Delivering Neighbourhood Policing – a practice...

THE PROFESSIONAL BODY FOR POLICING

Delivering Neighbourhood Policing – a practice stocktake

Report of survey findings

2015

OFFICIAL


ii

© College of Policing 2015

OFFICIAL


College of Policing Limited Leamington Road Ryton-on-Dunsmore Coventry, CV8 3EN

Publication date: January 2015 © College of Policing Limited (2015)

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, modified, amended, stored in any retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior written permission of the College or as expressly permitted by law.

The above restrictions do not apply to Home Office police forces who are licensed by the College to copy, reuse and distribute this information for policing purposes within the police service of England and Wales. Some restrictions apply and forces may not distribute this information (other than to Home Office forces) or use it for commercial purposes without obtaining prior written permission from the College.

All other enquiries about this product should be addressed to [email protected]

OFFICIAL

Delivering Neighbourhood Policing – a practice stocktake © College of Policing 2015

OFFICIAL


1

Contents1 Executive summary 2

1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.2 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.3 Developments in local policing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2 Introduction 62.1 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.2 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.3 Note regarding appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3 Force reviews 83.1 Local policing models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

4 Understanding of neighbourhood policing 9

5 Proactive demand profiling 115.1 Response to demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125.2 Predictive policing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

6 Maintaining neighbourhood policing 156.1 Extending responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166.2 PCSOs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166.3 Combining command functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176.4 Integrated working . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

7 Engagement 20

8 Performance 238.1 Public confidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

9 Partnerships 26

10 Identifying and supporting vulnerable people/managing offenders 2810.1 Case management systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

11 Training 31

12 Conclusion 34

13 List of appendices 35

OFFICIAL


2


OFFICIAL


1 Executive summary

1.1 Introduction

In a society where policing is based upon the principle of consent, the police service needs the support of the public in order to be effective.

Stop and Search Powers: Are the police using them effectively and fairly? HMIC 2013

The key elements of neighbourhood policing are public engagement, collaborative problem solving and targeted foot patrol. If these are implemented effectively, there is evidence of a positive impact on public confidence, feelings of safety and crime reduction.1 By using their powers fairly and in a way that is effective in keeping the public safe, the police can build community confidence and encourage people to be more socially responsible in helping to reduce crime and disorder.2 Identifying how new and revised models of local policing can best reflect these principles has been identified as a priority for the College of Policing.

1.2 Methodology

Strategic neighbourhood policing leads in all 43 police forces in England and Wales were invited, between March and June 2013, to complete a force-level survey. Several forces also attached their review documents and information about noteworthy or innovative practice or new research their force had commissioned. The College’s field officers obtained further detail in visits to 15 forces between July and September 2013.

This study was designed to identify what is perceived to be working well across the country and share the most up-to-date practice. Examples of force approaches have been highlighted in this report that may be useful to other forces. Practice examples and force documents linked in this report are available on the Local Policing in Neighbourhoods community on the College of Policing Police OnLine Knowledge Area website (POLKA).

The survey results also identified key challenges and areas for improvement that forces are particularly struggling with or where there are gaps in evidence. This helps frame future College of Policing work with the national policing lead for local policing and partnerships.

1.3 Developments in local policing

While most forces felt that the existing neighbourhood policing principles were sound, some identified that it was difficult to achieve the resource levels that had historically been in place.

1Tuffin, R., Morris, J. and Poole, A. (2006) An Evaluation of the Impact of the National Reassurance Policing Programme. London: Home Office.2Myhill, A. and Quinton, P. (2011) It’s a Fair Cop? Police Legitimacy, Public Cooperation, and Crime Reduction. An Interpretative Evidence Commentary. London: NPIA.

https://polka.pnn.police.uk/

OFFICIAL


3


OFFICIAL


Some force reviews identified a need for a clearer understanding of what they want the neighbourhood function to deliver and the priorities for this function. Redefining and restating the expectations of neighbourhood policing could help forces deliver improved efficiency and better value for money.

Forces identified the need to examine the benefits of a broader approach to neighbourhood policing – the ‘policing of place’. This includes how neighbourhood officers can help focus policing attention on those who cause greatest harm to communities. Forces also identified the need to support this with clear evidence of successful approaches in measurable reductions in crime, antisocial behaviour (ASB), risk and vulnerability and increases in the confidence and satisfaction of the public.

Several forces have introduced methods to integrate neighbourhood policing into more serious crime investigations and disruption activity. In a few forces there was greater focus on how other force units could support the work of neighbourhood policing teams (NPTs) and integrate problem solving, engagement and visibility into their work to support local and force-level priorities and improve intelligence-led proactive policing.

Some forces have introduced a force-wide command for local policing, or integrated response officers or volume crime detectives in NPTs.

To maintain neighbourhood policing elements in new policing models, several forces kept a minimum of one PC and/or one PCSO for each neighbourhood with ring-fenced responsibilities for engagement, visibility and problem solving. Some forces allocated one neighbourhood officer responsibility for a number of neighbourhoods.

Several forces have extended the responsibilities of neighbourhood policing staff to include more crime investigation and/or response duties in their neighbourhoods. In some forces this includes giving PCSOs more local responsibility for public engagement and problem solving.

The need to identify good practice in understanding the demand profile for NPTs and balancing reactive demand with a proactive approach was a key theme in the force reviews that were supplied.

Forces identified the need to develop evidence of effective staff deployment to reduce crime. Some forces piloted techniques such as predictive policing and helped build an evidence base for the effectiveness of these methods.

Although there is strong research evidence for the role of neighbourhood policing as a driver of public confidence and for the importance of fairness, engagement and problem solving to tackle local crime and ASB, this was not strongly evident in many performance regimes. Some identified a need for performance measures that are more relevant to neighbourhood policing and highlighted the role that building trust, confidence and capacity in communities plays in achieving force-level priorities.

OFFICIAL


4


OFFICIAL


The majority of force reviews identified engagement as an area where improvements could be made. Issues identified included the need for a consistent force approach based on evidence-based practice to community engagement, identifying community priorities and managing the key individual network (KINs) system.

Force reviews identified the following areas for focus:

• keeping pace with the development and use of digital and social media platforms and supporting and training staff to use these media effectively as part of a wider engagement strategy

• demonstrating effective engagement with vulnerable, needy or victimised people who were most in need of police support and people who had least confidence in the police.

Forces feel that engagement should increasingly move towards encouraging positive and active public involvement in achieving solutions to community concerns, rather than passive commentary. Some forces recognise the benefits of a more strategic approach to involving citizens in policing activity to increase the capacity of their local policing function, as well as bring new skills and perspective into the force.

To increase the professionalism, job enrichment and job satisfaction of NPTs, forces identified the following areas as important:

• professional development

• recognising the skill sets required for effective performance

• having appropriately trained staff

• a greater focus on activities such as problem solving.

The majority of forces stated that they had some sort of IT system in place with their partner agencies to track activity to tackle high-risk ASB cases and manage the support provided to vulnerable victims.

Forces identified opportunities for better use of technology to provide frontline officers with real-time information. This could improve the use of their powers and give them the ability to record information easily.

1.4 Conclusions

Forces indicated that neighbourhood policing is highly valued by residents, partner agencies, police and crime commissioners (PCCs) and forces. It is seen as having instrumental value in delivering important operational priorities, such as tackling ASB, but also intrinsic value as the right way to provide communities with visible and accessible policing. However, it is clear that models of local policing are evolving in response to various needs. Forces are looking to maintain neighbourhood policing with reduced resources and focus their efforts more effectively to give greater value for money.

OFFICIAL


5


OFFICIAL


These developments highlight opportunities to retain the key principles of neighbourhood policing but with a broader range of functions and expertise. This could produce integrated team working, and provides the capability to solve and support the investigation of a wider range of local problems while keeping the support and involvement of the communities.

To realise these opportunities, forces identified areas that would benefit from further development, including:

• finding ways to measure performance and develop professional expertise in the roles, activities and functions unique to neighbourhood policing

• developing evidence-led practice through pilot studies, action research and controlled trials to establish effective practice in crime reduction

• finding effective and appropriate ways to understand the harm and risk factors in neighbourhoods, particularly those that are most troubled, and allocate resources to conduct longer-term problem solving as well as meet immediate demand

• identifying opportunities to engage with a wider range of residents, particularly in light of issues such as migration and an ageing population that make this need acute in some areas

• using methods such as digital media to harness and encourage social action within communities

• maintaining and creating effective cooperation at the local level, including with voluntary and community sector organisations through PCC commissioning arrangements

• creating opportunities for more active participation by volunteers and active citizens in the whole range of police services, from identifying needs, decision making, designing services and frontline delivery.

The College of Policing Understanding What Works in Local Policing programme for the next three years has been designed to support this evolution of neighbourhood policing into models that are more integrated with other policing services and capitalise on the full range of resources and support available from communities and a wider range of partner agencies.

OFFICIAL


6


OFFICIAL


2 Introduction

2.1 Purpose

The purpose of this report is to collate and share the results of a survey (see appendix 1) that was conducted with all police forces across England and Wales between March and June 2013 to ascertain current practice in relation to neighbourhood policing. Thirty-eight forces responded to the survey.

2.2 Background

There is good evidence that targeted and proactive policing, with an emphasis on preventive problem solving, can lead to sustained reductions in crime and antisocial behaviour. Focusing action on crime and antisocial behaviour hot spots, repeat victims, and prolific or high-volume offenders is an effective way to allocate resources for crime reduction. See HMIC website.

Understanding what causes high-volume offending or problems in hot spots and coming up with specific solutions – often in partnership with others – allows the police to drive down crime. The police also need to make sure they find out what matters to the public and why, and tackle these problems.

The evaluation of the National Reassurance Policing Programme, which tested the impact of neighbourhood teams, showed that targeted foot patrol, when implemented alongside community engagement and problem solving, can improve public confidence in the police, perceptions of crime and feelings of safety, as well as reduce crime.3

The results of the survey carried out for this stocktake demonstrated that the majority of forces understood the benefits of neighbourhood policing. However, since the NPIA carried out the Neighbourhood Policing Stocktake in 2010 there have been significant developments that have affected all forces, including:

• spending cuts have led to police forces reviewing and redesigning how they deliver their policing services

• PCCs were elected on 15 November 2012 and have now been in post for some time

• ring-fenced funding for PCSOs through the Neighbourhood Policing Fund ceased in April 2013 when the current funding was integrated into the Police Main Grant.

The survey was designed to help us understand how these developments have reportedly affected local policing in forces and gather information about some of the challenges that forces face. It also enabled us to identify how forces are adapting their local policing to these changing times and identify noteworthy new or well-embedded practices that seem to support local teams in delivering the principles of neighbourhood policing.

3 Tuffin, R., Morris, J. and Poole, A. (2006) An Evaluation of the Impact of the National Reassurance Policing Programme. London: Home Office.

http://www.hmic.gov.uk/pcc/what-works-in-policing-to-reduce-crime/what-is-the-best-thing-the-police-can-do-to-reduce-crime/

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/an-evaluation-of-the-impact-of-the-national-reassurance-policing-programme

OFFICIAL


7


OFFICIAL


Six forces kindly shared the results of their full reviews of their local policing function with us, which included the issues and challenges identified in their own forces that they felt needed to be addressed. The forces supplying them have not been identified, but analysis of the issues identified in each of these reports shows that there are some key challenges and areas for improvement that have been identified by all, or most, of the six forces. While these issues may not be relevant to all forces, we have outlined key issues from these reviews at the beginning of relevant sections of the report. We have also outlined within the section how the survey results indicate activity in forces that may help address these issues.

This report is a snapshot of where forces reportedly were at the time of the survey. We are in a rapidly changing environment and lessons are being learnt along the way as forces restructure and trial new approaches to the delivery of policing services.

2.3 Note regarding appendices

All appendices to this document are located on POLKA

To view them you will need to be a member of the Local Policing in Neighbourhoods Community. Appendices are grouped in order in the Documents section in the folder named Appendices, under ‘Delivering Neighbourhood Policing – a practice stocktake’ report.


OFFICIAL


8


OFFICIAL


3 Force reviews At the time of the survey completion, five forces had not reviewed their local policing function and did not plan to do so.

Two forces said they were planning to review their local policing function but had not started at the time of the survey.

Twenty-three stated that they had conducted a review.

Nine were currently reviewing their local policing function.

3.1 Local policing models

At the time of the survey completion, of the 32 forces that had reviewed or were reviewing their function:

• eleven forces stated that they had moved or were planning to integrate NPTs with either response, CID or both – Cambridgeshire, Cheshire, Gwent, Cleveland, Dorset, Hertfordshire, Essex, Greater Manchester Police (GMP) (see appendix 2), Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), Northamptonshire, Staffordshire

• thirteen forces reported that they had retained or planned to retain stand-alone NPTs as previously configured with PCs and PCSOs – Avon & Somerset, Cumbria, British Transport Police (BTP), Dyfed-Powys, Humberside, Durham, Leicestershire, Suffolk, Hampshire, Surrey, West Mercia, West Midlands, Warwickshire

• two forces reported having kept NPTs separate but had given PCSOs sole responsibility for some wards – Merseyside, South Yorkshire

• in six forces it could not be ascertained whether there have been any changes to the structure of their teams, either because their reviews were still ongoing or it was not clear from the survey response – Gloucestershire, Kent, Nottinghamshire, Lancashire, West Yorkshire, Sussex.

OFFICIAL


9


OFFICIAL


4 Understanding of neighbourhood policingNearly all the force reviews identified a variance in terminology and definition used in relation to neighbourhood/local policing – sometimes within their own forces.

Some of the force reviews and survey results identified an opportunity to raise standards and bring greater consistency across their local policing function. Forces felt that redefining and restating what neighbourhood policing is expected to deliver would mean improved efficiency of staff and better value for money given the significant cuts in frontline policing and the increasing pressures on frontline resources. This was identified as a particular issue at a time when the numbers of neighbourhood officers would likely need to be reduced, along with other force areas.

They identified a need for a clearer understanding across the force and between ranks/grades as to what the constabulary wanted the neighbourhood function to deliver and the priorities for this function, to ensure that staff working in neighbourhood policing roles knew what they should be doing and were tasked appropriately.

Survey results identified that:

• Hertfordshire has redefined the roles of PCSOs and PCs in its NPTs against six strands of local policing. The force has identified different responsibilities for these roles while ensuring that they remain dedicated to neighbourhood policing rather than becoming multi-faceted (eg, responsible for response policing). See appendix 3 – A good day in Neighbourhood Policing, and appendix 4 – Neighbourhood Policing Aide-Memoire.

• Avon and Somerset has produced ‘Expectations of SSN teams’.

• Derbyshire has developed Destination Principles, which underpin patrol activity (see appendix 5) for all safer neighbourhood teams (SNTs).

• Humberside has reviewed and redefined the roles and functions of inspectors, sergeants, constables, PCSOs and special constables and introduced common minimum standards for all neighbourhood staff, including

- direction and tasking of PCSOs

- problem solving complex, protracted or the more challenging neighbourhood priorities and crime trends – which may include a level of investigation and enforcement

- engagement.

• Cleveland has produced a ‘Guide to Deployment and Minimum Standards for neighbourhood officers’, (see appendix 6).

• Surrey has developed ‘Neighbourhood Minimum Standards’.

• Hampshire has developed a more detailed description of the contribution of PCSOs to neighbourhood team responsibilities.

OFFICIAL


10


OFFICIAL


• Leicestershire has created new role descriptions for SNT officers as part of the review process, which clearly identify the expectations placed on officers.SNT officers were also provided with a booklet that explained their role.

• GMP has produced a neighbourhood toolkit (see appendix 7) to provide the framework for how local teams engage, set community priorities, problem solve, reduce crime and ASB and feed back and communicate with communities.

OFFICIAL


11


OFFICIAL


5 Proactive demand profiling The majority of the forces that responded to the survey identified a need to design service against demand. However, nearly all the full reviews identified a lack of understanding and consideration of what constitutes the demand profile for NPTs.

The allocation of uniformed police officers to the response function had generally been decided on by using some form of resource allocation formula to assess the number of officers needed to meet calls for service. However, the number of officers available for neighbourhood policing in some forces had not been established with any bespoke role-based analysis or amended to reflect the requirements of policing rural/urban communities. Some forces identified that the resourcing of NPTs had been largely achieved by those police officer posts remaining when the response requirement had been subtracted from the resource allocation of each district, ie, what is left rather than what is needed.

However, several forces identified how they are trying to address this issue by using different demand profiling methods, with several forces using or planning to use commercial profiling tools including MOSAIC, ACORN, census data, the Vulnerable Localities Index (VLI) or having developed their own methodology.

• Hampshire determined resource allocation using the VLI created by the Jill Dando Institute and adapted by in-house academic, Dr Stifun Mittoo. (See appendix 8.)

• Cleveland used the VLI as the basis for profiling neighbourhood demand and allocating resources. (See appendix 9.)

• Durham identified high-impact localities, based upon a number of social and economic factors, the index of depravation statistics, as well as crime figures to target efforts across all partner agencies. (See appendix 10.)

• Leicestershire has worked with a local university to develop a demand profiler for the organisation that was used to determine the number of officers required for response policing. The numbers left over were invested into neighbourhood policing.

• Dorset has assessed the relative workload of an SNT officer through the use of business data and proposed a new resource allocation formula for SNT constables. This measured the number of ‘victims first’ victims, repeat ASB victims, repeat crime victims and the number of offenders recorded as living in a particular area. These were broken down to an overall percentage for each neighbourhood area or section and the available SNT constables were then allocated to the area based on this figure.

• Cambridgeshire used a number of sources, including MOSAIC (social/economic/demographic information), partnership research publications, strategic assessments (including those of partners) profiling by the force intelligence unit, corporate performance information (including CORA) and victim/offender needs assessment.

OFFICIAL


12


OFFICIAL


• Hertfordshire used MOSAIC data from Experian alongside the Hertfordshire Local Information System (HertsLIS) website. The Constabulary’s SNT demand model took into account a variety of factors including crime types, antisocial behaviour, population, households and geography – and was the basis on which SNT staff were allocated across the county.

• Humberside developed a neighbourhood resource allocation model which took into account the level of vulnerability in an area, the levels of ASB and levels of overall crime. The force assessed vulnerability by using the VLI. These factors were weighted to give greater credence to causation factors: VLI (50%), ASB (30%) and overall crime (20%).

• Lancashire has produced a Neighbourhood Needs Index, which includes a wide range of socio-demographic data alongside crime, incident and fire service demand to identify where staff are best posted and where savings in staff numbers can be made. (See appendix 11.)

• Merseyside risk assessed all the wards using a methodology that was dependent on workload, including information about licensed premises, schools and key individuals.

• Northamptonshire used MOSIAC software, at the time the survey was completed, to prepare recommendations about deploying resources to target serious acquisitive crime, violence and sexual offences, and profiles of priority wards had been commissioned.

• Surrey used profiling systems, including Surrey Iprofile, MOSIAC and Origins.

• West Mercia and Warwickshire used methodology including crime data, attended incidents of ASB and a deprivation score, showing the 30 areas across the two forces that were most at risk of threat and harm. The forces allocated resources to each area, taking into account these factors and local professional judgement. (See appendix 12.)

• West Midlands used MOSAIC data and census information to understand the demographic breakdown along with strategic scanning documents of priority areas and local surveys to establish what matters to local people.

• Wiltshire considered partnership data, eg, employment, along with crime patterns.

Other forces indicated that they used similar profiling tools but not necessarily to support their resource allocation models – rather as tools to aid engagement and target local activity.

• Cumbria used ACORN data to inform NPTs on areas of vulnerability through its VLI.

5.1 Response to demand

The reduction in officer numbers reportedly presented a challenge to some forces in meeting previous commitments and requirements for neighbourhood policing.

A key theme in the force reviews was the need to identify good practice in how to balance reactive demand with a proactive approach.

http://www.surreyi.gov.uk

OFFICIAL


13


OFFICIAL


Two force reviews identified the need to undertake a detailed process review and introduce a range of disposal routes for incidents that could reduce the demand on response officers. They identified that the majority of calls for service were currently assigned to response officers, leading to high job queues and the potential for a fire-fighting approach to meeting demand.

A notable percentage of these calls was identified by one force as suitable for either resolution without deployment or by making appointments with more appropriate officers. This could relieve the pressure on response staff and avoid the risk of compromising service quality in order to meet the demands of the incident queue.

Forces identified the need to examine the benefits of a wider force approach to neighbourhood policing, eg, the ‘policing of place’. This included how the role of neighbourhood officers could help focus policing attention on those who cause greatest harm to communities, which appeared to be consistent with the evidence on reducing crime and ASB, reductions in risk and vulnerability and increasing the confidence of the community.

To better manage demand, some forces were reportedly targeting the activity of the local teams against risk:

• GMP has developed the concept of Harm, Opportunity and Threat (HOT) against which, activity of all its local policing teams has been focused.

• West Midlands initiated a 10-year project – ‘Priority Areas’ – that focuses on the more demand-hungry areas and works with partners to reduce demand across all disciplines in these areas.

• Merseyside has redistributed available resources based on risk, threat and demand and introduced a small support team of officers for those neighbourhoods at most risk of crime and disorder.

• In Cambridgeshire a similar approach was being taken but at a local, rather than force, level, leading to dedicated teams being established in cases of most need (long-term threat, risk and harm), eg, micro beats in Peterborough. (See appendix 13.)

• In Dorset in areas of highest risk and/or high demand, patrol officers continued to support dedicated safer neighbourhood officers, while in low-risk areas a blended safer neighbourhood and patrol officer function was used.

• In Gloucestershire problem solving was built into the more urban areas of the constabulary via specific projects, namely the Aston Project in Cheltenham and Project Solace in Gloucester.

5.2 Predictive policingSome forces have been piloting methods that support the use of predictive policing to reduce crime, which have helped to develop an evidence base for the effectiveness of some of these techniques:

• Cheshire focuses on demand not just crime and sets resourcing levels by demand mapping, FOXI support mapping and predictive mapping of incidents/crime. (See appendix 14.)

OFFICIAL


14


OFFICIAL


• Cambridgeshire is conducting a randomised controlled trial on hot spot policing in the Peterborough district. (See appendix 15).

• GMP has used predictive mapping in Trafford to reduce burglary by developing a response from research which examined how offenders return to a familiar area. By placing a capable guardian in these areas at the right time, GMP is attempting to disrupt the offending pattern of the optimal forager.

• West Midlands Police has supported evidenced-based work such as Op Swordfish (a repeat burglary pilot run with the Jill Dando Institute) and Op Savvy (a fully evidence-based pilot around structured hot spot patrols by PCSOs to assess the impact of an intervention).

Case study

Kent Police are in partnership with the American company PredPol and pay them for a service whereby Kent provides crime and incident data twice daily to which PredPol applies an algorithm and identifies areas for targeted patrol of 500 square foot zones. It is described as a simple, basic tool in terms of policing delivery, but the approach is based upon an understanding of more complex anthropology and mathematics.

Cloud-based software geo-maps the zones, which change depending on the time of day, and are refreshed every morning and evening. Staff are briefed on the proactive patrol locations and choose which zones to patrol. They are instructed to attend the area for a 15-minute period when they are able and police what they see, thus providing worthwhile activity and engagement opportunities as opposed to relying on visibility alone.

The current focus is on street-based crime and dwelling burglary. It reportedly enables the deployment of the right people in the right place at the right time to provide resource management based on identified need across a variety of communities. Most locations are no surprise to frontline staff, who would recognise them as problem areas, however, some zones were less expected and in areas not regularly policed.

It reportedly provides a focus and structure to the patrol function. While it is a preventive tool, the briefing data can be enriched when overlaid with local intelligence, and the force believes that it has had positive results in relation to crime reduction and arrests. When the pilot was implemented, it was initiated in one BCU, one BCU made no change, and in one BCU the analysts did their best to predict and identify zones. Subsequently, analysis identified a correct prediction of 5% by analysts and 8% by PredPol. This apparently compares favourably with the results analysis carried out by other forces which are trialling different approaches to predictive policing.

The force is considering how the initiative and information could be expanded to partner agencies.

http://www.college.police.uk/en/20839.htm

http://www.college.police.uk/en/20839.htm

OFFICIAL


15


OFFICIAL


6 Maintaining neighbourhood policing While most forces felt that the principles of neighbourhood policing were sound, some identified that it was difficult to achieve the resource levels that had historically been in place as staff need to be deployed in response policing and specialist roles.

To maintain the elements of neighbourhood policing within new local policing models, several forces kept a minimum of one PC and/or one PCSO for each neighbourhood with ring-fenced responsibilities for engagement, visibility and problem solving. Some forces allocated one neighbourhood officer as responsible for a number of coterminous areas, eg, Lancashire.

• In Cheshire each NPU had beat managers with geographical and/or thematic responsibility for problem solving.

• In Gwent the number of neighbourhood officers was ‘red circled’ in the Staying Ahead review.

• Dorset maintained continuity for communities in their model of dedicated and blended local policing teams, through designated safer neighbourhood officers.

• In Essex there were two types of neighbourhood policing teams: neighbourhood crime teams, who deal with demand and local issues, and smaller NPTs focused on problem solving, made up of a reduced number of dedicated, ring-fenced officers and PCSOs to deal with ongoing community issues and ASB. (See appendix 16.)

