Police Staff disciplinary report

Report: 17
Date: 5 February 2009
By: Director of Human Resources on behalf of the Commissioner

Summary

At the request of the Chair of the Professional Standards Committee, it was agreed that this report should focus on discipline information relating to Police Community Support Officers and be supported by the findings of research activity conducted within an operational command unit to explore why this role may feature highly in disciplinary cases.

This report primarily concentrates on PCSO discipline cases for the last financial year 1 April 2007 to 31 March 2008. Additionally a cold case review was conducted of all PCSOs who were dismissed from the MPS in the period December 2007 to December 2008.

A. Recommendation

That members note the findings of this report.

B. Supporting information

Background

1. The aim of the police staff discipline policy is to promote positive and constructive working relationships amongst the Metropolitan Police Service Staff. The procedures are intended to help and encourage all employees to achieve and maintain acceptable standards of conduct, performance and attendance, and to provide a fair and effective method of dealing with alleged breaches of these standards.

2. The management of police staff discipline is a devolved function to local line manager(s) and in the case of PCSOs this usually means a uniformed police sergeant and inspector. Both groups participated in the research activity which is discussed later on in this report.

Discipline activity for all Police Staff for the period under review 1 Apr 07–31 Mar 08

3. The total number of police staff currently employed by the MPS is 18,579. 4166 are employed as Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) accounting for 22% of the total police staff workforce.

4. During the last financial year, there were 64 recorded cases of gross misconduct against all police staff.

5. During the last financial year there were a total of 57 recorded cases of misconduct.

Note: recorded discipline includes formal warnings issued under the disciplinary procedures.

Gross misconduct cases PCSOs

6. During the last financial year, out of 64 recorded cases of gross misconduct for police staff, 35 PCSOs were found to have committed acts of Gross Misconduct. The most frequent causes for gross misconduct were:

• Criminal offences (20 instances (57% of the total). 8 cases were driving related offences (23%). Some were drinking and driving offences.
• Computer Misuse (3 instances or 9% of the total)
• Inappropriate behaviour/conduct (2 instances or 6% of the total)
• False allegation (1 instance or 3% of the total)
• Misuse of MPS property (1 instance or 3% of the total)

 Of these 35 cases disposals:

• 20 PCSOs were dismissed from the MPS.
• 15 PCSOs received formal reprimands.

Misconduct cases PCSOs

7. During the last financial year, out of a total of 57 misconduct cases against police staff, 20 cases of misconduct were committed by PCSOs.

8. The causes for PCSO misconduct were:

• Unauthorised absence (6 cases or 30% of cases).
• Inappropriate behaviour towards colleagues (5 instances or 25% of the total).
• Computer misuse (5 cases or 25% of cases).
• Loss of police staff passes or PDAs (4 cases or 20% of cases)

The outcomes:

• 16 First Written Warnings
• 4 Final Written Warnings

(Misconduct penalties are not necessarily incremental and can be entered at any stage)

Diversity information

Ethnicity impact within the PCSO role for gross misconduct

9. Of the 35 gross misconduct cases 18, (51%) concerned BME PCSOs. BME PCSOs make up 31% of the total PCSO workforce.

Ethnicity comparison within other police staff roles

10. There were 29 cases of gross misconduct against all other police staff (excluding PCSOs). Of these cases 14 (48%) involved BME staff.

Misconduct cases - PCSO

11. During the last financial year a total of 20 cases of misconduct were committed by PCSOs.

12. Of these 20 cases 8 (40%) were committed by BME PCSOs.

Ethnicity impact for PCSO within Misconduct cases

13. BME PCSOs make up 31% of the total of PCSOs employed by the MPS.

Ethnicity comparison within other police staff roles

14. A total of 35 cases of misconduct were recorded against other police staff. Of these 6 cases involved BME members of police staff. This equates to 17% of misconduct cases.

15. BME staff make up 23% of the total number of police staff. Therefore they are statistically under represented by 6%.

Gender

16. Female PCSOs account for 31% of the total number of PCSOs. Female PCSOs account for 14% of PCSO discipline cases.

Disability

17. All disabilities are declared by members of staff and are recorded on MET HR. There were no recorded cases of PCSOs with a declared disability being subject to discipline.

Equality Strands - Age, Faith, Sexual Orientation

18. This information has not been collated specifically for disciplinary purposes, so it is not possible to provide any meaningful analysis. However, continued monitoring is undertaken by the HR Practice Support Team who can capture this information, if it is available to ensure that the policy is being applied fairly and consistently to all police staff employed by the MPS regardless of diversity background.

Background information to the research activity undertaken by the Practice Support Team (PST)

19. The core function of the PST is to build the capability of local HR practitioners by providing professional advice and practical support in the areas of Performance and Conduct Management. This advice takes into account whether the disciplinary action proposed is fair, reasonable and proportionate and complies with policy.

20. In previous reports to the Professional Standards Committee, the PST has provided updates on the representation of the PCSO family within the disciplinary process, and discussed how the building capability programme has been used to influence change and minimise the risk of over representation.

Examples included:

• Changes to recruitment entry for PCSOs requiring a pass/fail criteria which commenced in 2007.
• An emphasis in the recruitment process around role requirement and MPS values.
• A recommendation for local induction programmes to complement the corporate induction and encourage integration of PCSOs into front line operations.
• Working with the Leadership Academy to deliver a performance management package for first line supervisors, to enable familiarisation with police staff discipline procedures (launched September 2007).

Purpose

21. The purpose of the research report was to identify:

• Reasons and causal factors attributing to regular instances of PCSOs being subject to the discipline process.
• To explore how previous recommendations have been embedded into the organisation and what else can be done to minimise and reduce future exposure of PCSOs to the police staff discipline process.

Methodology

22. In order to meet the report aims and objectives a variety of research methods were used. Please see Appendix 1 for research methodology

Research Site

3. The research source – in future referred to as the Borough Operational Command Unit B(OCU) has a high density of PCSOs and was one of the first (B)OCUs to have PCSOs posted.

24. This (B)OCU consistently records one of the highest numbers of instances of discipline cases against PCSOs within Territorial Policing.

Validation

25. The data held on MetHR and within the PST was crosschecked with the manual discipline records held at the (B)OCU and was found to be accurate.

26. In the last financial year this (B)OCU had 23 discipline cases involving 16 PCSOs (some PCSOs were subject to discipline on more than one occasion).

Focus Group sessions at the B(OCU)

27. Previous studies including one sponsored by the MPA supported each other in concluding that instances of discipline are less likely to be committed where there are mixed teams, strong consistent supervision, a variety work and, crucially, where individuals and teams understand how they contribute to effective policing.

28. To test this hypothesis it was decided to explore these issues within focus groups at the B(OCU). The first focus group consisted of line managers, sergeants and inspectors. The second focus group were PCs who had been PCSOs. This was deliberate in order to discover if the previous study reports mirrored the actual perception of the staff themselves. The two focus groups were drawn from staff across Territorial Policing (TP). The following three topics/themes were used with the two focus groups.

• Motivation & Engagement
• Supervision and Professional Standards
• Values and Behaviours

Motivation & engagement

29. The PCSO role is perceived as a genuine help to local communities.

30. Findings from secondary research as well PCSOs who have become police officers has show that PCSOs are seen in a different light to a police constable and that members of the community are more likely to talk to a PCSO than a constable.

31. Both groups also gave the view that a constable is often afforded more respect from members of the community than their PCSO colleagues.

32. Overall, the PCSO role in comparison to the constable role was not regarded as confrontational and had less accountability. A major appeal for those working on Safer Neighbourhood Teams (SNTs) was getting and establishing a relationship with a local community. PCSOs considered they had more interaction with members of their (B)OCU Senior Management Team than that of their PC colleagues. This is because of their direct community engagement. A key motivator in becoming a PCSO was the opportunity to become a police constable. Whilst many considered that there were lateral opportunities to develop within the PCSO role, the police officer role in comparison presented more opportunities in terms of career advancement and development.

33. Interestingly, the second group and aspirant constables (awaiting attestation) were in fact significantly underrepresented within PCSO discipline data. This is despite the overall PCSO overrepresentation. This group commented that their constable colleagues were often their role models. The mix of staff within the SNTs is well received by PCSOs and as asserted earlier analysis of other research papers into discipline issues reveals that less discipline matters arise from PCSOs who work in a mixed-team structure typically of PCs, PCSOs and a sergeant. However, there appears to remain a ‘them and us’ syndrome between police officers and PCSOs. This is particularly perceived to be the case when PCSOs and police officers have had little contact with each other. Both Groups commented on another significant motivator for PCSOs is that they are recruited on the basis of using their life skills and experience in general at work. This feeling can be damaged or eroded if a diversification within role is not provided.

34. Some of the more critical comments from the individuals who had undertaken the security patrol roles was that they felt as though they were ‘glorified security guards’ and as such were not able to use all of their life skills and experience. This led to feelings of boredom, reduced motivation and increased discipline activity. Recent analysis conducted by Territorial Policing supports this point.

Supervision and Professional Standards (including training provision)

35. The first Focus Group commented that the PCSO role exposed them to new and unfamiliar territory. For many the requirement to supervise PCSOs was the first time that they were exposed to managing police staff and therefore they did not feel confident in their working knowledge of the PCSO terms and conditions of employment.

36. Some managers said that alongside operational and other competing demands the discipline policy was cumbersome to apply and could be time consuming. Therefore, early opportunities were lost to correct poor behaviour or performance. That stated a range of issues were being addressed by them such as:

• Attendance Management concerns.
• General health, fitness and hygiene.
• Criminal matters including those outside of work.
• General conduct, lateness, resolving argument, dress code.
• Performance issues-poor written work.

Exacerbating the situation for some managers was a lack of confidence when challenged by union members and their representatives on procedural grounds regarding PCSO terms and conditions.

Both Groups acknowledged but still felt that there could be more improvements to the foundation training for PCSOs.
Note - None of the interviewees had direct experience of the most recent revised version of the course. Their concerns were:

• Timeliness, skills learnt were not applied straight away and therefore forgotten.
• The foundation training took place in isolation. Line managers were not informed on how an individual performed.
• Some PCSOs didn’t fully understand how their specific role fitted into organisation.
• The experience of local induction varied from ill prepared to well planned and delivered.

MPS values and behaviours

37. Both groups expressed a view that it needed to be made clear to PCSOs that managers ‘had the right to manage and lead’ and this could not always be a ‘democratic process’. Interestingly within the FG1 group and research studies it was observed that the PCSOs did not seem to recognise a manager’s authority to issue a reasonable instruction and did not understand the management hierarchy within the MPS. Based upon the research themes, the following conclusions were drawn.

Organisational

38. Whilst retention of staff was considered a positive HR initiative, concern was also expressed around individuals who have failed their initial training as constables and encouraged to migrate into the PCSO role. This reinforces the higher status of the constable and underestimates the impact of the ‘failed’ constable on colleagues with the potential for dissatisfaction and performance impact.

Operational

39. The integration of the PCSO with their police colleagues is affected by Police Supervisors who still do not feel confident in managing this role. This by default causes feelings of disempowerment and impacts upon relationships, and performance management routines. Opportunities are still being missed to identify issues at an early stage.

Individual

40. Corporate induction for PCSOs at Hendon includes the expectation and requirement to understand and meet MPS values and behaviours. Feedback from the research points to the need to maintain that emphasis on local induction and in each role the PCSO performs in order to understand how they ‘fit’ into the business.

Cold case review of personal files of all PCSOs dismissed from the MPS

41. As well as reflecting on the findings of the focus groups, the PST also decided to conduct a cold case review of the personal files of PCSOs who were dismissed from the MPS in a 12-month period (December 2007 to December 2008).

42. The purpose of the review was to establish if there was any information or gap in the process of recruitment and early employment that could have highlighted a serious concern for their suitability to be employed in the role of PCSO.

Methodology

43. The review included scrutinising references and probationary reports. References were obtained from previous employers, academic institutions and personal friends. The entire group were directly recruited as PCSOs and therefore subject to a probationary period of 12 months. As part of their probation, reports were written at 3, 6 and 10 months of commencing employment.

44. The probationary reports indicated a range of marking assessments from a Box 2 – consistently meets the required standard’ to Box 4 – rarely meets the required standard, significant development required’. This range would be typical of any group of new starters within the organisation. As such no pattern emerged that could assist in future preventive early interventions.

45. A review of the references did not indicate any clear patterns or trends that would have automatically caused a serious concern about suitability for employment as a PCSO.

46. In summary the cold case review did not reveal any failings within the selection, recruitment or probationary process.

Research conclusions

47. The hypothesis has been tested and proved from this work and previous reports. Instances of discipline are less likely to be committed where there are mixed teams, strong consistent supervision, a variety of work, and crucially where individuals and teams understand how they contribute effectively to effective policing. This is supported by PST analysis which highlights that PCSOs performing in security roles are more likely to be represented in the disciplinary process than their PCSO colleagues working in Safer Neighbourhood Teams.

Key conclusions

Induction and retention

48. Local induction and training programmes are vital to enable integration of PCSOs into front line operations with their police colleagues and supervisors. This research has concluded that local practice is varied. The corporate induction framework will be developed into a tailored local package for PCSOs and their managers containing information to enable both to understand role requirement and expectations.

Deployment

49. This research and others conclude that PCSOs thrive in mixed teams and as far as practicable this should be encouraged and adopted. In those instances where it is not possible and in the case of security environments, a menu of patrol options/operations should be considered to stimulate and vary patrol routines.

Professional Standards

50. The Practice Team work with the Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) particularly their Prevention and Organisational Learning Command who have delivered on a series of local command visits to promote their commitment to move away from a blame culture towards a more productive de-briefing and learning style. This was anticipated to enable a key cultural shift that would facilitate police officers to better performance manage police staff. The PST will work with this unit to consider a user friendly toolkit that will promote confidence for police supervisors in their management of the PCSO role.

Transforming HR

51. The PST are working with the web design team to develop on line and user friendly processes which all staff can access for information around the police staff disciplinary process.

Staff Associations

52. A member of staff from HR attended a BPA conference earlier this year for BME PCSOs to address questions regarding MPS values and behaviours, the application of the disciplinary process and the corporate safeguards in place to ensure that when it is invoked, that the disciplinary action proposed is fair, reasonable and proportionate and complies with policy.

53. The above is not an exhaustive list and does not represent all the HR routines that will be followed up. A copy of the report from the conference is awaited.

External Influences

54. It is acknowledged that the national debate about the use of designated powers and uniform for the PCSO family also hinders local integration and the MPS continue to inform this piece and resolve the debate as speedily as possible.

Future Research Projects

55. Conduct in-depth broader analysis of causal factors for BME groups being disproportionally represented within the discipline process.

56. Consider research and review into line management training to identify and ensure that enough emphasis is placed upon people management issues.

C. Race and equality impact

The conclusions within this report are such to minimise the number of instances of discipline occurring amongst PCSOs and accordingly intended to benefit all PCSO staff. This report supports further research that is aimed at undertaking an in-depth broader analysis of causal factors for BME groups being disproportionally represented within the discipline process.

D. Financial implications

No financial implications arise from this report other than the opportunity costs of administering the disciplinary process. The actions outlined are focussed on reducing the need for such formal management processes.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author: Darren Bird, Assistant Director HR Services, Geoff Brydon HR Practice Support Manager and Simon Hockley, HR Practice Support Manager, MPS

For information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Appendix 1

Primary research

1. This included an analysis of the police staff discipline data held on MetHR and the PST database. Also a cold case review of personal files of all PCSOs dismissed from the MPS.

Interviews

2. These were held either in person, phone or by e-mail with key stakeholders, notably Chief Inspectors from Territorial Policing (TP) with responsibility for PCSOs. The purpose was threefold, to build on the data analysis, to identify other research and identify best practice in this area.

Case study

3. In order to validate and examine underlying causations and trends in respect of PCSO discipline, we undertook a more detailed case analysis focusing on one Borough Operational Command Unit (B)OCU.

Focus groups

4. These were held with 1st & 2nd line managers of PCSOs and with police constables who had previously been PCSOs. The aim was to discover if the data analysis mirrored the perception of staff. It was also to identify best practice and assist in developing solutions to some of the issues the research was identifying.

Secondary research

5. A literature review identified previous PCSO studies. Of particular interest were those who had conducted research within the MPS. These had been undertaken on behalf of the MPA and some by academic institutions. The purpose of this was to gain an understanding of historical issues and see if they still had relevance.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback