30th Cumberland Lodge Police Conference The People are the Police? Transforming 21st Century Policing through New Partnerships and Engagement

Cumberland Lodge The Great Park Windsor, Berkshire 01784 497 794 April 2011

1

Contents Speakers ...... 3 Sponsors ...... 3 Executive Summary ...... 4 Big Society Policing ...... 4 Policing in a time of Austerity ...... 5 Are the people the police? ...... 5 Restoring Discretion ...... 6 Is there a democratic deficit in policing? ...... 6 Elected Police and Crime Commissioners ...... 7 What is an integrated safety policy? ...... 7 Crime Maps ...... 8 What “The Public” wants is complex and unpredictable ...... 8 How to volunteer with the police ...... 8 Formal and informal social controls ...... 9 Champions catalyse communities ...... 9 Diversifying the “policing family”? ...... 10 Barriers to private partnerships [part 1]: do the police have “customers”? ...... 10 Barriers to private partnerships [part 2]: Counterfactual Economics ...... 10 The public may accept the privatisation of some police services ...... 11 Conclusions: co-production and relationship-building ...... 11 Appendix 1: A Selection of Delegate Testimonials ...... 11 Appendix 2: About Cumberland Lodge Police Conferences ...... 12

2

Speakers

Robert Arnott, Head of Value for Money & Productivity Unit, Rob Beckley, Deputy Chief Constable, and Police Sir Norman Bettison, Chief Constable, Alice Chapman, Director, Youth Justice Agency, Department of Justice, Northern Ireland Executive Vernon Coaker, MP, Shadow Policing Minister Andi Cunningham, Neighbourhood Action Group Peter Fahy, Chief Constable, Greater Manchester Police; Nicholas Fox, Partner, KPMG Stephen Hanvey, Chief Executive, Circles of Support and Accountability UK Dame Elisabeth Hoodless, former CEO of Community Service Volunteers Annemarie Jorritsma-Lebbink, Mayor of Almere, The Netherlands Val Keitch, South Somerset Community Justice Panels Julian Kern, Director of Finance, Avon and Somerset Police Brian Kingham, Chairman, Reliance Security Group Ben Leapman, Deputy News Editor, Sunday Telegraph Rt Hon Theresa May, MP, Home Secretary Rod Morgan, former Chairman, Youth Justice Board Guy North, Interim Assistant Chief Executive, Victim Support Lawrence Sherman, Professor, Institute of Criminology, Cambridge University Julie Spence, Advisory Board Member, Social Finance Ltd Matthew Taylor, Chief Executive, Royal Society of Arts Sara Thornton, Chief Constable, Annabel Turpie, Deputy Director, Office for Civil Society, Cabinet Office Paul West, Chief Constable,

Sponsors

Cumberland Lodge is, in addition, grateful for the support of The Sunday Telegraph

3

Executive Summary

Over 70 delegates participated in the 30th Cumberland Lodge Police conference, representing all the sectors involved in policing: academics, charities, community groups and volunteers, politicians, the civil service, the judiciary, the private sector as well as serving police officers. In a time of financial austerity, it was natural that the conference should consider how to make efficiency savings in the police service. Nevertheless speakers and delegates also considered whether austerity is unacceptably altering the nature of policing in Britain. So the conference was poised between a consideration of practical changes that must be made in order to cope with tighter budgets and normative concerns about what the police service should look like irrespective of cuts.

The focus of the conference fell inevitably on the role of the public in policing. Sir Robert Peel‟s principle that “the people are the police” was taken not only a guiding philosophical principle, but as a principle with an economic impact. If some services offered by the police are no longer affordable, then they must be shared with or delivered by other agencies – charities, private companies or even volunteers. So, one way or another, the public will become more involved in policing.

Using economic motives to force through changes in policing runs the risk of being seen by the police and by the public as providing police services “on the cheap”. Or, as one participant put it: “Is the Big Society agenda a fig-leaf for the imposition of cuts?”

Reflecting on the validity of this concern, the conference offered the following considerations: (1) The function of policing has, in recent years, shifted too far away from informal social sanctions. The public has been disempowered in the regulation of its own communities. (2) There is an often unquestioned moralistic assumption that public services must be delivered solely by public servants. (3) Exposing the status quo to outside influences in the form of private contractors or volunteers may result not only in innovative efficiency savings but also in an increased transparency in service delivery. Delegates were, then, broadly in agreement with the notion that, irrespective of financial austerity, the public should have more of role in policing. What follows is a selection of the key points of discussion.

Big Society Policing

Government is pushing for a radical culture change in the UK, under the rubric of the “Big Society”. The essential feature of this change is that communities should be encouraged to take more responsibility for issues affecting their neighbourhoods. The goal of the Big Society agenda is to “push power down” and “to stop the permission culture” which strips individuals of the willingness to act autonomously.

It is recognised that communities already make efforts to solve social problems, but Government proposes to support this with a new level of decentralisation. The Localism Bill, the Green Paper on Giving, the Community First Fund and the Big Society Bank were cited as examples of Government-led changes in the way that communities are being empowered to tackle their own problems.

Along with these initiatives is a “bonfire of bureaucracy” which aims to make clear information about public services readily available to the public, an example of which is the national Crime Map (see further below).

4

The thought is that empowered communities require not only greater powers but also more information with which to hold authorities accountable.

How does the Big Society affect policing? Should it affect policing? No one doubted that the “Big Society” agenda will affect policing. The decision to introduce Police and Crime Commissioners May 2012 was a central example of how Government‟s commitment to the ethos of local control and accountability will radically reshape the governance of policing (see below).

What emerged during the conference, though, was a sense that – irrespective of the success of particular policies – a shake-up in the public‟s relationship to the police is needed and is underway. Participants supported the notion that consumerist attitudes to the police service has led to an abnegation in responsibility among the public, and that this is unhealthy for society.

Policing in a time of Austerity

“Is the Big Society a fig-leaf for the imposition of cuts?”, asked a participant at the conference. A 20% reduction in police budgets requires a radical rethink of how to deliver police and criminal justice services. Part of that rethink is what is offered by the “Big Society” agenda: communities need to alleviate the burden on public services by taking more responsibility for social problems.

Policing with tighter budgets may also require imaginative use of the private sector to deliver efficiency savings. The conference considered various examples of private sector involvement with policing: bringing in private security firms to deliver custody management and other offender management procedures; the out- sourcing of back office procedures; refining performance management; and using technological innovations to speed up police work. The emerging use of private capital to deliver criminal justice objectives was also considered.

The conference acknowledged the question of whether austerity is driving changes to service delivery that would otherwise be unacceptable. The question was asked: “Is there a threshold for the use of the private sector in policing?”. A cut and dry answer was not given. What was clear is that private partnerships can work in delivering a better service, and if so, they should not be hindered by an intellectually lazy adherence to the status quo.

The fairness of a 20% budget cut was not the focus of discussion. Irrespective of the exact percentage of cuts, and irrespective of how the police cuts compare to other public services, participants accepted that public money is increasingly limited and that this will require organisational change. The question is then, how to effect change and remain true to the fundamental principles of policing.

Are the people the police?

Reflecting on Peel‟s principle that “the people are the police”, delegates were reminded that the function of policing is done by the public. It is the public who: (1) Enforce social order through the use of informal sanctions (see further below) (2) Identify crime and assist in prosecution (3) Set the priorities of policing by expressing communal moral judgements.

5

Conversely, the police are themselves inseparable from the people; they are citizens with coercive power. In the context of some counter-terrorism measures and policing public protests the unguarded remark was made that sometimes the police are not always sufficiently mindful of Peel‟s principle.

This principle, that the people are the police, informed the discussions that followed – proposed changes were measured against their conformity to it. The theme which emerged from this principle is that co-production of services will be increasingly important to the future of policing.

Restoring Discretion

The ethos of “pushing power down” extends to the frontline as much as to members of communities. Holding power centrally by imposing national targets incites behavioural anomalies: minor offences are dealt with formally even if an experienced officer could achieve a better social result informally (see the report for the 27th Cumberland Lodge Police conference Hitting the Target, Missing the Point? ). It did not go unnoticed, though, that a consequence of “pushing power down” is a shift in accountability. Targets do, at least, protect individuals from the worst excesses of the blame culture. If power is pushed down to frontline staff, then so is the focus of blame.

Ultimately the feeling was that discretion is the key to good community policing. The ability to decide the right course of action based on local knowledge rather than on a national target will restore the connection between police officers and their communities. The claim was also made that “pushing power down” is not a matter of relinquishing central authority. “Power” may not be a limited commodity. It may be that frontline officers can be both authorised to use their own best judgement and remain fully accountable to central priorities. Getting this balance right is an objective of the present Government.

Is there a democratic deficit in policing?

The question of whether there is a problem with democratic accountability in the delivery of police services was contested. The view was expressed that police services are better integrated than ever with communities groups, and that senior police officers do feel responsible to their localities.

Nevertheless, the counter-view was presented that the governance of policing has become over-centralised and remote from public scrutiny. Public polls (for example the British Crime Survey) and social commentators report a disenfranchisement with and lack of trust of the police.

