashed.

It is ACPO that conveniently didn’t tell the Police Federation that they had submitted the document, leaving no opportunity to consult with the rank and file representative body. It was ACPO that met with the Police Federation and the Superintendents’ Association, pleading for unity to resist the Government’s plans for elected commissioners to replace police authorities – after they had submitted their plans.

Paul McKeever, chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales, (quite rightly in our view), said: "We are extremely disappointed that such an important paper has been leaked into the public domain, causing much anger and distress amongst police officers throughout England and Wales. While on first reading much in the paper is to be commended, there are many areas of very real concern which we strongly oppose and will seek to address on behalf of our members. While I do not believe this is the right way to do business, it is intrinsic that at a time of great uncertainty and constraint all policing bodies work together openly and transparently to ensure the future of policing in England and Wales is shaped by police officers, not individuals, for the benefit and safety of the public".

ACPO have shown by their arrogant disregard for the welfare and views of the policing frontline, that they are out to protect their own individual interests before anyone else, including the front line officers and the general public they are supposed to serve.

ACPO have apparently stated that they believed incentive bonuses to be devisive. (Despite the fact that many senior officers took them without complaint for 7 years anyway!). If anyone should know the definition of the word 'devisive" it is those ACPO officers who have participated in this scurrilous, deceitful, secretive act of outright betrayal. SHAME ON YOU.

As a group, ACPO have shown that they cannot be trusted to stand alone as the authoritive voice of British policing. Any organisation that fails to listen to the views of its root and branch staff, those who experience the real problems and use their initiative to overcome them, is destined to lose the confidence of their 'customer', in this case the British public. 

It is time that the grass roots officer was given a voice and the recognition the role and its experience deserves. In any future reforms, the Federation should take its place alongside ACPO (should it survive), in any negotiations and consultations with the Government and elected officials. The front line should not be placed lower down the priority list, it should be up there, with equal ranking to ACPO with an equal voice, presented in unison, as one body. The current state of affairs, where ACPO have all the power, authority and political interference must not be allowed to continue. They and their actions have been instrumental in the loss of confidence from their officers and the public. They must accept this point if the service is to move forward.  

Senior Officers and the rank and file must be reconciled as one service. It must not be acceptable that the Federation hear about important decisions from leaked documents or other sources. They must be a visible part of the process, not merely an afterthought This will take a monumental shift of culture from the Chief Officers, to accept  that this is an essential element in achieving reforms that will last. If they fail to do this, this Government will spend its administration umpiring the contrary view of ACPO and the frontline.

FOOTNOTE:-

Police Oracle post their account on the leaked document fiasco today 18/8/2010

http://www.policeoracle.com/news/Concerns-Voiced-Over-Leaked-ACPO-Document_25837.html

Concerns Voiced Over Leaked ACPO Document
17-Aug-10

Fed Chairman calls for explanation after members were not consulted about pay and conditions recommendations…...

The Chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales is calling for a meeting with ACPO President Sir Hugh Orde amid controversy over a leaked association consultation paper.

In an interview with PoliceOracle.com, Paul McKeever said he wanted an explanation as to why the restricted document – details of which appeared in the press last week – were not made available to the Federation before being sent to the Home Office.

The ACPO paper – which was submitted before the release of the government’s Policing in the 21st Century consultation document –contains recommendations about how savings could be made, including changes to the current regime of overtime and a review of the rank structure.

Among the proposals are the reduction of overtime payments on public holidays from double time to time-and-a-half and the scrapping of the minimum four-hour payment paid on rest days, public holidays and recalls to duty.

The document also suggests that a raft of additional payments and performance related pay schemes could be scrapped to realise “immediate cash saving measures”.

While accepting that the vast majority of the document covers familiar themes, Mr McKeever said 12 of the recommendations are “hugely detrimental to members”.

The Chairman said: “There was absolutely no consultation with us at all over this, and it has caused a great deal of distress to rank-and-file officers.

“While on first reading much in the paper is to be commended, there are many areas of very real concern which we strongly oppose and will seek to address on behalf of our members.”

He added: “The way this matter has been handled is not the way to do business. You have to have some sort of consultation with all ranks and I will be speaking to Sir Hugh Orde and asking for a meeting with him next week.

“It is intrinsic that – at a time of great uncertainty – all policing bodies work together transparently to ensure the future of policing in England and Wales is shaped by police officers, not individuals, for the benefit and safety of the public.”

