Police Community Support Officers

Report: 7
Date: 4 October 2002
By: Commissioner

Summary

This report has been prepared following up on the report presented to the Metropolitan Police Authority meeting on 25 July 2002 and sets out details of the work to take forward the introduction of Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) in a community role.

A. Recommendations

That members are asked to note the contents of this report and endorse the proposed approach to the allocation of Police Community Support Officers.

B. Supporting information

Introduction

1. Home Office funding has enabled the MPS to introduce 500 Police Community Support Officer posts. 300 posts have been allocated to security roles - Westminster (200) Heathrow (40) Tower Hamlets: City Airport (20) and Newham: Canary Wharf (40) – with the balance being deployed in a community role (minutes of Metropolitan Police Authority meeting on 25 July 2002).

2. The purpose of this report is to outline proposals for the introduction of PCSOs into a community role and how they should be distributed amongst the 32 London Boroughs. The paper also contains proposals for a mechanism that will allow appropriate bodies to ‘purchase’ additional patrol provision.

3. The report has been prepared at relatively short notice after lengthy discussions with stakeholders because of the complexity of the issues involved. It seeks to establish principles not details of deployments – these may vary. The decisions that are sought are urgent due to the lead time required in advertising the posts for the next round of PCSO recruitment and due to the fact that some public bodies are actively considering their options for the provision of patrol as part of their current budgetary considerations. These bodies are considering both in-house provision and the possibility of purchasing MPS provided PCSOs. To make an informed judgement they need to be aware of the terms and condition upon which the latter will be made available.

Allocation method 

4. The deployment of PCSOs raises many complex questions: most notably about the equitable distribution of MPS provided resources across the London Boroughs and the potential for impact upon the resource allocation formulae. The allocation of PCSOs must also meet a number of short-term project needs: to test the concept in a variety of operating environments, to identify the optimum scheme size and to experiment with different tasking and control arrangements. Deployment is also constrained by current funding that was designated for anti-terrorist activity or to combat street crime.

5. Attempting to meet each of these requirements in the initial allocation of PCSOs has proved problematic. For example, an even allocation of the 200 PCSOs currently available to the MPS would result in approximately 6 being deployed in each borough. This would not have any meaningful impact operationally nor would it meet project objectives. Furthermore any such short-term, evenly-based allocation would fail to meet anti-terrorist requirements, as these are difficult to quantify.

6. A step-wise method of allocation is therefore proposed:

• Step 1: Propose a target allocation based on community need.
• Step 2: Propose an allocation of the 200 posts currently available as a first move towards this allocation.
• Step 3: Consider mechanisms to enable the target allocation to be achieved and to agree principles to allow third-parties to ‘purchase’ enhanced PCSO provision from the MPS.

7. The remainder of this report considers these steps in greater detail.

Step 1: the target allocation

8. The benefits of community-based PCSOs have been rehearsed before. They will:

• provide visibility – significant in tackling street crime;
• release police officers to undertake more complex tasks; and
• deliver the capacity to tackle local quality of life concerns and crime and disorder agendas.

9. PCSOs will be recruited locally, be responsive to local needs and be deployed after consultation with local communities in a team based environment that is integrated with regular officers. This process will enable the MPS to deliver effective community policing by reinforcing the capability of the permanent beat officer. 

10. To achieve these objectives it is necessary to deliver a critical mass in the deployment of PCSOs, which could vary depending on the needs of the borough. To ensure an effective deployment of PCSOs across the MPS 1000 PCSO posts must be contemplated. An allocation of this size means that the immediate needs of the project, the constraints attached to current funding streams and the longer-term ambition of equitable allocation based on transparent criteria can be achieved though a step-wise process.

11. It is recognised that funding for such a number has not been identified although the report contains some consideration and proposals to achieve this.

12. An indicative allocation of 1000 PCSOs based on the principles of the resource allocation formula 2002 is based on the current resource allocation, using demand and need, with the Commissioner’s discretion reflecting the numbers posted in a security role. This profile provides a target core allocation. It must be stressed that this is an allocation that is additional to police officers. It must also be regarded as separate to the resource allocation formulae.

Step 2: towards the target

13. In order to allocate the deployment of the first 200 PCSO posts, expressions of interest were obtained from Borough Commanders in August. In addition to making a bid for PCSOs certain requirements had to be outlined:

• adequate accommodation had to be available.
• problem solving had to be in place.
• description of the role.
• description of the environment.
• suitable support structures.
• support of the local authority.
• identified community teams/beat managers.
• identified senior management team lead.

14. Schemes were reviewed to identify those boroughs where community projects overlapped with anti-terrorist requirements and/or street crime demands (The anti-terrorist role involves some information gathering but is primarily concerned with working within vulnerable communities). 

15. Provisional deployments are now being worked up. Members will be circulated with the information when it is finalised in the light of discussions at the Co-ordination and Policing Committee meeting. Borough commanders have not been advised on them and they may change after detailed discussion. However, both police federation and union representative have been apprised of the proposed allocation process.

Step 3: achieving the target allocation

16. Given the widespread interest in developing PCSOs – 26 forces recently bid for central government funding – it is not unreasonable to expect the question of longer-term funding to be addressed centrally. Opportunities are also being explored to see if partnership funding might be diverted into the provision of PCSOs. The 1000 PCSO ‘core’ position provides a vision of what the MPS would seek to achieve within three years given adequate financial provision.

Further developments

17. The MPS is being approached by a number of bodies across the MPS who wish to purchase additional PCSOs: many organisations do not consider the provision of such services within their sphere of specialist experience and wish to draw on MPS expertise. The benefits to policing from providing PCSOs within a vertical framework have been articulated many times:

• Clarity to the consumer – especially in respect of powers and jurisdiction;
• Enhanced control – over deployment, training standards etc; and
• Reduced risk of ‘balkanisation’ from local authorities setting up independent ‘constabularies’.

18. However, the ‘market’ is such that organisations could seek patrol services from either private or other ‘accredited’ sources in due course and many benefits will be lost if the MPS do not make adequate provision in this area.

19. Whilst seeking to meet demand and yield the potential benefits it is recognised that certain principles must be adhered to.

• Principle 1 Any additional PCSOs would be provided on the basis of full-cost recovery.
• Principle 2 Additional PCSOs would be divorced entirely from any decision regarding the allocation of MPS resources.
• Principle 3 The MPS would seek to retain a stake in all PCSO schemes across London. This would either be through the physical integration of MPS provided resource with PCSOs provided by another body or through a memorandum of understanding covering such issues as tasking and deployments. This would prevent the theoretical possibility that a body might purchase MPS PCSOs and deploy them as a discreet and independent unit with the attendant risks to the MPS reputation.

20. The loss of control inherent in any purchased provision would have to be the subject of a contract. Experience in negotiating with Transport for London provides one possible model for this. However, many boroughs have less formal, more flexible arrangements with street and neighbourhood warden schemes that provide an alternative approach.

Conclusion

21. Deploying PCSOs in a community role provides the MPS with significant advantages. If these are to be realised a method of deployment must be identified that meets conflicting needs. Basing deployment on a vision of where the MPS would like to be in three years time provides a guide that is defensible in the face of public demand for equity. It is also practical and operationally sound. Principles that guide the provision of purchased enhancements provide the means for engaging in a dynamic market place with the propriety that is appropriate for a public body.

C. Equality and diversity implications

The MPS have conducted all recruitment, selection and training processes for Police Community Support Officers in accordance with established practices that fully take into account equality and diversity issues.

D. Financial implications

The financial implications concerning the introduction of PCSOs were outlined in the MPA paper on 25 April 2002. A further paper relating to the costing and pricing of PCSOs will be submitted at a later date.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author: Commander Richard Bryant.

For more information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback