Home Affairs CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by the Police Foundation [LSP 05]

About the Police Foundation

The Police Foundation is the only independent charity focussed entirely on developing people’s knowledge and understanding of policing and challenging the police service and the government to improve policing for the benefit of the public. Founded in 1979 by the late Lord Harris of Greenwich, the Police Foundation has been highly successful in influencing policing policy and practice, through research, policy analysis, training and consultancy.

The Police Foundation welcomes this inquiry which raises important questions over the role of the College of Policing.

We support the idea of a College of Policing which promotes evidence-based policing, sets standards of professional behaviour (alongside other bodies where appropriate), and promotes good practice. However, we have concerns that a number of issues concerning the College are yet to be clarified. It is still unclear as to how training is intended to be provided or overseen and to what extent it may be devolved to police forces. We are also unsure as to how the College will fit into the broader landscape of policing and the extent to which it will connect to the work of the Home Office and of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC). We set out our response to the terms of reference below.

What powers, responsibilities and resources should be given to the College of Policing?

1. We are encouraged to learn that the Home Office intends the College to “identify evidence of what works in policing and share best practice” and “provide access to a body of knowledge that is informed by evidence-based research and work with universities to share and develop the underlying evidence base for policing practice.” We fully support an evidence-based approach to policing and the College can assist in this by ensuring that officers learn how to interpret and use academic evidence to inform effective practice. To this end, as well as working with universities, we suggest the College might work with other relevant organisations such as research centres or independent think tanks.

2. We would support the creation of a high quality knowledge bank, based on research commissioned from a range of independent sources. We alert attention to bodies such as the King’s Fund, which is independent but works with a range of different organisations to support the development of policy and practice in the health sector. Policing would greatly benefit from a similarly independent approach to applied research and evidence gathering that feeds into policing policy and practice, building on the work of the NPIA. The College might also wish to explore the issue of access to POLKA. The shared knowledge bank of POLKA is a valuable resource in policing. Some of the data held is confidential but there is an argument for making its less sensitive knowledge more accessible via a wider log in system to policing partners, stakeholders or interested parties nationally and internationally. This would enable a broader audience to follow and contribute to the discussion around policing, adding a range of innovative ideas from wider sources both within and outside the police service.

3. The Police Foundation welcomes the intention for the College to set standards of professional behaviour. In its capacity as a centre for training and professional development the College should rightly be responsible for setting standards of good practice, professional behaviour and conduct. In England and Wales, there is no single document that sets out the ethics of policing. The principles are spread across a confusing number of sources: Peel’s Nine Principles, the Code of Professional Standards, the Police Code of Conduct, ACPO’s Statement of Common Purpose and Values, the Policing Pledge and the Quality of Service Commitment. There is a need here for rationalisation and synthesis and the College will be in a position to provide valuable assistance in this regard. The European Code of Police Ethics, produced by the Council of Europe might provide a helpful starting point for this.1

4. We want to be clear, however, that in our view the new Professional Body should not be given the remit to set national policing strategy or policy. These must be set by either Parliament or by Government, through the Home Office. We make this point because the word “standards” is not adequately defined in the Neyroud Review. Care needs to be taken to ensure that the setting of standards does not go too far and become, in effect, policy-making. Concerns have been raised over ACPO’s undue influence on policy2 and the new College should take care that it does not follow a similar route.

5. The Police Foundation would be similarly concerned if the College were given a role in setting guidance. Guidance is intended to assist the police in interpreting legislation. It is currently produced in part by ACPO, and the Neyroud review identifies 400 pieces of doctrine that, it states, are “of varying quality.” Although the ACPO Guidance is not binding, it is often assumed it has legal force and police officers are sometimes surprised to learn it is not statutory. The courts also on occasion assume ACPO Guidance sets out recognised policing policy on matters such as DNA retention.3 We recognise the need to provide guidance to assist the police in applying legislation effectively and we appreciate the specialist knowledge that the police hold in terms of operational matters. In this respect we believe the College should be responsible for professional practice guidance; that which concerns the leadership and management of a force, providing expertise and insight for chief constables to draw on in help running a police force. However in our view the Home Office should retain ownership and responsibility for guidance intended to assist the police in interpreting legislation, as this type of guidance can become in effect secondary legislation or policy and as such it must accurately reflect its statutory origins. This is not one of the responsibilities of the Home Secretary which we feel can or should be devolved.