• Staffordshire had introduced a ‘One Team’ approach, maintaining the allocation of at least one PC and one PCSO to every neighbourhood to focus on dealing with what matters.

• In Cleveland the team structure, supported by problem solving coordinators in each district, allowed flexible deployment of staff to address neighbourhood priorities, while preserving the red circling of staff. (See appendix 17.)

• Humberside ensured that all wards have at least one neighbourhood officer.

• Using the continuous improvement methodology, West Midlands realigned officers purely to neighbourhood policing.

• Leicestershire introduced beacon officers as a principal named point of contact for the public.

• Cumbria has at least one problem solver on each NPT, who is not used for general incidents.

• Through its Citizen in Policing Programme, Lancashire Constabulary is looking to increase capacity of its neighbourhood function through neighbourhood specials, cadets, volunteers and increased collaboration with voluntary and community sector agencies.

• GMP had integrated neighbourhood teams (neighbourhood and CID) and introduced operational support officers (OSOs) to provide frontline administrative support. (See appendix 18 for a summary of this project and appendix 19 for the OSO job description.)

• In Merseyside each neighbourhood retained at least one police constable that the police community support and traffic officers (PCSTOs) could access, and introduced a support team for priority problem areas.

OFFICIAL


16


OFFICIAL


• South Yorkshire maintained police staffing levels and increased the number of PCSOs. All had problem-solving training.

• In Staffordshire, local police officers performed a 24/7 demand role geographically aligned to neighbourhood areas with all response officers trained in problem solving techniques.

6.1 Extending responsibilities

Several forces had reportedly extended the responsibilities of neighbourhood policing staff to include some crime investigation and/or response duties within their neighbourhoods:

• in Staffordshire neighbourhood and local police officers followed the ‘life of a crime’ process, which involved retaining responsibility for the continuing investigation of enquiries that they had dealt with

• in Leicestershire the newly expanded SNTs took on greater responsibility for crimes and issues in their neighbourhood to give response officers more time to proactively patrol and respond to calls for assistance

• West Mercia and Warwickshire had recently reduced the number of police officers and PCSOs in neighbourhood management and increased their workload capacity to include investigating crime

• Gwent increased the capacity of neighbourhood policing and delivered a response service.

Force reviews and feedback from HMIC Valuing the Police 3 Inspection indicate that in some forces, neighbourhood constables have expressed concern at being aligned to response and felt they were more akin to intervention officers than neighbourhood officers. In others, they reported that the level of crime investigations they were allocated meant they have no time for problem solving and other neighbourhood policing tasks. One force reported that this was most apparent in the more rural areas, where they were struggling to maintain problem solving beyond general response because of dwindling officer numbers.

Force reviews also identified that a high level of devolved authority has resulted in a function which can have great variance in its application (across and between forces), including the levels of resources and the roles undertaken by neighbourhood staff. Within some forces the tasks undertaken by neighbourhood constables could vary across the divisions, with some teams responding to incidents and investigating crime more than others.

6.2 PCSOs

Eleven forces had expanded the role of PCSOs to give them more local responsibility for engagement and problem solving in current or reconfigured local policing models. Eight others were planning to review their PCSO function.

Staff consultations in some forces revealed that PCSOs felt capable of delivering far more in neighbourhood policing but felt under-used. Some forces had taken steps to identify

OFFICIAL


17


OFFICIAL


activities undertaken by neighbourhood police officers that did not require warranted powers and could be completed by PCSOs.

However, this needs to be carefully managed to ensure that adapting the role of the PCSO to meet local need does not detract them from effectively being able to deliver their core functions of engagement, problem solving and visibility.

Many forces emphasised the key responsibilities of PCSOs.

BTP, GMP, Dorset, Hertfordshire, West Midlands, Hampshire, Staffordshire and Northamptonshire gave PCSOs more responsibility in terms of engagement and/or problem solving in their area.

Doctors Janet Foster and Claire Jones from the London School of Economics assisted in reviewing neighbourhood policing in Hertfordshire, laying the foundations for establishing the ‘6 strands’ of the PCSO role.

In some forces PCSOs are reportedly now the only resource dedicated to some neighbourhoods. In South Yorkshire, from April 2012, all PCSOs became local beat officers with responsibility for a specific beat or beats, together with the remit to undertake problem solving for lower-level local issues. The NPT constables were placed into local tasking teams with the intention of making better use of their warranted powers and to problem solve bigger issues affecting their local communities. In Merseyside some quieter wards have only PCSOs allocated to them, but the force has ensured that each neighbourhood still has at least one constable that the PCSOs can access.

6.3 Combining command functions

Some forces have introduced a force-wide command for the local policing function:

• Cambridgeshire has combined teams covering response, community and volume investigations on each area command under one commander

• Cleveland, similarly, has a force-wide command overseeing neighbourhood policing through integrated neighbourhood teams, including responsibility for volume crime, community safety, level 1 source handling units, and drugs. CID and drugs assets are aligned to their model

• Hertfordshire has neighbourhood teams, intervention and local crime units all working to one community safety partnership chief inspector

• in Northamptonshire there are two district commands at Northampton and County, each commanded by a superintendent with volume crime, core CID, response and community teams being owned at this district level

• Essex’s ‘Blueprint’ model consists of a number of functional commands, each responsible for delivering a specific policing service across the entire force area (see appendix 16).

OFFICIAL


18


OFFICIAL


6.4 Integrated working

One force suggested that demarcation of officer roles and responsibilities and the emergence of teams and squads to deal with specific areas of frontline policing had previously contributed to a ‘handover culture’ and a ‘that’s not my remit’ mind-set. Contributing factors were thought to be time pressures and working practices that did not encourage officers to deal with cases end-to-end, but to hand over investigations. Demand pressures then could have the potential to lead to handovers being rushed and of poor quality, which in turn could reportedly affect relationships and increase tension between those taking the report and those charged with investigating it.

In some forces CID officers were said to have been working in isolation from response and neighbourhood policing, investigating offences but not resolving the issues. In others there was a desire to make response officers more proactive in the way they dealt with incidents. Integrating volume crime detectives and, in some cases, response officers into local policing teams has been a common response to these issues.

Forces are increasingly using methods to encourage integrated working between response, neighbourhood policing staff and CID, with the aim of driving and delivering performance relating to local and service priorities and improving intelligence-led proactive policing. The majority of forces have introduced methods to integrate neighbourhood policing into more serious crime investigations and disruption activity such as:

• giving ownership of organised crime gangs to NPTs

• involving NPTs in intelligence gathering and reassurance to support work on gun and gang crime

• giving NPTs access to information about crimes, incidents and/or organised crime gangs relevant to their area through briefings by serious and organised crime staff

• joint tasking processes

• joint multi-departmental briefings between NPTs and response, with armed response, roads policing units and custody

• joint performance meetings

• developmental attachments

• shared shift patterns

• problem-oriented policing plans

• co-location

• joint squads

• joint seminar days

• including other police units in visibility strategies.

OFFICIAL


19


OFFICIAL


Cleveland reported that NPTs had responsibility for organised crime groups, sex offenders and supporting counter-terrorism activity.

Two forces were reviewing their briefing systems:

• the MPS started a review to assess the effectiveness of the briefings/debriefings delivered on a daily basis to emergency response teams, neighbourhood task teams and local investigative officers across the force

• Surrey examined delivery options to improve the effectiveness and management of briefings.

In a few forces there was greater focus on how other units can support the work of neighbourhood teams and integrate problem solving, engagement and visibility into their work:

• West Yorkshire held regular NPT seminar days where approximately 200 people from all force departments (including partners) came together to develop the ways in which they could all provide neighbourhood policing or integrate their operations with neighbourhood policing

• Humberside considered the role of roads policing and incident response teams within a force visibility strategy to maximise the impact of these force assets

• Hertfordshire was looking at ways of increasing the proactivity of response teams to improve performance and increase the capacity of these teams to deliver more intelligence-led policing.

OFFICIAL


20


OFFICIAL


7 Engagement The majority of force reviews identified engagement as an area where improvements could be made, with nine forces reviewing their engagement, piloting new techniques or outlining problems with it.

Forces identified several issues, including the need for a consistent force approach focusing on evidence-based practice to community engagement, identifying community priorities and managing the KINs system. They also identified strong and determined leadership along with the commitment of staff as important to develop and improve working practices in this area.

Most forces identified that they use public meetings for setting their priorities. While there were some good examples of well-organised and valuable meetings, often forces felt the approach was not effective and that the meetings did not promote a sufficient degree of accountability.