However ACPO Vice-President Tim Hollis said that the Association had been asked to put its views to the government ahead to the release of the Policing in the 21st Century Consultation paper last month. He stressed that the Association had “always held the Police Federation in high regard”.

He added: “In these challenging times it is particularly important that ACPO, the Federation and the Police Superintendents’ Association work together closely.

“ACPO acted swiftly to initial requests to inform the debate prior to the government’s formal consultation on policing. Since then the Home Office has published Policing in the 21st Century as a consultation document.”

Mr Hollis concluded: “ACPO is currently working on a formal response to this consultation and we will, of course, discuss our response with our policing partners.”

So, no apology to the Federation then, or to the rank and file members you have upset in the process and whose interests you ignored when you leaked this document?

No surprise there then.

DISGRACEFUL ACPO BETRAY THE FRONTLINE POLICE TROOPS AGAIN!

In yet another example of ACPO using the Home Office and the media to deflect attention away from their own nefarious conduct, they submitted a secret document*  to the Home Secretary suggesting, among forty-nine recommendations, that the pay and conditions of the federated ranks be dramatically slashed. Police chiefs submitted the secret document to the Home Office ahead of severe public spending cuts, suggesting that hundreds of millions of pounds could be saved by overhauling the long-established “Spanish practices”. *(Link to document removed 1/5/2012 at the request of ACPO)

They hope that front-line jobs can be saved by cutting the £450million a year overtime bill and other “out-of-date” rules on pay and conditions.

Under the plans, overtime rates would drop from twice the regular pay to time-and-a-half for working on public holidays.  But the Police Federation, which represents rank and file officers, said the plans, disclosed on Thursday, were “appalling” and warned they would drive experienced police out of the job. 

A source said that, if all the cuts were implemented, an officer who had served for 12 months in his current rank could be up to £5,000 worse off a year. The leak, to the industry magazine Police Review, has caused a major row. It is an inauspicious start to what are expected to be bruising negotiations between the federation, police chiefs and ministers in coming months and it looks ACPO are are hell bent on bolstering the ‘us & them’ rift between frontline police and public, created by successive governments.

Convenient that they have the ear of the Home Office and that this document should be “leaked” to the press, when the frontliners have no such channel.

It is ACPO that conveniently didn’t tell the Police Federation that they had done it. It was ACPO that met with the Police Federation and the Superintendents’ Association, pleading for unity to resist the Government’s plans for elected commissioners to replace police authorities – after they had submitted their plans. A small number of chief constables helped the ACPO president, Sir Hugh Orde, to write the document in a week, so that Sir Hugh could then dash off for his annual leave.

Paul McKeever, chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales, said: "We are extremely disappointed that such an important paper has been leaked into the public domain, causing much anger and distress amongst police officers throughout England and Wales. While on first reading much in the paper is to be commended, there are many areas of very real concern which we strongly oppose and will seek to address on behalf of our members.

"While I do not believe this is the right way to do business, it is intrinsic that at a time of great uncertainty and constraint all policing bodies work together openly and transparently to ensure the future of policing in England and Wales is shaped by police officers, not individuals, for the benefit and safety of the public. We are currently in discussions with (ACPO president) Sir Hugh Orde and we hope that our concerns will be fully addressed on his return from annual leave."

For an indication of the front line reaction to the secretive, if not furtive release of this document click here.

HOW HAVE ACPO BETRAYED THE RANK AND FILE?

The manner in which this document has been leaked is far more deceitful and respresents more of a betrayal than may first be supposed. It can be no coincidence that the document entered the public arena within hours of press coverage of "Rows over Bonuses" fed once again by ACPO.

The timelines spell out the story.

In 2002/3 David Blunkett, then Home Secretary, introduced to offer incentives for performance. Five types of bonus were available, including extra payments for officers who show “professional competence” or carry out “demanding work”.

In January 2009, Heather Brooke, the reporter who broke the MP Expenses scandal, togther with Sean O'Neill, the crime editor at the Times, issued freedom of information requests of all 43 forces. A secretive bonus scheme had been set up to reward the country’s top 300 police officers, paying out hundreds of thousands of pounds every year. In some cases the bonuses were awarded on the basis of “self-evaluation” by chief constables. Critics claimed that the payments were further evidence of what was called a “gravy boat” at the top of policing. The police chiefs who accepted bonuses not only refused to reveal the amounts, but also declined to say what they were for. ACPO Intervened and the FOI requests were thwarted.