6. We appreciate that it is a difficult distinction to draw but we would hope by alerting attention to the issue, the College might consider the fine line between guidance or standards which are operational, professional and practical (which should be within its remit) and guidance or standards which amount to policy-making (which should be the responsibility of the Home Office, or locally, the new Police and Crime Commissioners).

Is it possible for one institution to balance responsibilities for: representing police services; setting and upholding standards; testing and rewarding; training; and guarding public interests?

7. Although the phrase “represent the police service” has been used in the Neyroud review, and in Home Office4 and ministerial statements,5 we are nonetheless unclear about what this phrase means in the context of the College. Our understanding is that the role of the College is to provide training and professional development, improve the evidence base for policing and to set standards for policing. To whom is the service to be represented? Which ranks will be represented? In what context? What representational role is the College intended to have? We would like to understand this aspect of the College’s intended role further.

8. With regard to the other responsibilities set out above, in our view the College should set standards for professional behaviour (working with HMIC where appropriate to achieve this) and is well placed to test and reward academic and practical qualifications (but not to test or reward beyond these areas). As for “guarding public interests,” the Home Office website sets out this responsibility as:

“Protect the public interest: by promoting the values of effective policing; learning from and supporting improvement in policing; and maintaining ethics and values.”

We support the College’s role in promoting the values of effective policing and in providing training and development to improve policing and its evidence-base. If by “maintaining ethics and values” the Home Office means the College should set standards and train and test officers at all levels to ensure they meet those standards, then we agree there is a role for the College in this regard. If, however, the Home Office envisages a broader role for the College in terms of either maintaining or upholding standards beyond training and testing officers then in our view this strays too far into the role of the HMIC.

9. We do have concerns over the range of responsibilities intended for the College, particularly due to the lack of clarity in this area. It appears the College may be intended to operate in some ways as a training delivery body, in some ways as a membership organisation (representing the views of its members) and possibly in some ways as a disciplinary body (upholding standards and maintaining ethics and values). We do not believe it is appropriate for the College to provide both delivery functions and professional representation. In addition to the question of whether a disciplinary role is appropriate, the wide remit proposed may leave the College open to criticism that its role is unclear and will confuse the public. Similar criticism has been directed at ACPO, which has been described by the Association of Police Authorities (APA) as a functional hybrid due to its range of responsibilities.6 It is important that the reasons for replacing much of ACPO with a more transparent and accountable body are not simply replicated in the new College. To this end, we think it would be useful to publish a clear statement of the role and functions as well as governance arrangements for the new slimmed-down version of ACPO at the same time as publishing the details of the role and function of the College of Policing.

Would it be preferable to create two separate institutions to provide delivery functions and professional representation?

10. In our view the College should be responsible for delivery functions—providing training and development, setting standards of professional behaviour and improving the evidence base. We believe there is already an adequate structure for professional representation in place, under the Police Federation, the Police Superintendent’s Association and the remaining functions of ACPO. If this route is not followed, then we believe the title of “College” should be reviewed. “College” implies learning and training, rather than “professional representation” and the term may lead to confusion in the public’s mind.

How will the professional body interact with HMIC; the IPCC; ACPO; and other institutions in providing leadership and setting standards for police forces?

11. We see the College as having an important role in setting standards of professional behaviour (with assistance from the Home Office) and training officers to reach and surpass those standards. It is the role of the HMIC to monitor whether these standards have been met and of the Independent Police Complains Commission (IPCC) to oversee an effective, independent complaints system which holds officers accountable to those standards.

12. In order for this linked system to operate effectively, there needs to be a process of information sharing and continuous learning via regular meetings, bulletins such as the IPCC “Learning the Lessons,” and networking between the three organisations. Through this regular contact, information and knowledge on common problems and best practice can be shared and fed into College training and professional development.

What role should the College of Policing have in recruitment and training?

13. We agree with the Neyroud Review that there needs to be a stronger emphasis on the relationship between education, evidence and practice in policing. We also support the continuing professional development of police officers and the shift from an in-house approach to a greater use of external providers such as institutes of higher education. Training will benefit from being overseen and managed by one national body responsible for ensuring it is of a sufficiently high standard and covers both academic and vocational development.

14. In respect of training, the role of the College should be to develop a curriculum that addresses the multi-faceted skill set required of the constable role; including not only theory but work place skills such as problem-solving, communication, situation management, inter-personal skills and teamwork. Currently police training has a tendency to focus on learning the law rather than learning how best to handle a variety of situations on the ground. Although an understanding of the law is important, the training should not neglect the “how” of policing—in this respect, the best training is usually practical, on-the-job experience and the College will need to identify a way to combine both academic and practical teaching in this regard.

15. There are two areas in particular which we believe are insufficiently valued under the current police training system. The first of these is business and management skills. The risk-averse culture of policing can be a barrier to innovation and development,7 and it is important, particularly in the current context of reducing resources, for the service to find new ways to operate efficiently and effectively, while maintaining a high level of public confidence. To this end we are pleased to note the Home Office’s statement that the College “will work with other organisations, including with the private sector to ensure that, where appropriate, the police service is able to access the very best training from outside the police service.” We believe the use of outside training providers could provide valuable business skills and introduce more forward-thinking, innovative approaches to policing.

16. Secondly, as identified in the Neyroud Review, training on human rights and ethics has hitherto been undervalued. Human rights values based on fairness, procedural fairness, respect and equality are important to policing, not only because they have been shown to increase confidence and legitimacy, but also because one of the principal roles of the police is to protect and promote people’s rights and freedoms. Policing frequently involves balancing different rights and, in practice, the police exercise considerable powers that can affect the liberty of citizens. As noted by the Patten report, “There should be no conflict between human rights and policing. Policing means protecting human rights.”8

17. An inquiry by the Equality and Human Rights Commission9 found human rights are seen by frontline officers as a less important part of the training process, as “political correctness” rather than a useful tool of policing. The Inquiry identified a feeling amongst police that human rights are “criminal’s rights.” The Joint Committee on Human Rights similarly identified a lack of understanding of human rights at all levels and recommended independent research into the extent of police knowledge and awareness of human rights.10

18. We would therefore welcome an increased focus on training in ethics and human rights that includes a clear understanding of why human rights should be at the core of policing. This could begin at recruitment level with the assessment of candidates with high empathy and negotiation skills who identify with the peacekeeping aims of policing,11 and continue through a training programme based on ensuring an understanding of human rights values and rewarding officers who demonstrate those values. Rather than being a separate training module, human rights training should feature in every part of frontline police training, using case studies to illustrate how a human rights approach could diffuse a difficult encounter or assist policing in other concrete situations.

What role could the College have in recruiting non-police officers to senior roles within the police service?

19. There are, in our view, some clear advantages to a direct entry system. Policing has become increasingly specialist and there is a need for technical abilities in areas such as complex fraud or cyber-crime. The Metropolitan Police Service’s Race and Faith Inquiry12 concluded that the single entry system could consequently leave policing at the margins of more sophisticated crime investigation due to its inability to support a pool of specialists with technical expertise. To tackle the budgetary cuts senior police officers are also increasingly required to make business decisions in areas such as financial management and human resources, and managerial experience gained outside the police service could be useful in this context. Although many police staff may have these specialist skills (particularly in terms of financial expertise), there is arguably a need for more warranted officers to also have them. Candidates with such specialist skills would, in all likelihood, be joining the police as a second career and thus might be reluctant to start again at the most junior level and undergo the two years of training required under the single entry system.

20. Direct entry could also potentially help to address diversity issues within the police. The Police Foundation has serious concerns about the low levels of women and ethnic minority police officers at middle and senior management level. The Metropolitan Police Service’s Race and Faith Inquiry concluded that multi-point entry could assist in increasing the proportion of female and ethnic minority officers in senior positions. The Inquiry also found that direct entry could help to improve police culture. The single point entry system encourages an inward-facing occupational culture13 with a natural suspicion of outsiders,14 making it difficult to embrace new ways of working and promote collaboration. By contrast, direct entry could help to improve police culture by introducing new ideas and new ways of thinking at senior levels.

21. As well as potential benefits, however, the direct entry system also carries significant risks. The police service is equipped with unique powers that affect people’s rights and liberty, and care should be taken to ensure that these powers are used only by officers that have the necessary training and expertise. Policing is complex and involves considering subtle factors such as the impact of a particular action on community relations. Decisions made in a split second can have far reaching consequences. Two years of ground level, street-based experience can help an officer in developing the “craft” of policing, assisting him or her to develop the use of professional judgment, in preparation for the split-second, practical decisions that will be required.

22. The accumulated knowledge of the police service and its structure based on working through the ranks would be difficult for the College to replicate though training. Furthermore, management positions within the police present some unique challenges that are not easily comparable to the challenges found in other professions. In this respect, the Metropolitan Police Service’s Race and Faith Inquiry found that managerial experience in a role outside of the service is no guarantee of managerial success inside the service and that operational decision-making can only be learnt in role.

23. We are also concerned about the credibility of senior officers recruited through direct entry. There is overwhelming support for single entry inside the police service15 and constables have more confidence in leaders who have had frontline experience.16 The focus on direct entry as a way to address diversity issues arguably compounds this problem, and the Metropolitan Police Service’s Race and Faith Inquiry raised concerns that officers recruited through direct entry might be perceived as having been given opportunities based on their race or gender rather than their competence.

24. Clearly, there are challenges facing the recruitment of non-police officers. But there is a valuable role the College could play in this area. The College could, for example, work with forces to identify skills that are lacking, and set standards for the recruitment and assessment of direct entry candidates. In terms of training, the College could design a range of courses to ensure that non-police officers gain relevant on-the-ground training, skills and experience. In cases where practical training is provided by forces in-house, there is a role for the College in supervising and assessing the processes and outcomes. Further, examples of direct entry schemes have already been proposed in the second Winsor Review and it should be within the remit of the College to assess the feasibility of these as well as future schemes.

Should the professional body be responsible for civilian police employees?

25. In our view the College should be responsible for civilian police employees. Officers and staff work together in many branches of policing. Training both within the same organisation will enable the ethos of the service to be promoted and relationships to be established, setting up strong lines of communication and teamwork for the future.

26. As we have stated, in our view the role of the College is that of delivering training, providing a knowledge base of evidence on good practice, and setting and promoting standards. The College should not operate as a disciplinary body, nor as a representative body. Without this representational element, we do not think it is appropriate to ask police officers to fund the College. In this respect we are pleased to note that this is not being planned at present, with the College to be funded until 2015 through the transfer of the NPIA budget.

27. After 2015 in our view the College ought to be funded primarily by central Government, but it may be possible to develop a business model for funding from an additional range of sources. Training through the NPIA was funded in part by Police Authorities and in part by police forces directly. Similarly there may be scope within PCC or force budgets to supplement Government funding by way of a subscription fee or payment for individual courses. In addition, were the College to decide to offer a range of courses to business organisations, such as private security, this might provide a revenue stream.

The Police Foundation

October 2012