The conference did not resolve the question of whether there is a democratic deficit in policing. What was clear is that the aim of changing police governance is to increase the democratic accountability of the police.

Concerns were then raised about whether going too far in redressing the “democratic deficit” in policing jeopardizes the investigation of crimes invisible to the public eye and promotes a kind of popular punitivism. Tackling domestic abuse or e-crime, for example, may not be what voters are primarily interested in, but they cannot be allowed to slip off policing priorities. There may also be a tension between national and regional policing priorities in so far as local budgets will have to be used to support outcomes not seen at a local level. Clearly a system of „checks and balances‟ is needed to ensure that democratic accountability does not distract from essential police business. What that system should look like was, though, highly contested.

6

Elected Police and Crime Commissioners

Present proposals allow for elected Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) to replace Police Authorities in May 2012 under the rationale that PCCs will better represent the needs and wants of local communities. This proposal was critiqued on four grounds: (1) That it may lead to a popular punitivism, misdirecting the police from key priorities (2) That it is too radical a change at a time when police services are already reeling from cuts (3) That a force level commissioner is not “local enough” to achieve the stated aim of making communities more in control of policing. (4) That, based on a survey conducted by Liberty suggesting that only 15% of the public would “trust” PCCs to “protect their family from crime”, PCCs do not have the public‟s confidence.

These concerns were subsequently mirrored in the House of Lords Debate which took place on 11th May 2011.

Nonetheless the underlying rationale that police should be accountable to the communities they serve was resoundingly affirmed. The charge that PCCs might lead to a „popular punitivism‟ was countered with reference to the protocols each commissioner must abide by: not so circumspect as to be restrictive, but sufficient to ensure that crimes invisible to the public eye are not sidelined.

In addition, the opportunity for delivering an integrated safety policy was put forward as a counterweight to the potential administrative disruption caused by the introduction of Police and Crime Commissioners.

What is an integrated safety policy?

The conference heard international examples of integrating thinking when it comes to tackling crime and criminal justice. So, for example, if there are localities prone to a certain kind of crime due to poor housing, might it be possible to review municipal building regulations? Similarly, if urban decay promotes fear, and fear promotes a mistrust of the police then painting and street lighting may be a more appropriate solution than more police officers. The attitude: “Why report a crime, they don‟t do anything anyway?” may be better countered by municipal measures than by criminal justice or policing measures.

It may also be the case that, for reasons of organisational rivalry or even bureaucratic impenetrability, charities and public sector departments are not sufficiently able to work together. The purpose of an “integrated safety policy” is to assert the rationale and create the motivation to share resources between organisations.

In essence, an integrated safety policy considers prevention at the same time as prosecution. The question is: who is best placed to be the integrated safety policy officer? It was suggested that the newly formed Police and Crime Commissioner take on this role. Counter proposals were also heard, that a strengthened local government or even a reconfigured regional mayor might be better suited. It was also suggested that an integrated approach to community safety requires nothing more than innovative leadership in the current key public service roles.

7

Crime Maps

Involving the public in policing entails giving them easy access to information about crime in their area. This is the objective of the online database of crime maps. It was also suggested that mobile phone technology could target areas where an incident has taken place and request public assistance and engage communities in, for example, the search for a missing child.

As for the crime maps, it was widely reported that there were over 400,000 hits an hour in the first 12 hours to www.police.uk when it was launched in January 2011. However, A YouGov poll indicated that 62% of the public do not think it likely that the crime maps will increase attendance at community meetings with the police. The jury was out at the conference as to whether they will engage the public‟s involvement with policing.

What “The Public” wants is complex and unpredictable

There was a wariness of the consequences of public engagement throughout the conference. This was epitomized by one participant who asked: “Which „public‟ are you referring to?”. Clearly different sectors of society want different things. What is worse: often what “the public” wants is contrary to the recommendations of evidence based policing.

Lord Ashcroft‟s April 2011 poll on the public‟s perception of crime was cited. It indicates that 40% of the general public think that the single measure which would have the biggest impact on cutting crime in Britain would be to make punishments harsher to deter reoffending. Only 13% thought that the answer was to recruit more police officers. 31% of the police who were given the same poll also believed that harsher punishments were the best answer, and 18% thought that more police officers would reduce reoffending. It is widely known, however, that restorative justice is hugely effective at reducing recidivism in the offender and boosting the confidence of the victim in the criminal justice system (see the 28th Cumberland Lodge Police report: Freedom from Fear: Public Perceptions of Crime and Justice). There is, therefore, a difficulty in how the wants of the public are accommodated within the priorities of the police and criminal justice service.