What about the rights and freedoms of taxpayers to know how their money is spent? What about knowing the criteria on which these bonuses are awarded? Are chiefs paid for achieving political goals? For decreasing crime statistics? For increasing the number of ethnic minority officers? We just don’t know.

By this time the Chiefs had been receiving the bonuses for 6-7 years. Plenty of time you might think, for them to raise objections about the immorality of such payments.

On January 24th 2009, Peter Fahy, Chief Constable of Greater Manchester, called for an end to the bonus scheme which has paid out thousands to top-ranking officers. Chief constables can receive bonuses worth up to 15% of their salary, deputy chiefs up to 12.5% and assistant chiefs 10%. These bonuses are dependent on the individual performance of the chief officers and how they lead their forces towards achieving national and local objectives. But Mr Fahy said: "Many chief constables profoundly disagreed with this because achieving the bonus might introduce an element of personal interest in how police policies were implemented. "Also, whenever a target is achieved it is usually because many members of staff have been involved in the effort. No-one does policing because of the money."


According to the Times, bosses at Greater Manchester Police received bonuses of more than £53,000 in a year. It also reported that following the Freedom of Information requests being repeated via the police authorities, that bonuses under the scheme for Norfolk Constabulary were £25,600, Devon and Cornwall's amount was £20,000 and Hertfordshire's figure was £13,300. Norfolk and Greater Manchester police authorities confirmed their totals, but Devon and Cornwall and Hertfordshire police authorities said they could not confirm their figures. The paper also said that Strathclyde Chief Constable Stephen House - the most senior officer in Scotland - was paid a bonus for his first six months in post while North Wales Chief Constable Richard Brunstrom was given £14,249.07.


The Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) said it paid bonuses totalling £190,935 to 35 senior staff in 2006/2007.

Over a year later, bonus payments were, and are still being paid to Chief Officers.

The cat was well and truly out of the bag even before we wrote our first article on this on 9th December 2009. http://thinbluelineuk.blogspot.com/2009/12/top-cops-pay-crime-scandal.html

In May 2010, we published the first of three further articles - TOO MANY CHIEFS? PART 1 - THE BONUS SCANDAL EXPOSED

Introducing the full report we wrote "The arrival of a new Liberal/Tory Government committed to opening the books of public sector profligate spending has resulted in Senior Police Chiefs hitting the headlines this week, protesting that the gravy train bonus scheme they have enjoyed was "forced upon them".

How things changed since last year when ACPO intervened to stop The Times finding out which chiefs were receiving bonuses and how much they were getting.

On 18th May 2010 Sir Paul Stephenson, the Metropolitan Police commissioner called for the bonuses for all police officers to be scrapped to repair public confidence in the service.



On 14th August 2010, the most recent attempts by the ACPO to denounce the bonuses they have enjoyed for SEVEN years hit the headlines. Private sector-style bonuses have "no place in policing", chief constables have said amid reports officers received more than £150m last year. The payments have always been "anathema to policing", said ACPO head Sir Hugh Orde. ('ANATHEMA' - A curse, a detested or loathed thing'). For something that was so detested, so loathed, considered so much of a curse, it must have been awful for them to have to tolerate it for 7 years!

Decisions on bonus payments are made by individual chief officers but many, including ACPO vice president Tim Hollis at Humberside Police and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson, have refused to accept them.



Sir Paul has said he has turned down more than £100,000 in bonuses since 2005. We can't help but wonder if he was actually offered twenty five grand a year? If so, is it documented or is this a calculation based on his basic salary?

However, five chief officers at Northumberland Police have reportedly shared £115,000 between them. More than 500 senior officers receive payments for targets worth a reported £1.5m per year.

Amid growing anger over bonus payments in the public sector, the most recent FOI figures disclose that performance bonuses for superintendents, who earn around £70,000 a year, are worth an annual £2.5 million and have risen by 70 per cent since 2007 in some forces.

Although many chief constables, their deputies and assistants are now refusing to accept their bonuses, half are still receiving an average £11,000 based on their performance, the figures show.



Five chief officers at Northumbria Police shared performance-related bonuses last year of £115,500.


In neighbouring Durham, one chief picked up an £18,700 bonus in 2009-10; in South Wales another received £14,300, and in South Yorkshire four senior officers shared £69,000.

Despite Sir Paul Stephenson telling The Daily Telegraph in May that all types of police bonus should be scrapped to prove that officers were motivated solely by their duty to serve the public, according to the 2009-10 figures, the Met remains one of the worst offenders for paying bonuses at a senior level.

