Challenges in safer neighbourhoods

Report: 12
Date: 16 June 2005
By: Commissioner

Summary

This report provides an update on the Safer Neighbourhoods Programme and details of the engagement method and systems in place to support the programme.

A. Recommendation

That members note the report

B. Supporting information

1. Launched in April 2004, the Safer Neighbourhoods programme aims to provide a dedicated police team into all of London’s 624 neighbourhoods by 2008. Over the last thirteen months, 256 Safer Neighbourhoods teams have been introduced – eight in every borough.

2. With their focus on community engagement and providing public reassurance, the police sergeant, two police constables and three police community support officers in each team are rapidly providing a truly responsive, citizen-focused service in the neighbourhood they serve.

3. The Safer Neighbourhoods programme provides the MPS with a golden opportunity to make its service more accessible, visible, engaging and, above all, accountable at neighbourhood (ward) level.

The Safer Neighbourhoods Programme

4. The principle role of a Safer Neighbourhoods team is to:

• provide a visible permanent presence in London’s neighbourhoods
• cut crime and the fear of crime;
• make places safer, upholding and enforcing the law;
• tackle ‘yobbery’ and anti social behaviour within neighbourhoods;
• maintain public support and confidence;
• work with communities to identify local priorities;
• provide local solutions to local problems;
• build trust and confidence within London’s communities;
• promote, facilitate and encourage joint action with communities and partner agencies;
• adopt a problem solving approach;
• achieve a safe and crime free environment;
• allow communities a better understanding and improved access to policing services;
• assist in dealing with crimes that have a disproportionate impact on the community; and
• assist in the identification and targeting of offenders

5. Additionally, Safer Neighbourhoods teams

• generate information and intelligence from communities that assists in disrupting major crime activities;
• increase support from the community to assist with criminal investigations and prosecutions;
• communicate the efforts of the team and partners to communities, to increase support, trust and confidence;
• achieve and maintain a safe environment which increases the economic growth of the area and its communities;
• prevent and divert young people from crime
• work with Safer Schools Partnerships Officers to increase youth engagement;
• provide an integrated service with other borough units
• assist in bringing offenders to justice by supporting victims and witnesses of crime;
• promote and develop volunteering within communities
• increase the number of special constables; and
• assist in the protection of London from organised terrorist activity

Police Community Support Officers

6. There are now over 2200 Police Community Support Officers across London with each fulfilling one of four roles – traffic, security, parks and Safer Neighbourhoods (community).

7. The role of the Safer Neighbourhoods PCSO is to:

• maintain a visible presence in neighbourhoods;
• provide a familiar and accessible police service;
• identify local concerns through community engagement;
• deal with minor acts of anti social behaviour and quality of life issues; and
• gather information and intelligence in support of the service objectives.

8. PCSOs form at least fifty per cent of the Safer Neighbourhoods team and provide a valuable supporting role to their police colleagues. In many communities, PCSOs have become a valuable asset in bringing policing issues closer to the community, particularly in areas where the distance between the police and community has widened.

9. Elderly people in Barking and Dagenham describe their PCSOs as “blue angels” for keeping them safe. In another area previously blighted by ‘yobbery’ and anti-social behaviour, PCSOs played a key part in securing six anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) against a group of youths. Their visible presence and information gathering has resulted in local shopkeepers reporting increases in takings of 60%. A bus route – previously threatened with withdrawal due to excessive ASB – has also been saved in the same neighbourhood, resulting in local councillors praising the PCSOs and the rest Safer Neighbourhoods team for restoring confidence and safety in their community.

Impact on Crime

10. Whilst their focus remains on identifying, tackling and solving problems in local areas, Safer Neighburhoods teams are having a positive impact on crime levels where they exist. Last performance plan year, total offences in Safer Neighbourhoods areas fell by –6.8% compared to a -4.3% reduction in non-Safer Neighbourhoods sites.

11. This level of reduction has become a consistent sign month on month and in part is attributed to the visible and engaging presence of the Safer Neighbourhoods officers. Table 1 below highlights Safer Neighbourhoods and non-Safer Neighbourhoods areas in terms of crime, for the period April 2004-March 2005 v April 2003-March 2004.

