Community Development and Justice Standing Committee How do they manage? An investigation of the measures WA Police has in place to evaluate management of personnel Report No. 12 Legislative Assembly March 2016 Parliament of Western Australia Committee Members Chair Ms M.M. Quirk, MLA Member for Girrawheen Deputy Chair Dr A.D. Buti, MLA Member for Armadale Members Mr C.D. Hatton, MLA Member for Balcatta Ms E. Mettam, MLA Member for Vasse Mr M.P. Murray, MLA Member for Collie-Preston Committee Staff Principal Research Officer Dr Sarah Palmer, BA (Hons), PhD Research Officer Ms Franchesca Walker, BA (Hons), Dip (MPD) Legislative Assembly Tel: (08) 9222 7494 Parliament House Fax: (08) 9222 7804 Harvest Terrace Email: [email protected] PERTH WA 6000 Website: www.parliament.wa.gov.au/cdjsc Published by the Parliament of Western Australia, Perth. March 2016. ISBN: 978-1-925116-63-2 (Series: Western Australia. Parliament. Legislative Assembly. Committees. Community Development and Justice Standing Committee. Report 12) 328.365 Community Development and Justice Standing Committee How do they manage? An investigation of the measures WA Police has in place to evaluate management of personnel Report No. 12 Presented by Ms M.M. Quirk, MLA Laid on the Table of the Legislative Assembly on 24 March 2016 Chair’s Foreword HIS is the final report on measures used by police to judge and evaluate its performance. In this report we have examined recruitment, training, internal T investigations, and the treatment of officers considered medically unfit to continue in their role as a police officer. In the past two reports it became readily apparent that the commitment to quality improvement and targeting more effective service delivery to the public did not feature prominently in priority setting. In all three facets of this inquiry it has been strongly asserted that assessing police performance on crime statistics alone is crude and misleading. However alternatives which might more accurately reflect performance were not readily forthcoming. The pursuit of more meaningful performance indicators is not an esoteric or academic exercise. It enables greater levels of accountability and the setting of goals and objectives which give all of the community a level of confidence they don't currently enjoy. There is no question that policing presents many challenges. However in the absence of any objective measures of success or effectiveness shared collectively within the organisation it is little wonder that morale is flagging. Likewise the Frontline 2020 policing model the subject of this inquiry has been revised arbitrarily with minimal consultation in recent times, not least because it could not be objectively established that the model was working as intended. In this report the Committee grappled with the, at best, perfunctory efforts made at recruiting a more diverse workforce. Leaving aside issues of discrimination and substantive equality, it is simply inefficient to automatically exclude one-third of the available talent pool. On a more philosophical level, policing requires a consensus from the community and broadly speaking composition of the police force should more closely reflect the make-up of the broader community. There are also sound operational reasons for greater diversity. The Committee was also told of the lack of feedback given to auxiliary officers who sought to transfer into positions as fully sworn officers. Similarly, the impediments in the way of officers who may have left and wished to return was noted. We also heard that demand for training outstrips supply and that so-called Blackboard e- training is a poor substitute in many areas. Throughout the 12 months of the Inquiry there was a recurring theme of the failure for training needs to be adequately addressed by management. It is not surprising that in various other fora such as coronial inquests, the CCC or the courts this lack of training in particular areas is often highlighted as a causal factor. In terms of internal investigations it appears as if sincere efforts are being made to provide a level of procedural fairness to officers about whom allegations have been made. This is, however, a work in progress and the impetus for change was largely brought about by some recent high profile cases where fundamental elements of natural justice were lacking. The final area of examination related to the treatment of those officers who were injured or psychologically impaired in the course of their work. The lack of a modern workers' compensation regime is not sustainable and must be remedied as a matter of priority. Similarly, the Committee heard a number of accounts from medically retired police officers who laboured under the burden of post-traumatic stress disorder. Official acknowledgement of the nature and prevalence of this condition is shamefully low. Given this Committee reported on this issue in 2012 and the WA Police Union completed a substantial body of work through Project Recompense, it is highly disappointing that police management's response can best be described as sclerotic. At the conclusion of this Inquiry it is open to form the opinion that there may be some utility and merit in imposing key performance indicators on the most senior levels of police to ensure a level of discipline and consensus on goals and objectives for the organisation. At present measures of performance are ill-defined and illusory. Finally, the Committee had the benefit of submissions and evidence from WA Police management, members of the public who were stakeholders, others with professional expertise, the WA Police Union and both serving and retired police officers. As well, we used both national and international research. The ultimate findings were informed from all those sources and represent a synthesis of all these sources. I thank Committee members Deputy Chair Dr Tony Buti MLA, the Member for Armadale, Mr Mick Murray MLA, the Member for Collie Preston, Mr Chris Hatton MLA, Member for Balcatta and Ms Libby Mettam MLA, Member for Vasse. The subject matter of this Inquiry had the effect of generating heated discussion. However I am gratified that all approached their role in a professional and conscientious manner. The Committee is exceptionally fortunate in the calibre of its research staff. In the course of this inquiry Principal Research Officer Dr Sarah Palmer and Research Officer Ms Franchesca Walker integrated a large volume of written submissions, oral evidence and research into a seamless whole. At all times they undertook their role with timeliness, professionalism and cheerful patience. MS M.M. QUIRK, MLA CHAIR Contents Executive Summary i Ministerial Response xv Findings and Recommendations xvii 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Establishment of Inquiry 2 2 Recruitment practices 5 2.1 Introduction 5 2.2 How WA Police manages recruitment 7 2.2.1 Recruitment website 8 2.2.2 Advertising 9 2.2.3 Outreach 10 2.2.4 Programs for Aboriginal and CaLD recruits 13 2.2.5 Recruitment process 15 2.3 How does WA Police assess its recruitment process? 19 2.3.1 Demographic information 19 2.4 What other measures could WA Police use? 23 2.4.1 Equity measures 24 2.4.2 Expressions of interest and application numbers 30 2.4.3 Perceptions within WA Police 30 2.5 Other concerns regarding recruitment practices 31 3 Training 35 3.1 Introduction 36 3.2 How does WA Police train its police officers? 36 3.2.1 Cadet traineeship program 36 3.2.2 Training for recruits and probationary constables 36 3.2.3 Ongoing training 39 3.3 How does WA Police know whether it is training its workforce well? 39 3.3.1 Australia New Zealand Policing Advisory Agency Education and Training Guidelines – Practice Level of a Police Officer 40 3.3.2 Standards for Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) 2015 40 3.3.3 Blackboard evaluation 41 3.3.4 Internal and external reviews 42 3.4 Are these measures leading to better training? 43 3.4.1 Cadet training 43 3.4.2 Recruit training 44 3.4.3 Probationary constable training 45 3.4.4 Police auxiliary officers 46 3.4.5 Ongoing training 46 3.4.6 Awareness training 52 3.5 How should WA Police adapt its performance measures and evaluation methods? 54 3.6 Concluding Comment 56 4 Management of misconduct 57 4.1 How the complaints process works 58 4.2 How WA Police deals with misconduct 59 4.2.1 Components of the Managerial Intervention Model 59 4.2.2 Section 23 and Loss of Confidence 61 4.3 Criticisms of how misconduct is dealt with internally 62 4.3.1 Police officers’ concerns 62 4.3.2 Public concerns 67 4.4 Performance measurement 71 5 Employment-acquired medical issues 77 5.1 Introduction 78 5.2 Employment-related medical issues affecting police 80 5.3 How WA Police deals with employment-related medical issues 84 5.3.1 Treatment and management of post-traumatic stress disorder 85 5.3.2 Training and preventative action 88 5.3.3 Services and support offered by the Health and Safety Division 90 5.3.4 Support from other parts of the agency and the need for cultural change 95 5.3.5 Returning to work and lateral employment 99 5.3.6 Removal from duty 102 5.3.7 Leave entitlements, financial support and compensation 105 5.4 Measuring performance 109 5.4.1 Concluding comment 115 6 How does WA Police measure up? 117 6.1 Recurring themes 119 6.1.1 Limited measurement 119 6.1.2 Reactive approach 124 6.1.3 Lack of resources 126 6.2 Crime statistics as a performance measure 129 Appendices 133 1 Inquiry Terms of Reference 133 2 Committee’s functions and powers 135 3 Submissions received 137 4 Hearings 139 5 Acronyms 141 6 Training police officers are required to complete to remain operational 143 7 Compulsory Blackboard courses for WA Police officers 145 8 Section 23 and section 33E of Police Act 1892 147 9 Professional Standards portfolio organisational structure 149 10 Bibliography of online references 153 Executive Summary HIS is the third and final report for the over-arching Inquiry into Methods of Evaluating WA Police Performance, established in November 2014.