One force review identified that, as the SNTs’ engagement and consultation with their communities was predominately focused on public meetings, local priorities were based on the concerns of a small and unrepresentative part of the community, and some hard-to-reach groups in these areas reported that neighbourhood teams did not engage with them.

One force review used feedback from focus groups and an internal survey to identify that staff felt that sometimes the effort required to administer the meeting process was not proportionate to the outcomes. The PACT Meeting/Panel process in that force was reported to involve 30 separate steps, taking on average 11 hours a month.

Forces identified a need for engagement plans to demonstrate activity with BME (black and minority ethnic) communities, people with other protected characteristics, vulnerable groups/communities and schools. Forces also felt that engagement should encourage positive and active public involvement in achieving solutions to community concerns rather than passive commentary.

Case study

Hertfordshire has developed the Keep Safe programme after receiving feedback from people with learning difficulties that they can find it difficult to contact the police, or otherwise feel intimidated or uncomfortable about doing so. The Constabulary – and in particular SNTs – worked with a partnership agency and local groups to develop the Hertfordshire People in Partnership (PIP) programme. People with learning difficulties are supported at planned training sessions and offered an easy-read help pack entitled ‘Pathways to the Police and Other Services’.This includes a Keep Safe card to record personal and contact details. While on a PIP course, disabled people can practice reporting allegations of bullying and harassment (hate crime) to the police. The PIP project includes premises such as shops and libraries that display a Keep Safe sticker indicating their willingness to support people with a Keep Safe card, for example, by helping to make a telephone call to the police or other emergency services or to a parent, carer or support worker. Several hundred people with learning difficulties have benefited from the PIP programme and the project has received a High Commendation at the national Criminal Justice awards.

OFFICIAL


21


OFFICIAL


Force reviews recommended ways to enhance the elements of effective public engagement, including using available products to profile neighbourhoods in new ways. For example, Thames Valleys uses MOSAIC to tailor communication methods according to the preferences of individual neighbourhoods.

Evidence from research carried out in one force suggested that, particularly in times of limited resources, policing should direct their resources to those most in need of police support.

The research concluded that engagement activity across the force was insufficiently targeted. This apparently resulted in staff interacting with groups of people and in places that had relatively little or no need, rather than the vulnerable, those in need, and victims who did not report. Forces identified the following as potential reasons for this:

• a lack of a strategy for neighbourhood policing • funded PCSO posts were not needs based • some of the best PCSOs were working in areas where they were least needed

• staff on less demanding wards did not support others working in more demanding areas and were essentially working in silos.

Examples of force-level support for engagement include:

• The University of Northampton contributed to the Northants Intensive Engagement pilot to tackle issues in communities where there is the greatest risk of vulnerability around crime and antisocial behaviour. (See appendix 20.)

• GMP has been piloting a new approach to community engagement in two of its integrated neighbourhood policing teams. The GMP neighbourhood policing toolkit outlines how teams can target their engagement and set priorities more effectively. (See appendix 7.)

• Cleveland’s neighbourhood policing community engagement toolkit provides useful advice on planning community engagement activity. (See appendix 21.)

• Durham police teamed up with Durham University Business School, which is leading on the force Confidence and Engagement Model.

• Staffordshire’s four-page strategy document has measurable commitments that provide a framework for public consultation and engagement, and has developed a citizen-focus toolkit to help staff meet these. (See appendix 22.)

• In partnership with the University Police Science Institute at Cardiff University, South Wales Police conducted in-depth analysis using PCSOs to carry out interviews with community members.

Case study

Based on research by Dr Janet Foster and Dr Claire Jones from the Mannheim Centre for Criminology, Hertfordshire developed Street Meets. SNTs drop leaflets in targeted streets announcing a forthcoming street meet and then, on those dates, visit and door knock. (See appendix 23 and appendix 24.)

OFFICIAL


22


OFFICIAL


• Northumbria’s Ebeat website focuses on providing information about policing issues for young people, parents and teachers.

• West Yorkshire’s Explorers Programme takes 16–18 year olds from local communities to give them an insight into policing, and the ‘i’ programme provides activities for young people in the summer months to work on community concerns and neighbourhood priorities.

Some forces recognised the benefits of a more strategic approach to involving citizens in policing activity, to increase the capacity of their local policing function and bring new skills and perspective into the force.

• Lancashire recently published its Citizens in Policing Strategy, which outlines a strategic approach to involving citizens in policing that aims to increase social responsibility and bring new depth and added value to service delivery against the force’s strategic priorities. The delivery plan outlines how the force will value and recognise contribution from citizens, ensure those who participate represent local communities, and work with partners in the voluntary sector to increase capacity and quality of service. (See appendix 25.)

• Cheshire’s Participation in Policing strategy outlines the contribution different forms of participation can make to reducing demand and increasing public confidence. It defines how the Constabulary will deliver ‘participation in policing’, laying out some basic principles and a framework to define and shape the opportunities the force will offer. (See appendix 26.)

• Durham’s neighbourhood watch strategy aims to take advantage of the community assets that are available by encouraging greater membership of neighbourhood watch, motivating people to get active, and recognising their contribution to a broad range of activity that includes helping people to feel safe. (See appendix 27.)

Forces saw keeping pace with the development and use of digital and social media platforms as important, with staff needing corporate support and appropriate training to use these media effectively as part of a wider engagement strategy.

Other engagement strategies provided included: Derbyshire (appendix 28) South Wales Police (appendix 29), Merseyside (appendix 30) and Cambridgeshire (appendix 31).

https://www.northumbria.police.uk/ebeat/

http://www.westyorkshire.police.uk/explorers

OFFICIAL


23


OFFICIAL


8 PerformanceAll forces which supplied their reviews identified performance measures and frameworks as an issue. The main issue highlighted was that the current performance frameworks have traditionally focused on performance measures such as arrests and detection and these have been the primary drivers for much force activity. The tendency to focus narrowly on crime meant that the rationale, effort and outcomes of the work of neighbourhood officers have not yet been fully captured.

Most forces had done little evaluation of the effectiveness of neighbourhood policing locally.

Force reviews indicated that the lack of effective performance measures could lead to a perception of low productivity of neighbourhood policing officers, based on traditional methods of recording performance. With a significant amount of staff within this function, forces identified that they needed a clearer oversight of activity so that performance could be maintained, rewarded, challenged and improved for the benefit of the wider community.

Forces identified an increasing need to focus on the relationship between the neighbourhood policing principles and force performance, to highlight the role that building trust, confidence and capacity in communities plays in achieving force-level priorities.

Forces felt it was important that neighbourhood policing is not simply measured by the same means as traditional response policing. They reported that neighbourhood policing requires a clear performance measurement regime. This should quantify core headline data around demand relating to ASB, criminal damage, confidence and visibility, and include measurement of effective use of resources in dealing with issues identified by the community.

Some forces identified that the performance measures for neighbourhood teams reflected local priorities and activity.

• Cheshire focused their BCU performance on reducing demand and responding to non-emergencies promptly, but also on allowing individual areas to concentrate on single issues, eg, mental health, depending on community priorities.

• Northumbria focused on maintaining visible policing services, including:

- keeping officers on the streets to deal with local issues

- deploying officers to ensure that the right officer is in the right place at the right time to deal effectively with incidents

- monitoring and responding to changes in criminal behaviour

- targeting resources on prolific and priority offenders.

• In BTP, NPTs had local objectives regarding shoplifting, cycle crime, low-level ASB and staff assaults.

OFFICIAL


24


OFFICIAL


• Durham set measures in their Neighbourhoods and Partnerships Strategy Delivery Plan for neighbourhood officers to increase attendance at PACT meetings and reduce ASB on their own neighbourhood area in line with the force objective. (See appendix 32.)

• North Yorkshire’s Quality of Life Plan outlines outcomes-based objectives for local areas and performance measures to assess success against meeting those objectives. (See appendix 33.)

• South Yorkshire, Northants and West Mercia set objectives at local level, according to local priorities/needs.

• Hertfordshire set PCs and PCSOs in safer neighbourhood teams different objectives (for the constables these were linked to reducing crime and ASB, catching criminals and keeping people safe, while for the PCSOs these were linked to getting others involved, contact with a purpose, and listening and understanding). A six-monthly qualitative assessment of how community priorities are being identified and tackled forms part of a force-wide peer inspection process.

• Lancashire set targets in the last neighbourhood policing review for NPTs to spend 90% of their time on neighbourhood policing duties and 80% of their time being visible in communities (detailed in the force’s operating model and strategy).

• Essex’s crime reduction strategy (see appendix 34) outlines outcome measures against which the success of the strategy will be measured, including continuous improvement in:

- overall reported crime

- repeat and vulnerable victims (including commercial and individual)

- an improvement in the quality of service provided to victims of crime and the public

- public confidence

- local achievement with published crime prevention standards

- value for money.

Six forces identified that the performance measures for their neighbourhood teams reflected force performance measures, generally crime and ASB reduction.

Four forces stated that confidence and/or satisfaction were also measures against which they assessed the performance of neighbourhood teams.

Three further forces identified this as either work in progress or an area for development, with one force identifying a need for a performance regime to be embedded in neighbourhoods, which could include:

• use of problem solving plans

• effective engagement

• maintaining effective deployment.

OFFICIAL


25


OFFICIAL


8.1 Public confidence

There is strong evidence for the drivers of public confidence. In particular, this includes the role of neighbourhood policing in improving trust and confidence and the importance of fairness, engagement and problem solving to tackle local crime and ASB. This did not, however, appear to be strongly evident in all performance regimes.

The majority of forces identified that they still conducted public surveys to ascertain levels of public confidence, although some expressed concern that changes to local policing caused by austerity will necessitate a return to a core reactive function. Forces were concerned that this could adversely affect delivering factors that improve and maintain public confidence.

Forces reported that public survey results influenced activity in several cases, including:

• In addition to the results from the Crime Survey of England and Wales (CSEW), Cleveland also conducts a victim satisfaction survey and a monthly rolling local confidence survey, which covers public perceptions/attitude of the police and enables district/demographic breakdown. Telephone call-backs (125 per day) are made to callers for service, to assess the levels of service of the police response. Results are included as part of individual officer performance review and district performance reviews undertaken by chief officers. The force considered information from the above surveys, information from independent advisory group members and key individual networks to assess the impact on confidence from policing operations.

• Gwent assesses public confidence through national surveys, eg, the CSEW and local surveys conducted with victims of crime and ASB. During 2013 Gwent held victim satisfaction workshops across the force area to identify how the force can improve its public confidence/victim satisfaction measures. The force initiated a victim satisfaction project to further enhance satisfaction. At a force level the DCC now chairs a public confidence strategic group to improve confidence.

Of the four forces that reported they run partnership surveys, notable examples were:

• In Northumbria a local ‘Safer Communities Survey’ is conducted on behalf of the force and partner organisations, which all share the results. The survey includes a range of questions about public confidence, including the two key measures used in the CSEW – the police do a good job and what was the single confidence measure. The survey reports down to a police sector (neighbourhood) level.

• BTP has an externally run survey, Passenger Focus, which completes regular passenger surveys to measure levels of public confidence and also requests regular feedback via social media including Twitter.

Only two forces reported that they do not measure confidence, although five forces did not respond to the question.

OFFICIAL


26


OFFICIAL


9 PartnershipsThe majority of force responses (24) identified that they and partner agencies had some co-located staff, most often with local authorities. The responses also identified some innovative resource sharing between agencies. Notable examples of both co-location and shared resources included:

• Lancashire reported that they had emergency community support officers (ECSOs), part funded by Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service, as well as PCSOs working in the Safer Travel Unit tackling ASB on the bus networks.

• In Cleveland the force co-located NPTs with the local authority registered social landlord staff and shared services such as reception staff where possible. York Road, Hartlepool was identified as an exemplar site by HMIC and the NPIA.

• Dorset Police identified that they were engaged in a number of specific partnership arrangements that deliver local policing, including:

- a multi-agency dedicated Safe Schools and Communities Team (SSCT), comprising 10 police operational and support staff and a local authority administrator, all managed by a local authority service manager

- a police inspector temporarily seconded to one of the local unitary authorities, as part of a regeneration project in a specific priority neighbourhood.

• Derbyshire reported having 33 multi-agency teams centred on education, children’s services, troubled families and gangs across the county with four of these managed by police sergeants. Joint meetings and tasking arrangements were in place in some areas, with joint training with the county council for ECINs (a multi-agency case management system) and community safety.

• In Barnsley, South Yorkshire, all SNTs had a council-employed tasking officer integrated into each team.

• Cheshire’s ‘Altogether Better’ programme co-located all public services in local authority buildings across the borough and recently opened its first 24-hour co-located police station in West Warrington, sharing the building with a children’s charity (see appendix 35). The force also trialled a government-supported pilot model of joint funding and delivery for domestic abuse (Better Together).

• Hertfordshire’s County Community Safety Unit is headed by the fire and rescue service but incorporates managers and staff from Hertfordshire Constabulary and Hertfordshire County Council. It is responsible for developing joint strategy and delivery such as on ASB, alcohol-related crime, domestic violence and fire setting.

• BTP National Suicide Prevention Team works directly with Network Rail, health professionals, the Samaritans and Maytree to reduce suicides on the railway. BTP provided Maytree with free office space in their area headquarters to promote cooperation.

OFFICIAL


27


OFFICIAL


Forces also provided examples of co-location and closer working arrangements with voluntary and community sector organisations:

• Kent is currently working with the voluntary sector on a project which looks at the issue of vulnerability, through their voluntary sector steering group.

• Dorset’s head of community safety has strong links with chief executives of councils for voluntary services in Dorset and is exploring greater opportunities to integrate agendas.

• In Durham there were both co-location and shared services in terms of safer neighbourhood units, integrated offender management teams and safeguarding, including voluntary and community sector agencies. Joined-up strategies and initiatives, integrated training, development, and tasking and coordinating meetings with partners, as well as writing joint policy are routine practices. (See appendix 36.)

OFFICIAL


28


OFFICIAL


10 Identifying and supporting vulnerable people/managing offenders

One force identified the potential need for effective linkage and reporting of high-risk vulnerable cases, and another highlighted the need for NPTs to engage in supporting local vulnerable people.

Similarly, forces felt that NPTs need to be more engaged in managing local offenders with a greater awareness of high-risk offenders in their communities, with a suggestion in one review that they carry out joint or sole visits to MAPPA offenders.

Some force reviews also perceived a need to refresh or improve the ability of call takers to prioritise based on the vulnerability of the victim as well as the risk, threat and harm of the crime or incident, particularly where there was high staff turnover in control rooms.

Examples of how forces were identifying and managing support for vulnerable people included:

• Northumbria’s central protecting vulnerable persons (PVP) unit includes a central referral unit to receive and process all concerns of vulnerable persons. The systems in place give clear criteria to NPTs to help them identify, report and respond to concern. The submission of concerns initiates a risk assessment and, where appropriate, a multi-agency response to the threat, harm, risk and vulnerability.

• Hampshire had a community focus team in its call management function that collated information relating to vulnerability, and tasked neighbourhood officers and teams. The force is currently reviewing its approach to vulnerability through a force-level vulnerability programme.

• Hertfordshire also had a community focus desk with dedicated staff who risk assessed high or medium calls referred to them by the control room, put them onto the Safety Net system and allocated them to an on-duty officer. These were then case managed with supervision at a neighbourhood level and through the five community safety units in the force. Those rated high were reviewed after seven days, those rated medium after two weeks.

• In Cleveland a victim and witness support officer monitored repeat callers who were referred to support agencies, and problem-solving plans were created following a risk assessment.

• In Devon and Cornwall vulnerable people were identified through analysis of incidents on the neighbourhood harm register. The force used problem-solving plans to manage vulnerability, often requiring liaison/working with other teams, for example, domestic abuse officers. The force neighbourhood teams were tasked through a central referral unit which assesses risk centrally and works in partnership with other agencies.

• In Durham updates were provided across all commands about organised crime groups, ASB, offender management and safeguarding through a central referral unit, day-to-day tasking and problem orientated policing plans. When recording relevant incidents, officers were prompted to populate reports for those such as vulnerable adults/children/ASB victims so that they could be redirected to relevant departments and/or partners for follow up. (See appendix 37.)

OFFICIAL


29


OFFICIAL


10.1 Case management systems

Using information technology to track activity to tackle high-risk ASB cases and manage the support provided to vulnerable victims is found to be widespread, with the majority of forces stating that they had some sort of system in place with their partner agencies to do this. These systems vary from off-the-shelf commercial systems, in-house developed systems to using existing information sharing platforms.

Five forces stated that they are using, piloting or considering using ECINS (see appendix 38):

• Cambridgeshire uses ECINS for case management to improve information sharing to identify vulnerable people, licensing and multiple occupancy issues, as well as integrated offender management (IOM).

• Suffolk uses ECINS for ASB case management at force level to manage the stages of the investigation and the support required to victims.

• Staffordshire was using ECINS across the force for IOM and it was also being used by one local policing team. It will be rolled out district by district.

• Derbyshire was introducing ECINS as a pilot in some areas.

• Dorset and Northants were exploring ECINS as an option.

Three forces stated that they are using Safety Net:

• Hampshire had 42 partner agencies signed up to use Safety Net for managing risk/vulnerability relating to offenders and vulnerable people through neighbourhood management and integrated case management.

• Hertfordshire used Safety Net to jointly manage ASB issues, including a joint risk assessment process by the Constabulary and 22 partner agencies. ‘Project Soteria – tackling anti-social behaviour together’ is a joint ASB case management project which has been in place for one year. It has led to a 28% reduction in reports (13,200 fewer for the year to date), with the greatest reductions focused at long-term problem hot spots. (See appendix 39.)

• Surrey indicated that it was using Safety Net but no detail was supplied.

Other commercial systems in use or being considered were:

• a pilot of Offenderhub by Saadian in Surrey

• Sentinel in Leicestershire, as a shared system with partners from the City and District Councils to jointly case manage ASB.

In-house shared systems identified included:

• Gloucestershire Constabulary shares a MAIDEN (Multi-Agency Information for Neighbourhoods) database with partners

OFFICIAL


30


OFFICIAL


• Durham developed Blue Delta, which is used across IOM, and was also developing a new system, Red Sigma

• Kent working with the County Council to develop a joint ASB case management system to be used in community safety units

• South Wales Police, in conjunction with partners, uses an ASB database to share information, case manage victims and offenders, and identify the most vulnerable.

Eight forces stated that they had partnership access to force systems or force access to partner systems. Examples included:

• Lancashire developed the Protecting Vulnerable People system to support the work of the multi-agency safeguarding hub (MASH) teams and linked it with existing force IT systems. Partner agencies such as Children and Adult Services make e-referrals by submitting an electronic pro forma which feeds directly into police vulnerable referral queues and helps to promote accurate information sharing. Other force IT systems include Harman (hate crime management) and Vicman (victim management).

• Dorset has safeguarding arrangements through MASH and co-located partnership teams at Bournemouth and Poole with access to Dorset Police force-wide IS systems.

• Cheshire uses Doric (Data Observatory Research and Intelligence Collaborative) and Liquidlogic (which provides software to help practitioners record key information about adults needing social care, children in need, looked-after children and child protection cases).Recent information sharing agreements in the ABC (Altogether better) programme aim to give partners access to force systems in multi-agency case teams.

• Northumbria has developed Protecting Vulnerable People as part of its Integrated Computer and Communications System. This automatically emails the Community Domestic Violence Programme, the independent domestic violence advisers and the National Probation Service with salient information. They also share information to and from the Crown Prosecution Service and courts on offenders and witnesses.

• West Midlands, in the Walsall policing area, has an integrated analyst team that works in one building using shared data. This has been used as a template to replicate the working across the force area and uses a council-owned IT system that each of the WIN operatives has access to.

Some forces have internal case or information management systems for their own teams to use:

• GMP’s Integrated Neighbourhood Teams have a case management facility in OPUS – NPI (Neighbourhood Policing Investigation). This system deals with those elements of vulnerability not managed within the public protection investigation unit. (See appendix 40.)

• In Cleveland, SharePoint allows all staff to access local and national information, corporate documents, templates, presentations, problem solving guides and completed local priority EPIC and problem solving plans. (See appendix 41.)

OFFICIAL


31


OFFICIAL


11 TrainingSome force reviews identified the need to increase the professionalism, job enrichment and job satisfaction of neighbourhood policing teams. Areas seen as important were having appropriately trained staff, further validation and underpinning of the skill sets required for effective neighbourhood policing, and a greater focus on activities such as problem solving for all staff involved in local policing.

Suggested areas for enhanced training were:

• a training input for senior officers covering the force’s vision for neighbourhood policing, trusting staff and empowering them to deliver

• training for supervisors in how to develop their team’s engagement and consultation activities

• providing training for equivalent-level statutory partners

• training for contact management staff to understand the role of neighbourhood officers and PCSOs and their deployment guidelines

• the impact that the behaviour of individual officers and staff has on police legitimacy.

Some forces have resources or training in place to assist in addressing some of these issues:

• Cleveland has produced a Neighbourhood Policing Guide to raise staff awareness of the role and function of neighbourhood policing. (See appendix 42.) In addition, the force Orbis Change Programme outlines the intention to implement a Transformational Leadership Programme to expand the capacity of staff to perform leadership roles, both formal and informal, at all levels in the organisation and provide the foundation of cultural change necessary to build engaged and empowered high-performing individuals and teams. (See appendix 43.)

• Staffordshire is training all response officers in problem solving techniques and aligning them to geographic areas. The idea is that problem solving starts from the receipt of a call and is not a specialist function.

• Hampshire has shared information about their Safer Neighbourhood Excellence course (see appendix 44), as well as screen shots of some of the Safer Neighbourhood Templates on their intranet (see appendix 45).

• Humberside has, similarly, shared screen shots of their Learning on the Go intranet site (see appendix 46) and some of the briefings to be found on this site (see appendix 47).

• Surrey is making neighbourhood policing a specialism.

• Kent has carried out training around ASB and the focus on harm/vulnerability with an emphasis on first attenders and call handlers.

• GMP has engaged Mutual Gain to conduct some intensive engagement training with their staff.

OFFICIAL


32


OFFICIAL


In BTP the Samaritans provide training courses in recognising signs of vulnerability to all frontline NPT officers, special constables, PCSOs and staff.

Case study

In preparing for a radically different way of transforming policing with communities at a local level, GMP wanted to know what happens when the police become builders of social capital. They partnered with a specialist engagement organisation, Mutual Gain (www.mutualgain.org), to pilot a new approach to learning in two neighbourhood areas. The NPTs and their statutory and non-statutory partners set out to discover what happens when police are trained in a range of community engagement methodologies and techniques, what they learn from the programme, and how they can build on that learning to prepare for years two and three of transformation.

One week of specialist training followed by six months of supported delivery and action learning sets resulted in the team using a variety of engagement techniques which matched the requirements of each individual neighbourhood.

Initial outcomes which inform the three aspects of the GMP transformation map include:

• 58% reduction in crime against a force average of 11%

• increased intelligence – drugs and burglary related

• residents tasked by other residents in relation to environmental issues

• wellbeing of residents improved (domestic violence, depression, isolation)

• social cohesion improved between traditionally segregated communities

• new partnerships with residents which explore a possible new social contract between the police and residents

• an increase in social efficacy with 170 residents forming a new active network that crosses BCU boundaries

• notable increased partnership understanding and working

• increased staff development and motivation

• improvement in relation to environmental issues.

In one area where the beat officer has continued the approach, the learning continues to grow with an increasing number of residents shaping the way they are policed.

http://www.mutualgain.org

OFFICIAL


33


OFFICIAL


Case study

GMP piloted evidence-based training in procedural fairness in partnership with the College of Policing. This intervention – which was run as a randomised controlled trial – tested the impact of training focused on developing officers’ practical communication skills on the perceived quality of interactions between the police and crime victims. (See appendix 48 and appendix 49.)

An evaluation of the exercise demonstrated that trained officers were more likely than those who did not receive training to hold positive views about delivering quality of service, recognise the value of building empathy and rapport with victims, and report making decisions that involved victims in the process. In terms of officer behaviour, trained officers were more likely to give victims a choice about how the incident was to be dealt with, and a higher proportion of trained officers were also rated as good/excellent in terms of their overall performance (48% compared with 22%). The evaluation also found that victims of crime had better perceptions of trained officers. Victims who met trained officers were more likely to say the officer appeared interested and made them feel reassured than victims who met untrained officers.

OFFICIAL


34


OFFICIAL


12 ConclusionThe spending cuts have created challenges for forces in retaining the resources they had previously dedicated to neighbourhood policing. However, several forces have responded positively to this challenge and are trying out different approaches to maintaining the local service they offer to the public.

While the survey questions focused on the principles of neighbourhood policing, responses indicate that several forces are taking a more holistic view of the service delivered by staff working across response, neighbourhood policing and local CID, with some combining these functions to some extent and/or looking at how they can support each other more effectively.

Since the survey responses have been received, College of Policing field officers have been visiting some of the forces that have introduced new models of local policing or have implemented new ways of working, to gain a better understanding of these changes. It is our intention to continue to work with forces to identify the best available evidence of how forces can make the most efficient and effective use of local resources, and continue to deliver the functions that current evidence shows have a positive impact on the confidence of local communities and help reduce crime.

OFFICIAL


35


OFFICIAL


13 List of appendicesNote regarding appendices

All appendices to this document are located on POLKA

To view them you will need to be a member of the Local Policing in Neighbourhoods Community. Appendices are grouped in order in the Documents section within the folder entitled Appendices under ‘Delivering Neighbourhood Policing – practice stocktake’ report.

Appendix 1 Survey Questions

These questions were used in the What Works Well in Neighbourhood Policing survey to gather information that is included in the subsequent report.

Appendix 2 GMP – Roles in INPTs

This document summarises the roles of staff within GMP’s integrated neighbourhood policing teams.

Appendix 3 Hertfordshire – A Good Day in Neighbourhood Policing

A diagram showing the activities that make up a good neighbourhood policing model.

Appendix 4 Hertfordshire – Neighbourhood Policing Aide-Memoire

This aide-memoire outlines expectations in relation to the activity carried out by neighbourhood policing staff.

Appendix 5 Derbyshire – Destination Principles for SNTs

This document outlines a set of principles that underpin the patrol activity of SNTs in Derbyshire.

Appendix 6 Cleveland – A Guide to Deployment and Minimum Standards

Cleveland Police produced a deployment guide for neighbourhood officers against their specific role, which also defines minimum standards of supervision.

Appendix 7 GMP – Neighbourhood Toolkit

The GMP Neighbourhood Toolkit document provides a framework for how neighbourhood teams engage, set community priorities, problem solve, reduce crime and ASB and communicate with communities.


OFFICIAL


36


OFFICIAL


Appendix 8 Hampshire – Vulnerable Localities Index

Hampshire Police used a VLI created by the Jill Dando Institute as part of its resource allocation process. The VLI was adapted by in-house academic Dr Stifun Mittoo.

Appendix 9 Cleveland – Strategic Assessment VLI Extract

This is an extract of Cleveland’s Strategic Assessment document which demonstrates how VLI data was used as a basis for profiling neighbourhood demand.

Appendix 10 Durham – Safe Durham CSP Priorities

Safe Durham CSP identified high-impact localities based on social and economic factors, index of deprivation statistics, and crime figures to help target efforts across all partner agencies.

Appendix 11 Lancashire – Neighbourhood Policing Strategy

A concise document which outlines Lancashire’s neighbourhood policing strategy and contextualises its approach of deploying staff against its neighbourhood needs index.

Appendix 12 West Mercia and Warwickshire – Identification of at risk of threat and harm communities

This document demonstrates the methodology of using crime data, attended ASB incident data and deprivation scores to identify the most at risk of threat and harm communities.

Appendix 13 Cambridgeshire – Peterborough HALO Plan

An example of a HALO Plan (Helping Achieve Local Objectives), which supports cross-agency focused activity in priority micro beats.

Appendix 14 Cheshire – Predictive Mapping Powerpoint

This Powerpoint presentation demonstrates how Cheshire Police plan resource allocation through mapped demand using a predictive mapping approach.

Appendix 15 Cambridgeshire – Operation Style Powerpoint

This Powerpoint presentation relates to Operation Style, a randomised controlled trial on hot spot policing in the Peterborough area.

OFFICIAL


37


OFFICIAL


Appendix 16 Essex – Blueprint for the Public

This public-facing document outlines Essex Police’s restructure of its neighbourhood policing resources into neighbourhood crime teams and NPTs.

Appendix 17 Cleveland – Problem Solving Co-ordinator Job Description

A job description for Cleveland Police’s problem solving co-ordinators, who are located in each district and support neighbourhood teams in addressing neighbourhood priorities.

Appendix 18 GMP – Neighbourhood Pilot Project Summary Presentation

This Powerpoint presentation summarises the outcomes of GMP’s neighbourhood pilot, which led to the introduction of integrated neighbourhood policing teams.

Appendix 19 GMP – Job Description of Operational Support Officers

GMP introduced operational support officers to provide frontline administrative support and reduce the administrative demand on sergeants following a reduction in numbers.

Appendix 20 Northamptonshire – Intensive Engagement Pilot

This Powerpoint presentation outlines Northamptonshire’s Intensive Engagement Pilot, which was introduced in communities with a high risk of vulnerability around crime and ASB.

Appendix 21 Cleveland – Community Engagement Toolkit

A guide providing useful advice on planning community engagement activity.

Appendix 22 Staffordshire – Strategic Consultation Development Framework

A four-page strategy document that has measurable commitments that provide a framework for public consultation and engagement.

Appendix 23 Hertfordshire – Community Engagement Guidance

Community engagement guidance including guidance on street meets.

Appendix 24 Hertfordshire – Street Meet Form

This form documents an example of the Hertfordshire Police’s street meet community engagement process.

OFFICIAL


38


OFFICIAL


Appendix 25 Lancashire – Citizens in Policing Delivery Plan

A delivery plan that outlines how Lancashire Police will value and recognise citizens’ contributions, ensure how those who participate represent communities and work with partners in the voluntary sector to increase capacity and quality of service.

Appendix 26 Cheshire – Strategic Approach to participation

A strategic approach to the engagement, involvement and participation of the public in the policing of Cheshire.

Appendix 27 Durham – Neighbourhood Watch Strategy

A strategy which aims to take advantage of available community assets and encourage greater membership of Neighbourhood Watch.

Appendix 28 Derbyshire – Community Engagement Strategy

An example of a force community engagement strategy.

Appendix 29 South Wales – Community Engagement Strategy


Appendix 30 Merseyside – Community Engagement Strategy


Appendix 31 Cambridgeshire – Community Engagement Strategy


Appendix 32 Durham – Neighbourhood and Partnerships Command, Strategic Delivery Plan

A delivery plan based on the force’s strategic objectives.

Appendix 33 North Yorkshire – Control Strategy Delivery Plan re Quality of Life

This delivery plan outlines outcomes-based objectives for local areas and performance measures to assess success against meeting objectives set in the force’s quality of life plan.

Appendix 34 Essex – Crime Reduction Strategy

This strategy document outlines outcome measures against which the success of the strategy will be measured.

OFFICIAL


39


OFFICIAL


Appendix 35 Cheshire – Altogether Better Domestic Abuse project

This West Cheshire domestic abuse project involves co-locating public services.

Appendix 36 Durham – Better Together, Public and Third Sector Partnership Strategy

An example of a public sector and third sector joint strategy.

Appendix 37 Durham – ASB and Vulnerable Victim Strategy

This guide sets out Durham Constabulary’s process for dealing with ASB incidents in County Durham and Darlington.

Appendix 38 ECINS Generic Brochure

ECINS neighbourhood management solution is described.

Appendix 39 Hertfordshire – Soteria Times Newsletter

This newsletter provides an update in relation to Project Soteria, an ASB case management project.

Appendix 40 GMP – Neighbourhood Policing Investigation IT System

Guidance in relation to the governance and management of GMP’s neighbourhood policing investigation IT system.

Appendix 41 Cleveland – Use of Sharepoint

This document illustrates how Cleveland Police uses Sharepoint, a web-based intranet product which provides intranet portals, document and file management plus additional functionality.

Appendix 42 Cleveland Neighbourhood Policing Guide

This guide brings together the numerous national and in-force documents that have been produced since the inception of neighbourhood policing into one e-document that can be easily searched by officers and staff.

Appendix 43 Cleveland – Leadership Challenge

This document outlines the leadership challenge faced by Cleveland Police.

Appendix 44 Hampshire – Safer Neighbourhoods Excellence Course

Course timetable and associated learning objectives.

OFFICIAL


40


OFFICIAL


Appendix 45 Hampshire – Safer Neighbourhoods Template

Screen shots of some of the Safer Neighbourhood Templates included on the force intranet system.

Appendix 46 Humberside – Learning on the Go intranet site

Screen shots of force Learning on the Go intranet site.

Appendix 47 Humberside – Briefing Documents Screen shots

Screen shots of briefing documents from force intranet site.

Appendix 48 GMP – Procedural Fairness training, practitioner paper

A detailed College of Policing publication that gives an overview of GMP’s procedural fairness training.

Appendix 49 GMP – Procedural Fairness training, technical report

A detailed College of Policing publication which provides a technical report in relation to the evaluation of the GMP procedural fairness training initiative.

C157I0115

Protecting the public Supporting the fight against crime

As the professional body for policing, the College of Policing sets high professional standards to help forces cut crime and protect the public. We are here to give everyone in policing the tools, skills and knowledge they need to succeed. We will provide practical and common-sense approaches based on evidence of what works.

Follow us@CollegeofPolice

Delivering Neighbourhood Policing – a practice...

Documents

Transcript of Delivering Neighbourhood Policing – a practice...