Table 1: Crime groups for Safer Neighbourhoods v non-Safer Neighbourhoods areas (2003-4 v 2004-5)

Neighbourhood Selection

12. The responsibility for deciding which neighbourhoods are to be allocated Safer Neighbourhoods teams, is made in partnership through the local Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership. This should be an open and transparent process.

Local Priorities

13. Safer Neighbourhoods Teams work with the community to identify local priorities, and assist in providing sustainable solutions. Local priorities will often be different to borough, MPS and national priorities, but they reflect the issues of concern to the local community and will be targeted by the team. Since April 2004, the most common identified areas of concern raised by the public have been:

• Youth crime
• Anti-social behaviour
• Anti-social behaviour by motorists
• Graffiti
• Drug dealing and using

14. The method for identifying local priorities varies in different neighbourhoods but every area is holding public meetings and Safer Neighbourhood Panels are being established. The panels are initiated by the police, and will require the involvement of police to establish local working practices. As the panel progresses the intention is that they are chaired by a member of the community, and this is taking place in a number of areas. The purpose of the panel is to make the teams accountable to the local community. To ensure that the panel is representative of the local community the local policing team, during the planning phase, will carry out a profile of the community.

15. The public meeting is only one element of consultation and of setting objectives for the team. This prevents any likelihood of any one group unduly influencing the local priority setting.

16. Boroughs will sometimes have existing Sector Working Groups, covering Safer Neighbourhood areas. The structure of Sector Working Groups usually means that the geographical area they cover is far wider than a neighbourhood. These are often well established groups that provide an effective method of consultation and engagement and it is left to the boroughs discretion as to whether, and how to integrate the group, or representative, into a local Neighbourhood Panel.

17. Ward councillors are not discouraged from becoming involved with local panels as they have a breadth of local knowledge, which is useful in problem solving, engagement and multi-agency work. They should however not directly influence panels’ priority setting. Training is given to sergeants, to assist in the management of meetings, to prevent individuals driving business in their own direction.

18. All local groups are approached to participate in the public meetings and neighbourhood panels. These include unaffiliated private residents groups, neighbourhood watch schemes but there is no evidence to suggest domination by any housing sector.

19. Safer Neighbourhoods teams are finding engaging ways of working with young people, to either divert them from criminal and anti-social acts or to breakdown policing barriers as part of a wider engagement process. A team in Haringey put together the “Off the Street – less Heat” project after consultation with local residents and feedback from young people revealed that more needed to be done in the area to keep youths off the streets. The project – conducted on the Broadwater Farm estate – saw basketball and football coaches training around fifty young people every night in the Easter holidays. Similar events are planned.

Diversity

20. Safer Neighbourhood teams have been identifying new and challenging ways to engage people, in a bid to understand what affects their feelings of safety in their neighbourhood. In the last year over 1,300 public events have been held with over 30,000 people being consulted in their area.

21. Established teams are developing links with the local business communities. For example a Safer Business Team, working with the Safer Neighbourhood Team is being developed on Westminster Borough and Merton Borough is getting sponsorship from local business to assist with their newsletters.

22. Experience is showing that communities are keen to become involved, if the appropriate method of engagement is used. A street roll call in Barking and Dagenham Borough, drew over 100 people, this also resulted in two new Neighbourhood Watch Groups being formed.

23. Where some neighbourhoods have experienced difficulties in reaching groups, ‘go-between’ organisations have been used. In East London nine teams have used The East London Community Organisation (TELCO), to assist in engagement.

24. During the engagement process languages, other than English, are being used at a number of boroughs. PCSOs, recruited from the communities they serve, often have the language skills to engage communities that had hitherto proved a challenge for police and partners. The Directorate of Public Affairs publishes the Safer Neighbourhood leaflets in London’s ten core languages and the facilities are available to obtain translations into most languages. Intermediaries within the community have also been used with success.

25. Faith leaders are involved in many panels. A central database of faith leaders is available to teams to help in engaging with communities. Enfield’s dedicated ‘Faith Officer’ is fully engaged with all faith groups. This is seen as an example of ‘good practice’.