The Universities‟ Police Science Institute at Cardiff University was cited as being in the process of developing a better understanding of how neighbourhood policing can effectively engage with communities by talking honestly with people about their concerns and how to address them.

How to volunteer with the police

How better to engage the public than by offering opportunities to volunteer with the police? Special Constables were offered as a central example of the success of police volunteer programmes. These are not amateurs or trainee cops, they are engaged citizens – 14,000 of them – who willing to serve their communities for free. What better way to counteract the impression that policing is an insular profession than by opening its doors to volunteers? It was acknowledged, however, that the police service is unimaginative when it comes to using the services of volunteers.

The secret to using volunteers successfully is to design volunteering opportunities systematically. Clarity is essential: not only with the task and its objective, but also with the process by which volunteers are recruited

8

and managed. It will not do, for example, to publicise a telephone number requesting volunteers if the person who answers the call does not know what to say about volunteering.

4 in 10 people say they would volunteer if they had a clear task to perform. 20% of these would be consider volunteering with the police. 1/5 of people who say they would be willing to be volunteers actually become volunteers. Even at these odds, the police service has a reservoir of commitment that it is currently ignoring.

Clearly volunteers are a huge unutilised resource offering potential efficiency savings. But volunteers bring other benefits: public engagement and trust, transparency in service delivery and a corresponding diminution of opportunities for corruption. Above all, not being a paid professional can add to the credibility of the person delivering the service. If someone is performing a service solely because they care it sends a resounding message to other members of the local community which builds cohesion and trust.

Formal and informal social controls

There has been a steady decline in the willingness of communities to intervene and resolve minor social difficulties. UK citizens are the most worried about anti-social behaviour in Europe and the least likely to intervene. A case-study in the formalisation of social control is the way in which the police are increasingly called to resolve disorders in schools; in some cases police officers are “stationed” in schools. In the context of minor social disorders, communities should - it was suggested - “consume their own smoke”. Why are they not doing so?

The answer is manifold: it may be that informal social controls work best in a homogenous society. As backgrounds have become increasingly diverse, it has become understandably difficult for a member of one group to informally sanction a member of another. But alongside this, it was suggested that cultural attitudes have become dramatically more consumerist: “I pay for the Police, get them to sort it”.

The fact is, though, that formal encounters with the criminal justice system are criminogenic. An informal social sanction reduces the likelihood of an individual reoffending. If so, it is incumbent on communities to take charge of social issues not only because it is more effective if they do so than if the police are involved, but also because of the improved life chances of the offender. How can communities be empowered to rediscover their role in maintaining social order?

Champions catalyse communities

Inspiring community champions and charity leaders described their work to the conference. From this, participants got a sense of the importance of local leadership in mobilising communities to resolve their own difficulties. Strong personalities were identified as a key ingredient to the empowerment of communities, but these can be found within the police as well as within communities. Irrespective of where they are found, the nurturing of community champions by formal agencies was felt to be vital. How are community champions to be nurtured by a public service renowned for its disciplined, hierarchical approach?

Developing relationships requires an open attitude and a willingness to co-operate. An unfortunate truth emerged that often the incentive to work together is only forged in the aftermath of a tragedy. The challenge will be to facilitate community relationships even when a unifying crisis is absent.

9

Diversifying the “policing family”?

Austerity is forcing organisational changes to the police which will inevitably “diversify the policing family”. That is to say that police services will be increasingly offered by people not in direct employment by the police – volunteers, as indicated above, but also employees of private sector organisations. Is this to be welcomed? The answer heard at the conference was a conditional “yes”. The police service, like all public services, has a duty to minimise its abstraction of public money from the economy. If public/private partnerships can provide an economic result then there is a prima facie incentive to pursue them further. But if they are to be successful then there must be: (1) Clarity about objectives, including areas of responsibility (2) Transparency in explaining results and key performance indicators (3) Trust in the relationship, such that all are working towards a common goal. These conditions are difficult enough to satisfy in themselves, even if all parties are committed to the joint endeavour. Public/private partnerships are, in addition, hampered by the unquestioned moralistic assumption that the “public is good” and the “private is bad”. The conference investigated the truth of this assumption.

Barriers to private partnerships [part 1]: do the police have “customers”?

There is a deep suspicion of the “profit-motive” by public servants whenever a public/private partnership is mooted. Lazy, polarised thinking abounds: Public servants are emotionally committed to their work, private sector employees are motivated by profit. Is it really impossible for any one but a public servant to have a concern for the benefit to the public?