Superintendents and chief superintendents who earn a performance-related bonus receive, on average, £3,000 a year on top of their salary of £62,000 to £78,000. In the Met, Britain’s largest force, 136 of the highly ranked officers shared £567,000 in bonuses – a 70 per cent rise since 2007-8.

"All that's necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke (British Statesman and Philosopher 1729-1797)



How these words ring true when applied to many of the upper ranks of British policing.

Where were the protestations and signs of dissent when the bonuses were introduced and for the 7 years many of these fat cats have been gleefully riding the gravy train and happily taken their millions in this orchestrated, deceitful practice. Yet another example of the ACPO ranks using the media to protest their innocence about the bonus schemes. More smoke and mirrors to suggest that this was forced upon them by the Labour adminstration. HOGWASH!      Sorry chaps... TOO BLOODY LATE!    Forgive us if we don't believe a word of it.

"EVIDENCE OF RECENT COMPLAINT" - If the Chief Officers that have benefitted so extravagantly from these bonuses possessed an ounce of honest decency, they would have rejected the bonus payments in their entireity from day 1. Only now, when they are looking to ingratiate themselves with the new Government, do they protest that bonuses were a devisive anathema.

AND WORSE . . . . 

The disclosures in this article and previous reports we have published from these pages detail some of the extravagances that have surfaced to date. Knowing that they have accepted these payments regardless of the recent protestations, ACPO now

commits the ultimate betrayal of deflecting the attention away from their activities to issue this secret document without consulting the rank and file, and guess who and what is the target if their attention?

YOU GOT IT! The frontline officers who benefit legitimately from the extra hours they have to work just to provide us, the tax paying public with the basic police service. Who got the management of resources so badly wrong in the first place, resulting in less than 10% of warranted officers employed in visible policing? YEP, those very same ACPO Officers.

To quote from Sir High Orde in the introduction to the "secret document" : "The police service of this country is used to dealing with crisis; it is what we do. Normally they are of the operational kind so well illustrated by recent events in Cumbria and Northumbria. However, the current challenge is one that is shared by the whole public sector. In short, we are facing the most severe cuts in living memory".

To the policing Ministers that read these pages, the rank and file officers of this country, and the tax paying public urge you to start your cuts AT THE TOP, with these very ACPO Officers.  A good place to start would be those officers revealed only this week who are paid more than the Prime Minister.

FOOTNOTE 1

A well written article on this subject, informed and reasoned is worth a read at http://thethinkingpoliceman.blogspot.com/2010/08/police-bonuses.html

FOOTNOTE 2

Police Oracle post their account on the leaked document fiasco today 18/8/2010
http://www.policeoracle.com/news/Concerns-Voiced-Over-Leaked-ACPO-Document_25837.html

Concerns Voiced Over Leaked ACPO Document
17-Aug-10
Fed Chairman calls for explanation after members were not consulted about pay and conditions recommendations…...
The Chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales is calling for a meeting with ACPO President Sir Hugh Orde amid controversy over a leaked association consultation paper.

In an interview with PoliceOracle.com, Paul McKeever said he wanted an explanation as to why the restricted document – details of which appeared in the press last week – were not made available to the Federation before being sent to the Home Office.

The ACPO paper – which was submitted before the release of the government’s Policing in the 21st Century consultation document –contains recommendations about how savings could be made, including changes to the current regime of overtime and a review of the rank structure.

Among the proposals are the reduction of overtime payments on public holidays from double time to time-and-a-half and the scrapping of the minimum four-hour payment paid on rest days, public holidays and recalls to duty.

The document also suggests that a raft of additional payments and performance related pay schemes could be scrapped to realise “immediate cash saving measures”.

While accepting that the vast majority of the document covers familiar themes, Mr McKeever said 12 of the recommendations are “hugely detrimental to members”.

The Chairman said: “There was absolutely no consultation with us at all over this, and it has caused a great deal of distress to rank-and-file officers.

“While on first reading much in the paper is to be commended, there are many areas of very real concern which we strongly oppose and will seek to address on behalf of our members.”

He added: “The way this matter has been handled is not the way to do business. You have to have some sort of consultation with all ranks and I will be speaking to Sir Hugh Orde and asking for a meeting with him next week.

“It is intrinsic that – at a time of great uncertainty – all policing bodies work together transparently to ensure the future of policing in England and Wales is shaped by police officers, not individuals, for the benefit and safety of the public.”

However ACPO Vice-President Tim Hollis said that the Association had been asked to put its views to the government ahead to the release of the Policing in the 21st Century Consultation paper last month. He stressed that the Association had “always held the Police Federation in high regard”.

He added: “In these challenging times it is particularly important that ACPO, the Federation and the Police Superintendents’ Association work together closely.

“ACPO acted swiftly to initial requests to inform the debate prior to the government’s formal consultation on policing. Since then the Home Office has published Policing in the 21st Century as a consultation document.”

Mr Hollis concluded: “ACPO is currently working on a formal response to this consultation and we will, of course, discuss our response with our policing partners.”

More than 30 police officers paid more than Prime Minister - Telegraph

Following on from our previous articles about the Top Cops Pay Scandal:-

More than 30 police officers paid more than Prime Minister - Telegraph

And this doesn't take into account bonuses for cooking the books on crime statistics, extravagant perks such as private medical costs, private schooling, expensed vehicles for wives, ACPO membership, paid for second accomodation in plush Westminster settings, benefit in kind tax paid for by the tax payer, half a million quid for the luxurious ACPO Conference, complete with its strawberries dipped in chocolate! ... need we go on?

When such an intense focus is being placed on front line overtime, which is more essential to providing the best policing the tax payer can get, it's time the spotlight was shone more brightly on the extravangances and profiligacy of our forces' senior management.

WHERE ARE ALL THE POLICE OFFICERS?

Inspector Gadget

Following the recent publication of the HMIC report 'Valuing the Police', Policing in an Age of Austerity, revealing that at best, only 11% of the police are visibly available to the public, we have today launched an in depth analysis that delves deeper into the visibility numbers. To see the report now click here.

HMIC warns that with looming budget cuts, the availability of the police to the public will be even further reduced, unless there is a total redesign of the police.

If only 11% (at best) of warranted officers are engaged in visible policing, the question that screams out to be answered is "WHAT ARE THE OTHER 127,000 OFFICERS DOING?"

We went in search of the answers and can reveal them in our report today "Where are all the Police Officers?"

The findings found us asking more questions:
• “Where are our police officers?”
• “What are they doing?”
• “Why are they NOT on our streets?”

The answers cast doubt over the abilities of Senior Officers to effectively manage resources through times of austerity, ensuring that the safety of the public and officers remain a priority.

This report looks at the recent findings of HMIC, Audit Commission and Home Office, delving deeper into the numbers, revealing by force area, the numbers of officers assigned to each of the function categories.

For each of the 43 police forces of England & Wales, the HMIC produce a 90 page “Value For Money” profile. Here, for the first time, in our new report, we have extracted the totals by category from each of the profiles.

The report goes into great detail, listing all 43 forces and revealing the numbers of officers assigned to each of the 62 Home Office defined police functions. The results will be no big shock to front line officers and police bloggers, who have been telling us for many months now, that there are enough police officers to do the job, there are just too many of them tied up in 9-5 office roles.

What may suprise you, are the actual numbers within the forces assigned to the various job functions. To give some indication of the functions contained within each category, we have reproduced a table to help. Within the report, there is a full 62 function definition list.

We were staggered to discover just how many officers are engaged in non operational roles. From their first hand knowledge of their force resources, front line officers could undoubtedly identify areas within each function where departments are significantly overstaffed. Without such intimate knowledge of each force and its use of resources, we will stick to the glaringly obvious areas where staffing appears to have been misallocated.

It would be the responsibility of the respective management teams within each force to justify the number or resources allocated to each function. Undoubtedly among the diligent, industrious and committed officers, there will be a number who are what used to be called “Uniform Carriers”. The drive for value for money from forces, alongside the cuts being imposed on the public sector by the Government may force the management teams to look more critically at the way they use their resources.

We refer to the HMIC and Audit Commission findings in some detail in the report, where similar observations are made. The shift in 1429 officer numbers away from front line duties, and the surge in “specialist” numbers by 1526 is one example illustrated.

Police Officers reading the report will have an inside practical knowledge of the departments, but may not have been aware of the extent to which these empires have grown.

IMPORTANT NOTE

What must also be born in mind, is that within the 63,845 officers assigned to “Community” reflected in the national numbers in the table above, there will be a number whose role is classed as Operational Support. So, although they will appear under the “Community” heading, many of these officers provide operational support from an office base and are not therefore visible to the public. This lends greater weight to the argument that 63,845 is an overstated number for potential visible officers and that the reduced number of 56,542 (explained in the report) across all reliefs is more likely to be closer to the truth.

NATIONAL SUPPORT

This global category contains 6,075 officers. Among these numbers are ACPO ranks, Crime and Incident Management, Operational Planning, Staff Officers & Departmental Heads. We have argued vociferously in previous reports that forces appear massively top heavy with senior management, with too many rank levels and a poor manager to officer ratio. There are massive savings in the many millions that could be achieved by rationalizing the rank structure, with much of that saving contributing to the Government cuts and preserving the frontline visible numbers. The Metropolitan Force is an excellent case in point.

Examination of their staffing levels begs the question “Why do they need a managerial structure that in addition to Senior Police Chiefs – A Commissioner, 4 Assistant Commissioners, 7 Deputy Assistant Commissioners and 26 Commanders, they also engage 49 DIRECTOR level managers, each of them being regarded as equivalent to Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Assistant Commissioner or Commander rank?"

The list of personnel and their roles is staggering. What is even more concerning, is the value they bring and the cost associated with their employment. Here is the list:

These personnel substantially outnumber the senior Met police officers - 4 ACs, 7 DACs and 26 Commanders. Source : http://www.mpa.gov.uk/about/

CRIMINAL JUSTICE

This function is heavily populated with some 2,382 officers and 9,262 police staff. Both from an Officer re-allocation and police staff requirement viewpoint, the growth of this department within the service has rocketed through the last ten years. 20 years ago, more officers were visible for longer hours, were man for man more effective and still managed to prepare their own court files and fulfill all of the other obligations listed. This suggests that a bureaucratic empire within an empire has arisen. Senior officers should be questioning whether more uniform officers could be redeployed and recruited and trained to complete their own prosecution files in their entirety freeing up much of the human and financial resource currently tied up in this area.

BUSINESS SUPPORT

2,490 officers and almost 20,000 police staff are engaged in this area. The functions include complaints and discipline, corporate development, finance, IT, other admin, Personnel/HR, press and public relations, staff associations, operational planning and welfare. As the largest non operational group, it represents the largest drain on overall human and financial resources. Centralisation of many of the functions is being considered by HMIC and forces, and success in this area would release millions of financial resource back to frontline duties and contribute toward the required Government cuts.

We would be interested to hear observations on the numbers, particularly from serving, retired and former officers.

Visibility Numbers

When we heard the overall figure quoted that as little as 11% of warranted officer numbers are engaged in visible policing, we applied the percentages for smaller and larger forces to arrive at the average numbers of officers visibly policing for each force over three example shifts. Again, from within the forces, officers may be surprised to learn how precariously low these numbers are in their areas.

Taking the numbers from these reports. we identified that the workload of visible officers is 10 TIMES greater than previously published in crime statistics and population figures, with each frontline officer responsible for an average of 303 crimes (30 suggested in Home Office figures) and for 3,431 members of the public versus 300 or so previously reported. The table below illustrates the workload in terms of crime incidents and population per visible officer ratios. (Home Office statistics have previously chosen to display such ratios compared to the total warranted officer numbers. This was never a true reflection of workload, when such a large percentage of the policing community are not public facing).

The report contains many more revelations, observations and recommendations for reform and we would be pleased to hear any comments readers might have.

The report also refers to a number of other useful and related publications on police strength, efficiency and visbilty. Click the links below to view any or all of them.

Related reports & articles from Thin Blue Line UK and related documents referred to in this report.

Police Response Numbers In England & Wales 2010”
It’s Official – The Dangerously Thin Blue Line Is Now A Dot . . . .

Police Visible Strength Analysis – July 2010
HMIC 43 Police Force Value for Money profiles

HMIC Valuing The Police – Policing In Times Of Austerity
HMIC 43 Police Force Value for Money profiles
HMIC, Audit Commission & Wales Audit Office “Sustaining Value For Money In The Police Service”
Home Office Police Strength as at 31st March 2009

House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee Report on Police Strength (March 2010)
House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee Report on Police Strength (January 2010)
Home Office “Policing in the 21st Century” July 2010
Home Office British Crime Survey Crime in England and Wales 2009/10
Policing for the People - Interim report of the Police Reform Taskforce
Home Office Diary of a police officer

Police Federation Views from the front line

Policing and the problems associated with it, is one of the most reported subjects at the moment. There are a plethora of official reports now in the public domain. We have taken extracts and contributions from the major reports and added our own thoughts, findings from our analysis and observations.

Within the many advisory and commissioned reports on policing, there are plenty of sensible, workable suggestions for reform. We believe that any change MUST start at the top and INCLUDE those at the top, namely thse who carry the responsibility of Governing the police. Of all the suggested requirements for reforms we have examined, these are what we believe should be given top priority.

GOVERNANCE. Sort out the Governance model of policing once and for all. The tripartite model of Home Office, Police Authority & Chief Constable is at best opaque with a mass confusion over roles and responsibilities.

Sort out the professional governance of the police service (the whole HMIC / ACPO / APA / HO / NPIA / HMIC / SOCA / 43CC / IPCC etc is a confused mess and needs a shake up). Elected Commissioners, phasing out of the NPIA and the changes to the SOCA model are an indication that the Coalition are treating the challenges seriously. There are far too many quangos and bureaucratic empires and fiefdoms. The expertise and skills contained within the various departments need identifying and consolidating, applying the value for money formulas for individuals and areas.

The status of ACPO, together with its 349 members needs to be remodeled and repositioned so that its accountability is increased and transparent. For confidence to return, it must start from the top, with a governance structure that makes it accountable to those who fund it, rather than the self perpetuating oligarchy that pervades at present.

Is there a need for 43 different separately governed forces within England and Wales? Make collaboration and mergers really work this time. Beyond a few notable projects - many of which were bank rolled by the Home Office - most of the rest are stuck in quagmire of details.  

The structure of the police must enable them to fight serious crime while enhancing and sustaining community policing. This means either the existing 43 forces co-operating much more effectively, or a new national force taking responsibility for serious crime while much more localised forces focus on volume crime in their areas.

COSTS AND CUTS. After years of growth the service is under increasing pressure to demonstrate they are more financially efficient. Shared service and shared procurement are becoming more essential.

Many of the proposed cuts and savings could be effectively delivered by smarter volume central purchasing arrangements and sharing of resources. HR is an example. Why do 43 forces have 43 HR departments when massive savings could be achieved with one central HR function?

The same principle should be applied for all areas of procurement. Equipment and services sourced centrally would deliver millions in savings. HMIC predict that £5billion could be saved by better procurement over a ten year period. The challenge is demonstrating that as a public service the police are strong on value and low on waste. Inspection bodies such as the HMIC and Audit Commission are creating more scrutiny on Forces and the Authorities that govern them.

STOP paying interim ICT consultants vast sums of money for doing maintenance work or else assembling cases for next piece of spend.

RESOURCES. The most effective application of human resources.

From the top down, forces must look at the roles occupied by senior officers right down to the management of the front line. Of 143,000 warranted officers, only 11% are at any one time visibly policing the streets.

How can ACPO justify 349 ACC ranks and above, when only 220 are engaged directly in force duties? A critical analysis of the rank structure is well overdue.

It has been suggested that the Chief Superintendent and Chief Inspector ranks are superfluous to operational needs. Why are there so many supervisory, rather than 'doing' ranks within the service? How many ACPO officers are really needed?

The police’s hands must be untied to give them the discretion they need and to release officers for front-line duties. Forms and processes which do not help the police to deliver a better service to the public MUST be eliminated. Any remaining Centrally imposed short term fixes, direction and targets should be replaced by locally accountable leadership and priority setting. Civilian staff or the private sector should be employed to do jobs which sworn officers do not need to do, and the police ‘family’ should be extended.

Civilianisation running at 82,000, costing £2.7billion (£62 million in non forecast overtime) people has clearly escalated out of kilter. Box ticking, flow chart creating departments and individuals, many of whom impede the delivery of common sense policing rather than support it, must be justified as truly necessary or not.

Assuming that 40'ish% of warranted officers (allowing for shift patterns and rest days) are assigned to front line roles, this raises the question, "What are the other 85,000 officers doing?" Accepted that some back office functions require a warranted officer, surely there are many thousands that should be redeployed back to directly policing and serving the community. This measure alone would increase visibility and start the process of restoring public confidence and cutting crime.

The PCSO V's Coppers debate. There are those that say this represents everything that is wrong with the system, soft, ill conceived politics playing numbers and lying to the public.

Get more coppers out on the street, get rid of 50% of the IT systems within police stations where they are not required and when that is done 50% less time will be spent on emails. Audit just one Force and see how many emails travel through their system each day and how many are work related and could have been performed by supervisors.

Inspectors and Sergeants must be freed up to go for a walk, in uniform, and meet with their Constables and do another thing that is lacking in the job today, talking and listening. Introduce far more job flexibility, trust and discretion - How much talent is lost to the service because of out dated and rigid working arrangements that pay little heed to a) public demand and b) preferences of frontline staff.

The complexity and demands of modern policing mean that the workforce must be reformed to ensure that it is flexible, well trained and highly motivated, with a diverse range of skills and expertise.

A key goal MUST be to enhance and monitor the ability of police chiefs to manage their workforces more effectively than they have to date.

The police must be made properly accountable for their performance as well as their conduct, and their performance management framework must only reward activity that delivers a better service, not activity which keeps officers busy ticking boxes or senior officers manipulating figures for self serving reasons.

The quid pro quo for reducing central intervention is strongly enhanced local accountability, with a new emphasis on more effective partnerships and the empowerment of communities to ensure their own safety.

CRIME AND DETECTIONS. Reducing crime and increasing detections.

The problem here has been the historic one. Set Senior Police Officers a target and hook or by crook they will show that they have achieved it.

Connecting performance to senior officer bonuses has whittled away any confidence the public and frontline officers may have had in the crime figures. This mistake MUST NOT be repeated by the new Government if public and front line confidence is to have any hope of being restored. The Coalition must beware of the accusation that the new broom is failing to sweep clean.

The practice of "Gaming" exposed by Dr Rodger Patrick, a former DCI with the West Midlands force revealed that Senior Officers either encourage or condone the practices associated with "Cooking the Books" and have done so for many years. Statistics may not be critical, but the deceitful manipulative practices are self serving and destructive.

The techniques of "Cuffing", "Stitching", "Skewing", and "Nodding" are known as gaming but police officers would call it fiddling the figures, massaging the books or, the current favourite term, 'good housekeeping'. Serving police officers confirm that the practice is rife across England and Wales and has badly eroded confidence. (The importance of eradicating this practice cannot be overstated - without doing so, any future success in the achievement of the Governments primary objective to "Cut Crime" will be treated with the same doubt, derision and suspicion as their predecessors.

Simon Reed, vice-chairman of the Police Federation, which represents front line officers, said: "This practice demonstrates that senior officers are directing and controlling widespread manipulation of crime figures. The public are misled, politicians can claim crime is falling and chief officers are rewarded with performance-related bonuses."

Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) and the Police Standards Unit have shown "general tendency to underplay the scale and nature" of gaming. They have failed to tackle the problem. Tere are no examples of chief police officers being publicly criticised by inspectors for this type of crime figure manipulation. Instead, HMIC tended privately to refer examples of widespread gaming to the Home Secretary or the police authority rather than "hold the chief constable to account" because of the risk of political embarrassment.

HMIC inspectors should be made accountable to Parliament rather than the Home Office, and should be drawn from other professions rather than solely from senior police ranks.

OPERATIONAL PRIORITIES. Refocus the priorities of policing back to the Peelian principles, the main emphasis should always be the protection of life and property, the prevention and detection of crime. Anything else is a distraction.

The founder of modern policing, Sir Robert Peel, famously said: “The police are the public and the public are the police”. Police forces grew out of the localities. Restoring the accountability of the police to local communities will not only improve the fight against volume crime; it will be an important counterbalance to the areas where more effective national co-ordination of policing will be required, notably in relation to the development of technology and the fight against serious crime.

Many of the proposals are challenging. But we are convinced that they offer a better future for both police officers and the public.

The police will be released to do the job they want to do, consistent with the key theme of trusting officers for the professionals they are. Central interference must be minimised, professional discretion must be restored, and committed officers rewarded transparently and legitimately for their success.

The empowerment of local communities in the fight against crime will be a substantial element of the renewal of civic life and the democratic process. Above all, it will be an essential step towards rebuilding the bridge between the police and the public – and delivering lasting and genuine, NOT MANIPULATED reductions in crime and increases in detections.

The public will benefit from localised policing which is more responsive to their concerns, giving them a real voice and control to ensure the safety of their communities. Police officers will be returned to the streets where the public want to see them and the question that forms the title of this article will no longer seem as relevant as it is today.

POSTSCRIPT BY CRIME ANALYST

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr G from http://bankbabble.wordpress.com/ for his invaluable contributions to this article. His site is well written with informed content and I would recommend visitors to pop over to his site and enjoy his musings opn police, justice and life in general.