26. The Metropolitan Black Police Association is also working on a joint project with the central Safer Neighbourhoods Team. The project focuses on two boroughs, Hackney and Haringey, providing an effective method of engagement with black and minority ethnic youth groups.

27. Many Safer Neighbourhoods teams are identifying original ways of engaging under represented groups and looking at ways of reassuring them. A team in Merton advertised about a free self-protection course for women and were inundated with applicants. The course, held in a local mosque, was a total success and the local Safer Neighbourhoods team has plans to introduce a similar course for Muslim women. The team reports that confidence from this otherwise under-represented group has increased with some women now joining the Safer Neighbourhoods Panel.

Key Individual Network (KIN)

28. The Key Individual Network (KIN) has an important role in the Safer Neighbourhoods Programme. It is a vehicle that allows teams to positively engage with their local communities, identifying local issues of concern. It is based on the Signal Crime approach and uses a local questionnaire. Key Individuals may be local residents, or people who spend a significant time in the neighbourhood and are aware of local issues. Additionally the KIN also allows key evaluation and performance data to be collected that can help identify some of the success factors around Safer Neighbourhoods.

29. The KIN has a significant role in the Safer Neighbourhoods survey strategy. As surveying of Safer Neighbourhoods areas changes to a sampling model the KIN allows important data to be captured in non sampled areas.

30. The KIN structure is also providing its worth in helping Safer Neighbourhoods teams to gather intelligence. Officers from a team in Barking and Dagenham played a key part in the arrest of two murder suspects after vital information was received from one of their Key Individual Networkers. Officers hunting an adult and two youths in connection with a killing in Chafford Hundred focused their efforts in the borough after it was discovered that the suspects frequented the area. A Safer Neighbourhoods sergeant, whose phone number was given to KINs as a way of accessing advice and relaying intelligence to the team, received a call to say she had seen one of the borough’s prolific young offenders. Unknown to her, she had spotted one of the outstanding murder suspects on his way to see one of the other suspects. The sergeant passed the information onto the borough intelligence unit and two arrests were made.

Accommodation

31. Wherever possible, the Safer Neighbourhood teams are located in accommodation close to the local community. Property Services Departments have carried out an assessment on every borough, which has allowed most teams to be adequately accommodated and equipped. There are some sites where accommodation is temporary, while suitable sites are identified or planning permission is granted.

32. The MPS currently has 70 Safer Neighbourhood bases, housing 102 teams, situated outside of police premises in the communities they serve. By the end of the year 50% of teams will be located in external accommodation, which varies from schools, hospitals, shops, local authority accommodation etc. At present we are identifying 60 Safer Neighbourhood Contact Points across London. These will provide front counter facilities, staffed by volunteers, and also office space for the teams.

33. Safer Neighbourhood teams in Greenwich have set-up their base in the heart of their neighbourhood – in side a Co-op store. The base provides office space and storage and a garage for motor and pedal bikes. This ground breaking partnership between the MPS, Co-operative Group, Greenwich Council and South Greenwich Regeneration Agency, is the first of its kind.

Technology

34. Each Safer Neighbourhood team is issued with a Mobex telephone. This is a mobile telephone, accessed by a landline number, which is advertised, using local rates. It is carried by staff, when on duty and goes to answerphone, when the team is off. This is working successfully. Some boroughs are using a community ‘hotline’ and have found this to be effective, although some report that the hotline is used less often, now that all teams have a Mobex telephone.

35. Electronic voting has been used by Merton Borough and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. It is an impactive tool for engagement and could be developed but it is dependant on finance being made available for the purchase of the system and handsets. We are currently exploring options to make the system more readily available to other teams across London.

Training of Safer Neighbourhoods teams

36. The Safer Neighbourhoods Programme is also designed to professionalise community policing and as part of that process a training programme is being delivered to all teams. Training for Safer Neighbourhood teams begins with a one-day course, on community engagement, for sergeants. This is cascaded to the other team members. A one-week Safer Neighbourhoods course follows for the sergeant. All Safer Neighbourhoods sergeants have been trained and training is underway for Police Constables and PCSOs. Some sergeants were deployed prior to their course, but they were supported by other Safer Neighbourhood sergeants and the central Safer Neighbourhoods team. Several boroughs have had courses delivered, on ‘Problem-Solving’, to panel members and other members of the community.

Measuring Performance

37. The performance of the Safer Neighbourhood teams across London is measured at three levels:

• Executive Strategic Level
• Thematic Management Level
• Operational Level

38. At an operational level Safer Neighbourhood Team performance is measured by analysis of the monthly returns, submitted by the sergeant and by inspection visits. The monthly report gives details of public meetings, KIN, meetings with focus groups, numbers of people at meetings, diversity of attendees with relation to ethnicity and age, surveys undertaken, questionnaires, Environmental Visual Audits (EVAs), where the physical disorder of an area is recorded before the team takes action – to show improvement after the team activity.

C. Race and equality impact

An Equality Impact Assessment is being carried out by a process of consultation at corporate level with leaders and representatives from MPS Priority Groups for Consultation. The outcomes of these consultations are fed back to Safer Neighbourhood teams as advice and contacts. This process has had two consultations, thus far and will be completed by mid-summer.

D. Financial implications

The financial implications of the Safer Neighbourhood Programme are fully outlined in the Step Change business case.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author: Chief Superintendent Mark Gore

For more information contact:

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

Appendix 1: Replies to MPA queries in Re Safer Neighbourhoods

Mechanisms

Are public meetings being held, and are SN Community Panels being formed, in every SN?

Yes. Standard Operating Practice is for the Teams to meet with representatives of the community. There may be some variations in frequency, based on local need and negotiation. Monthly Performance indicators circulated to the MPA reflect the frequency of the meetings.

Who controls the Community Panels?

Panels are initiated by police and may require active involvement of police to establish working practices. The ideal would be for panels to progress to being controlled by a community member, with agreement of local community. Many panels are chaired by community members.

Who chairs the Community Panels? Police officers or community members? How are chairs selected?

As above, community members should chair the panel. Local priorities should be ‘discharged’ as complete by the panel and not police.

What are Key Individual Networks, how do they differ from Community Panels, and how are Key Individuals identified?

KIN is a new process of engagement used by the teams themselves asking the community about their priorities and what matters most in the neighbourhood that they want the team to concentrate on. It is based on the Signal Crime approach and is a local questionnaire. Key individuals are local residents and people within an area or with a connection to it. The approach can be used for focus groups, community contacts or even asking other partners and stakeholders.

To what extent are faith officers and external specialists being used to engage hard-to-reach groups?

Faith leaders are involved in many panels. A central database of faith leaders has been made available to teams to obtain assistance from faith leaders in engaging with their communities Enfield has a dedicated ‘Faith Officer’ who is fully engaged with all faith groups. This is seen as good practice.

Have ‘community hotlines’ proved successful?

Boroughs using Community Hotlines have had some success with them. However, each team is provided with a Met Mobex Phone, which is a mobile phone, accessed with a landline number, allowing the caller to contact the phone carrier, cheaply and easily. If the team is off, it goes to answer phone. These are widely used with considerable success.

To what ends, with what success or otherwise, and in what ways, has technology, eg electronic voting or SMS communications, been used in SN community engagement?

Merton and RBKC have used electronic voting at public meetings and focus groups. Merton is the leading BOCU taking its use forward. A few other boroughs have used this system. It is impactive for engaging the community at public meetings, but requires training prior to use and can involve considerable ‘set up’ time before meetings.

Diversity

The Commissioner, in his report discussed on 2nd December 2004 by the MPA Community Engagement Committee, wrote: ‘SN Teams are required to engage and consult with all sections of the community... the membership of the panels should be representative of those who live and work in the neighbourhood’.

Are SN teams succeeding in involving businesses and private sector enterprises in their community engagement activities?

Most SNTs are establishing links with their business communities, to a lesser or greater extent. Some are still very new, but progress is being made. One of Merton’s ward’s business community sponsors their SN Newsletter. Westminister is introducing Safer Business Teams to work alongside SNTs. The London Retail Consortium is progressing the ‘Safer Shopping Award’ across London.

Is resident representation on SN Community Panels dominated by Tenants & Residents’ Association representatives? Can unaffiliated private residents take part?