Along with the suspicion of the “profit-motive” goes a wholesale rejection of private sector business models which necessarily focus on the customer: the police do not have “customers”. No private company would handcuff its customers. Of course not, but the rhetoric of the “customer” applies to the police service insofar as it claims to be outward-looking. The police serve the public. If the “customer-centric” approach of the private sector enables a better emphasis by the police on the public, then inelegant rhetoric ought not to be a barrier.

Barriers to private partnerships [part 2]: Counterfactual Economics

Private sector contracts are often “frontloaded” in a way that is alien to public sector models. The modus operandi of the private sector is continuous improvement. Improvement requires innovation, which requires research and development, which requires investment. This cost is not well communicated to the public sector when contracts are drawn up. The public sector model is quite different; the focus is certainly not growth. But innovation might nonetheless be important to improve the delivery of public services. So if there is a contractual miscommunication, then there is fertile ground for the kind of suspicion which fosters procrastination, delay and ideological opposition.

There is another kind of difficulty in the economic relationship: how to measure the cost? An invoiced cost is black and white, but in order to measure the value for money you have to consider what it would have cost to have provided the service “in-house”. That kind of counterfactual thinking comes naturally to no one. But the absence of a clear-headed counterfactual analysis is another barrier to organisational change.

10

The public may accept the privatisation of some police services

The public are used to the privatisation of public services. There is no longer a wholesale ideological resistance to privatisation. Nonetheless they will not accept privatisation of police services for sake of privatisation. They may accept a demonstrable efficiency rationale, particularly in the context of back-office administration, but the case for bringing in private contractors must be made case by case.

Conclusions: co-production and relationship-building

The conference by no means had a unanimous voice, but two key themes emerged which were widely agreed: (1) There is a social and economic benefit in co-producing police services, both with communities and charitable bodies, and with private sector organisations. (2) Co-production requires mutual trust. Trust is engendered by transparency, clear lines of accountability and authentic engagement. It may be that austerity is driving uncomfortable changes to policing. However, post-austerity policing will, if it remains true to Peel‟s principle, benefit from being more open to new partnerships and new ways of engaging the public.

Report compiled by Dr Owen Gower Senior Fellow, Cumberland Lodge

Appendix 1: A Selection of Delegate Testimonials

It was a refreshing review of the way policing can support and better deliver community action. It really invigorated my desire to work more effectively with the community I serve.

Cumberland Lodge enables practitioners, policy makers, experts and academics to debate, share knowledge, and contemplate innovative but pragmatic advances in public policy and practice. A first class experience.

Cumberland Lodge has a magnificent tradition of improving the public policy debate, the 30th annual police conference was no exception. I was extremely impressed by the quality of debate which merged direct experience with academic theory to produce some genuine findings and points of action for policy makers.

Every one of the Cumberland Lodge Conferences that I have attended have combined the very speakers in their field with a chance to think and debate. This year was no exception.

The combinations of a majestic venue, excellent service and a punchy meaningful agenda ensured a stimulating and very worthwhile conference

Yet again, Cumberland Lodge assembled a highly stimulating cast in comfortable and reflective surroundings and made me step back and think.

Cumberland Lodge Police Conference is well worth a visit. In a short time you learn a lot. And you are given the opportunity to get to know interesting people with different backgrounds.

11

Taking the opportunity to spend a weekend at Cumberland Lodge debating and listening to eminent people in their field is one I would recommend to anyone serious about wishing to think about the future of policing.

Useful broad ranging discussion on the future of Policing. I was impressed by the openness and willingness of all agencies to engage in meaningful dialogue, that will hopefully lead to real change in Policing.

Appendix 2: About Cumberland Lodge Police Conferences

Although we announced The People are the Police? as the 30th Police conference at Cumberland Lodge, occasional conferences on Police issues were organised here almost from the start of the foundation in 1947. For example, in 1966, the Lodge was the setting for a conference entitled The War Against Crime, which brought together representatives from universities, all the Inns of Court, the Home Office, the London Services Education Committee, the Probation Service, the Law Courts and of course, the Police, including the Commissioner of the , Sir Joseph Simpson. Journalists from The Observer and The Sun were present throughout the weekend.

There were also four conferences between 1982-1985 addressing themes very close to those being discussed at this conference in 2011. They started with one entitled Police and People, virtually the same as this year‟s subject. There followed Policing a Complex Society, The Police as a Profession, and Police and Politics – The Dilemma. Since the „80s, Police conferences have been concerned with topics as diverse as: surveillance, multiculturalism, drug abuse, and the media.

At a recent celebration of the work of the foundation, Lord Dear, former Chief Constable, , celebrated the close partnership of Cumberland Lodge and the modern Police Service, acknowledging the national influence of the conferences held here.

12