Unaffiliated private residents are equally involved, often through existing Neighbourhood Watch Groups. No differentiation is made. There is no evidence to suggest domination by any housing sector.

Are SN teams succeeding in recruiting a representative range of participants onto their Community Panels in terms of the ethnic, age, gender etc profile of their neighbourhood? Are hard-to-reach groups adequately represented on SN Community Panels across London?

With over 200 Safer Neighborhood teams in operation in a range of communities it has not been possible to quantify this, yet. Representation is a key question in inspection visits and emphasized throughout. Representation is expected to reflect the wards geographical spread and its diverse mix (including youth). Resources exist within the MPS to assist SN teams who are experiencing difficulty in engagement. Mapping and scoping communities before engagement and planning to reach all groups are a key part of SN teams training.

How is any apparent apathy amongst the public, or amongst SN officers, to engage with one another being challenged and overcome?

Use of go between organizations such as TELCO, in East London, supporting the engagement of 9 SN Teams. Use of the KIN is a way of re – educating officers in effective methods of engaging with people. We have examples of various methods such as street roll calls and ‘When What Why Where’ patrols where engagement is the primary objective. In Barking & Dagenham, 100 people attended a ‘Roll Call’ (SNT meeting the public in an outdoor, public location) and as a result 2 Neighbourhood Watch Groups have started.

Are elected ward councillors being encouraged or discouraged to sit on SN Community Panels? Where they have been involved, have attempts at party-politicisation been observed?

In some areas ward councillors are keen to become involved and where they do so they bring local knowledge and influence which is of benefit to the problem solving process and to encourage multi-agency co-operation. Involvement is not discouraged, however they should not directly influence the panel’s priority setting. Team sergeants receive training to manage community meetings where members may look to drive business in their own political direction.

Are the ‘silent majority’ being consulted and informed by those on the SN Community Panel before and after its meetings? Is there any expectation made clear of SN Community Panel members to consult and inform their constituents / communities in this way?

Still early days on this, however there are examples where the panel are going back to the community and are consulting on the activities of the team – Enfield CAPE meetings, Bexley’s Ward Panel, RBKC Colville Panel and Mertons Panel. An effective communication strategy is seen as essential to the success of Safer Neighbourhoods. The central team is seeking to expand and disseminate good practice in this area.

Has an Equality Impact Assessment been performed specifically on community engagement in an SN context?

This is being carried out by a process of consultation at corporate level with leaders and representatives from MPS priority groups for consultation. The outcomes of these consultations are feedback to SN teams as advice and contacts. This process has held two consultations so far and will complete in mid-summer.

Is there a danger of well-organised but largely unrepresentative minority groups (eg extreme political groups) ‘packing’ public meetings and having an undue influence on local police priority setting? If so, how is this danger being avoided?

No evidence of this to date in 255 SN in MPS. The public meeting should be only one element of consultation and setting of objectives for the team, the Panel should be a check and balance against this as will be the KIN process and wider results of surveys.

Has guidance regarding Community Panel composition been received by the Safer Neighbourhoods Programme Team from the National Reassurance Policing Programme yet? If so, can we see it?

Brief guidance on panels is available from the NRPP and is available on their website www.reassurancepolicing.com , guidance was issued on CD rom to all MPS sites. This is however still work in progress to gather evidence of good models of operation of panels to disseminate more widely.

What steps, if any, are being taken to engage local communities in languages other than English?

Some wards in Tower Hamlets, Croyden, Lambeth, Hackney, Mitcham, Ealing, numbers of PCSOs and PCs have the ability to communicate in other languages. Where officers do not have the necessary skills, teams are acquiring translations of leaflets in the necessary languages. DPA have produced SN leaflets in the 10 different core languages of London and translations into any language are available, when necessary. Intermediaries from within the community (often the children of people needing to be engaged) are used, with success.

Priorities

What happens when the local priorities identified by SN Community Panels clash with the priorities outlined in local, London or national policing plans and/or other local CDR strategies? How are these clashes resolved?

Priorities identified by the community rarely match borough priorities, however the intention is to include the priorities, or a group of themed priorities into the CDRP Control Strategy which will allow Borough and local priorities to be progressed without tension.

How does police priority-setting at a neighbourhood level inform or influence priority-setting at a borough level?

As above.

Rollout

The rollout of SN across London has recently been expedited, so that there will be 160 more SN teams in place by March 31st 2005. Can the rollout of the necessary I.T., support infrastructure, accommodation etc for SN teams keep pace with this revised timeframe?

Planning for the roll-out this year, was planned throughout last year, which has allowed most teams to be adequately accommodated and equipped. There are some sites, where accommodation is temporary, while suitable sites or planning permissions for identified locations are

Have some BOCUs been allowed to roll out SN to more wards more quickly than the rest? What are the advantages and disadvantages of this?

Yes. Through NRF funding, Tower Hamlets have been permitted to roll out the whole borough as a path-finder site on the Nat Neighbourhood Policing Prog. Positives; prevents competition tension between wards, for SN upgrade. Disadvantages – strain on abilities of service and partners to cope with increased demand of roll-out.

How open, transparent and universal are the criteria for selection of SN wards? Is there a danger of politicisation of the process of SN ward selection? If so, has this danger been realized

It is a decision for BOCU Commanders, to be made in partnership with CDRP members. There are a number of different criteria to be used depending on local needs. Central Safer Neighbourhoods has previously circulated these criteria, in relationto Ealing Borough, to the MPA, in response to a question.

In how many cases are SN boundaries not coterminous with electoral ward boundaries? Where they are not, why are they not?

34 at last count. The following boroughs have SNs that are not co-terminus with electoral wards. Barnet(1), Hammersmith & Fullham(5), Haringey(1), Havering(1), Kingston(1), Lewisham(6), Southwark(8) & Westminister(2).

The idea that a SN boundary should be coterminus with electoral wards, is attractive, though not always physically practical. Wards may be divided by a dual carriageway, or a single estate may be in two wards.

Do any SN teams contain less than 6 officers? If so, why?

Yes. Awaiting officers undergoing training and where officers have recently been lost to promotion, or wastage.

Not all SN officers can be new recruits. Where are the other officers coming from? What sorts of teams are they leaving?

Generally, from response teams, which tend to be the reservoir for all new deployments.

Have any Sector Working Groups across London been disbanded yet as a result of the advent of SN?

SWPs are encouraged to adapt to the new structures with community members supporting the process of SN. SWPs are still valid for consultation with areas not yet covered by SN teams.

Are SN Community Panel Members being invited to represent their wards on CPCGs?

Yes.

Has CPCG attendance noticeably dropped as a result of the advent of SN?

Too early to say, however emerging evidence of PCCGs wanting to incorporate representation from SNs.

Measuring Performance

How is possible displacement of crime and ASB as a result of SN activity being monitored and measured?

Research conducted by MPS Performance Indicator Bureau has found no evidence that significant displacement of crime nor ASB, as a result of SNT activity is occurring. There may be occasional anecdotal reports contradicting this.

Have a set of performance indicators been developed to measure SN teams’ success in engaging their local communities? If so, what are they?

Yes, the monthly report, completed by the sergeant gives details of: 

• Public meetings.
• KIN
• Meetings with focus groups.
• Numbers of people attending and the diversity, relative to ethnicity and age (youth and 65+)
• Research to facilitate the purpose of SN, questionnaires, EVAs (Environmental Visual Audits).
• Inspection visits from Central Safer Neighbourhoods.

By whom will success or otherwise in SN teams’ community engagement be measured, when, and how?

In April 2004 pan-London perception surveys are now being followed up with surveys on a selection of boroughs. KIN analyses across all boroughs. Monthly report gives public meeting detail.

If an SN team fails in its performance of community engagement, what options are available to remedy this situation?

SNU Centre does KIN Analysis. Advisory visit. Work with partners to get team on track.

Is there a lack of clarity as to whether initial increased rates of crime-reporting in a Safer Neighbourhood upon the arrival of a new SN team is desirable or not? Have such increases been observed consistently across London? Are they desirable? Does it depend upon crime type?

There is no simple answer at this time. When a comparison can meaningfully be drawn between Reported Crime figures and the British Crime Survey, conclusions could be ventured.

Has the SN Programme Team yet formulated a template to capture good practice in community engagement in an SN context?

Good ideas are sent to SNU and put on SN portal eg. Broadwater Farm, Easter Holidays, Sports Hall, engaging youth from 1800hrs to midnight. Done in partnership with Council. A wide spectrum of youth contacted and recontacted, crime prevention merchandise distributed. Engagement linked in with Op Blunt. Is growing, mothers & children involved in walking the neighbourhood. There is also a weekly SN News sheet broadcast, with news & views etc.

 Practicalities

What community engagement training are SN Sergeants, PCs and PCSOs respectively receiving? Are they all receiving it prior to their respective SN ‘going live’?

All SN Sgts have received a specialist one day course on Community Engagement, which is cascaded to the rest of the team. Then a one week course in SN techniques and ‘philosophy’. A similar course is now being run to train PCs & PCSOs. No, some have commenced work on their ward, prior to their course. Some teams are deployed prior to the one week course, although every effort is made to deliver the training expeditiously.

Are members of the local community receiving, or being offered, any training to enable them more effectively to contribute to police-community engagement at the neighbourhood level? If so, who is devising and organizing this training?

Panel members on two boroughs have been given a 2 day course on problem solving, because it was felt to be useful for them. The training package was already in existence.

What financial and other resources are made available to SN teams to address local priorities identified by the community?

A SNT of 6 officers are a resource capable of being tasked with engaging the community. They are supported by an overtime budget. When necessary, they can bid through the Borough Coordinating and Tasking Group (BCTG) for additional resources. They are able to meet with their Joint Action Group for resources they may be able to offer. Within the parameters of MPS regulations they are able to negotiate sponsorship.

What ‘carrots and sticks’ can be used to encourage officers to serve on SN teams for a minimum of 2yrs?

The Special Priority Payment. Officers interested in promotion recognise that a successful stint on a SNT, contributes positively to a pre-promotion Curriculum Vitae. Officers, young in service, are not always attracted by the slower pace of life, usually offered by the SNT, compared with Response Policing. Having an overtime budget and the SPP are useful incentives, to overcome any reluctance to join teams. Although the 0% Abstraction Policy is desirable, it needs to be judiciously applied, otherwise good, experienced officers with expensive skills can become de-skilled.

How many officers who have been on SN teams have left them so far?

This is not measured. It appears, very few have left and this includes some who have left the service. Some PCs & PSs have been promoted out of SN. Some have been promoted back on to a SNT on the same borough. A larger number of PCSO’s have left, many to join the police service as constables.

Why are SN teams’ officers’ rest days scheduled to coincide? Does this mean that most weekends there is no dedicated police presence in SNs?

Most teams work in this way to enable effective supervision. Teams work a variety of shifts, generally covering a proportion of the weekends. All the teams insist that they work when they would be best able to resolve the agreed priorities. They are flexible and are prepared to change their rest days, if that is required. Clearly if this breaches Working Time Directives, then other systems would require exploring. Some contiguous wards have a shared covering brief with their neighbouring teams to cover such times.

Why are SN teams’ core hours between 8am and 6pm? Does this mean that most evenings there is no dedicated police presence in SNs?

No. The teams work when they can resolve the agreed priorities. Most work late shifts and late late shifts (0000-0300 finish) for half the time. When necessary, they undertake night duty, although they will sacrifice visibility if they do nights as a regular part of their duties.

Abstraction rates of SN officers have not been kept at 0%. Present rates are around 3%. An aspiration has been voiced not to allow this to rise above 10% in the future. For what reasons are SN officers being abstracted? Are the present and proposed abstraction rates accurately reflected in SN publicity?

Abstraction rates are low. The data is abstracted from the monthly report. In most cases now, abstraction, when it occurs, is one of role, rather than location. I.e. Officers are sometimes required to support Op Resolve, on their wards, at some boroughs, instead of concentrating on the ward priorities. Abstractions also occur when officers with particular specialist skills are required for an operational purpose. The situation on abstractions is perceived as improving, as staff become accustomed to the policy.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback