Policing in schools

Report: 12
Date: 19 January 2005
By: Commissioner

Summary

The Safer Schools Partnership (SSP) was set up in response to the Prime Ministers Street Crime Action Group initiative to combat youth crime and has been in operation since April 2002. To date there are currently 135 School Beat Officers (SBOs) working in 245 schools across London under the banner of SSP. An evaluation of the Safer School Partnership programme was commissioned, on recommendation of the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA), and completed by KPMG on 29 November 2004. This report summarises the evaluation and highlights the recommendations made.

A. Recommendations

That members note the contents of this report and continue to support the work being carried out by the school officers.

B. Supporting information

1. There was a need for a formal evaluation to be secured on SSPs, and in the absence of the Youth Justice Board’s own report conducted by the Policy Research Bureau which has yet to be released, the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has undertaken its own independent evaluation in line with the recommendation from the MPA.

2. KPMG was chosen to conduct the evaluation and it developed an “evidence base” to assess the effectiveness of the SSP. It reviewed the activities and performance of a cohort of schools operating in the programme to judge whether they were meeting specific objectives. In addition it assessed the extent to which their activities contribute to the strategic objectives and targets of the MPS Annual Business Plan and the MPS Operational Policing Model.

3. Seven schools were chosen to assess the extent to which they have met key objectives, prioritised activities, achieved key performance indicators and met project milestones. The evaluators then explored the extent to which schemes are helped or hindered by the activities of the management arrangements. This was conducted through a review of any relevant documentation that described the structure and processes of the schemes as well as face to face or telephone interviews with partners to explore this in more detail. The aim of these interviews was to openly debate the findings of the main evaluation and explore the effectiveness of the current management arrangements and the structure and processes of the SSP and whether any changes/refinements are required. The results of these interviews were used to map out a number of recommendations.

4. The schools and boroughs chosen for the evaluation were:

• Safer School Partnership Schools
  • Edgware School (now London Academy) in Barnet with 1111 pupils
  • Stoke Newington School in Hackney with 1154 pupils
  • Northumberland Park School in Haringey with 1100 pupils
  • Bishop Thomas Grant School in Lambeth with 900 pupils
  • George Green School in Tower Hamlets with 921 pupils
• Non Safer School Partnership/Comparative Schools
  • Kelsey Park School in Bromley with 806 pupils
  • Overton Grange School in Sutton with 1042 pupils.

5. Five of the schools are “Safer School Partnership” schools as defined by the Youth Justice Board and include police officers who are attached full time to a school as proactive school beat officers. Two of the schools are those where a non Safer School Partnership programme exists whereby officers are generally engaged in providing educational inputs on Citizenship.

6. The recommendations made by the evaluators and how the Safer Neighbourhoods will address them were divided into five categories and are listed in Appendix 1.

7. There were a number of key messages within the Executive Summary that are highlighted below;

• There has been a broadly favourable response from all the major stakeholders to the introduction of police officers in schools;
• SSP officers are viewed more favourably than their police colleagues;
• Selecting the right person for the role is critical to the success of the partnership;
• Agreeing policies and protocols relating to police powers prior to the deployment of officers in schools is essential;
• The partnership lacks an adequate performance management framework with no central point for the collection of data and information. Therefore there was limited data and statistics available to assist with this evaluation;
• Not all schools need a dedicated SSP officer;
• Teachers and parents were concerned that the branding of the partnership as ‘safer schools’ implied that the school was an unsafe environment for children; and
• The relationships between the partnership and other organisations such as Youth Offending Teams (YOT’s) could be improved.

8. The effectiveness of the SSP in practice was evaluated. All of the head teachers interviewed praised and highly valued ”their” SSP officers. The success of the partnership depended largely on the knowledge, skills, abilities and experience of the individual officer. All of the head teachers identified this as a major success factor and all stated that the “wrong” officer, or an officer without essential criteria, in the post would have a detrimental affect on the partnership.

9. Teachers were asked what qualities they thought a police officer should have to work in a school. The re-occurring themes identified as being found in the “right” SSP officers were identified as:

• An ability to relate to young people
• Excellent communication skills
• An understanding of the local community and different cultures
• A knowledge of how schools function and an understanding of school culture
• Calm under pressure
• Sense of humour
• Sound judgement
• Approachable
• Flexible
• Patient
• Sensitive
• Having integrity
• Empathetic
• Consistent
• Professional
• Assertive.

10. The visible presence of an officer provided reassurance and a greater sense of security to teachers, pupils and parents. They all stated that crime and the fear of crime in and around their schools had fallen drastically although none could provide quantitative evidence to support this claim.

11. The head teachers gave many and varied examples of how effective the SSP officer had been in dealing with problems. A few examples are given below:

• Officers have supported anti-bullying initiatives;
• Officers have worked with the educational welfare officer with home visits to persistent truants;
• Enhanced the school curriculum through citizenship lessons and providing advice on drugs, assaults, offensive weapons, theft, etc.
• The use of restorative justice to deal with low level crime and anti-social behaviour.

12. These are just a few examples of the activities that SSP officers are engaged in on a daily basis. They include several different roles such as educational support, crime prevention advice, diversionary activities, advisory support and not just the traditional enforcement role of police officers.

13. The views of school pupils were also canvassed. The pupils held the SSP officers in all schools in higher esteem than their uniformed colleagues. The pupils had well informed views of why the officer was present in the school and what their role is. What was interesting about the views of the pupils is that the role of the SSP officer was seen as primarily advisory and an educational one and not as a law enforcement role.

14. The majority of pupils were more willing to report incidents to their SSP officer than they previously would have been. The main reason for this was seen as the trust they had in the officer and that any information given would be used confidentially. However, the decision to report incidents would depend on their seriousness.

15. The vast majority of pupils felt reassured by the presence of an SSP officer and trusted the particular officer. In fact, pupils viewed their officer as irreplaceable and unique to the police service.

16. Two of the schools, Overton Grange in Sutton and Kelsey Park in Bromley, were involved in the evaluation but are non-SSP schools. They are involved in the Schools Involvement programme.

17. Reasons identified why some schools are not currently Safer Schools are listed below:-

• Concern expressed over the name of the Safer Schools Partnership as it implied their school was ‘unsafe’.
• Introduction of SSP as a pilot in one or two schools in a borough may be viewed with suspicion by teaching staff as they would view their school as being singled out and would not want to ‘stand alone’ as an ‘unsafe’ school.
• Both the non SSP schools evaluated were outer London boroughs and very different from the initial Safer Schools boroughs.
• The non SSP boroughs evaluated have significantly lower levels of crime and disorder, are more prosperous and have less social deprivation.

18. The national training course addresses the need for boroughs to evaluate their SSP programmes effectively by providing key areas of evaluation, namely, environment, efficiency and effectiveness. All boroughs are requested to provide a return of work to TPHQ, which reveals the wide-ranging activities, in which they are engaged in schools.

19. The evaluation has not directly focussed on strategic links with Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships, however, the report does mention that the SSP programme should be aware and take into consideration the reforms introduced in support of ‘ Every Child Matters’. The two strands directly related to an SSP focus are:-

• Making a positive contribution. A key element of this is encouraging young people to choose to engage in law-abiding and positive behaviour.
• Staying safe. Ensuring children and young people are safe from crime, exploitation, bullying, discrimination and violence.

20. The KPMG report recognised the work that needed to be achieved to progress the Safer School Partnerships to a stage where performance can be measured. To this effect we are in the process of formulating a performance framework, in partnership with KPMG/Crime Concern, which will address the effectiveness of SSP.

21. The KPMG report was a comprehensive evaluation of the work of SSP that outlined a number of recommendations, which the Youth Policy Unit are looking to implement.

C. Race and equality impact

1. Through the modular training programme partners involved with the SSP are receiving inputs on areas such as identifying young people at risk, supporting victims and witnesses of crime and dealing with disruptive pupils as well as race relations training. Such training is enabling officers to gain a better understanding of how to work and interact with young people and understand how young people view the world, in particular those from minority ethnic backgrounds. An example is the work of the school officers with young people through the Independent Advisory Group, enabling young people to voice their feelings and opinions on a variety of important issues, and is well represented by all minority ethnic groups. A further example is that of SSP officers in Lambeth who have delivered a package around homophobic bullying in schools.

D. Financial implications

1. The Youth Justice Board has provided training, which has been undertaken on a National Scale. Local training within the MPS has been delivered through partner agencies within the existing schools budget. This modular training has replaced the traditional weeklong course run by local colleges, which were based on delivering educational inputs in the classroom. There is no additional cost to the school in setting up a SSP. Schools have in practice provided a room and a phone for the officer, which he/she shares with key personnel such as Connexions, drug workers, mentors etc. Officers are commonly working flexible hours to undertake their duties at the schools as well as any extended duties such as Safer Routes patrols, arrests, crime reports, extended school activities including breakfast clubs, diversionary projects or restorative justice conferences.

2. The modular training programme, which is being delivered at present and developed into an e-learning platform, has received funding from the Home Office, Government Office for London, and the Youth Justice Board. The total cost to date is £240,000.

3. The notional opportunity cost of employing officers in schools (based on the 2004/05 police ready reckoner (notional pension included)) is as follows:

• Safer Schools Partnerships (135 police officers): £5,967,270
• Schools Involvement programme (60 police officers): £2,652,120

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report authors: Inspector David Harney, Territorial Policing

For more information contact:

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

Appendix 1

Recommendations from KPMG and how the Safer Neighbourhoods Unit will address them

1. Recruitment and Selection

• Potential SSP officers should be interviewed by a panel of representatives from the police, local education and the school to ensure that there is a suitable ‘fit’ between the officer and the school.

Boroughs are encouraged to invite head teachers, governors or other relevant agencies to sit on selection panels. This has been adopted in a number of boroughs, and is promoted as good practise.

• The profile and awareness of SSP in BOCU’s and the MPS should be raised to assist with the recruitment and retention of officers.

Many of the SSP officers deliver presentations to sector teams about their role and are being aligned closely with Safer Neighbourhood teams who assist them with their role.

• Although none of the pupils interviewed expressed concern that all the SSP officers; at their schools; were male and white, several female pupils stated that it would be beneficial to have access to a female officer.

There are a number of Black and Asian officers who perform the role of SSP. However with the links into Safer Neighbourhoods there are a larger number of officers now working in schools. Many of these are from visible ethnic minorities and are female.

• SSP managers should actively look to recruit visible ethnic minority officers in schools that have a diverse ethnic mix.

Posts for SSP officers are widely advertised internally and school sergeants are aware of the requests by some Heads to employ female and Black and Asian officers.

2. Design and administration of the scheme.

• The police, schools and local education authorities should develop robust policies and protocols concerning the management of the partnership prior to the deployment of SSP officers.

All schools units are encouraged to develop protocols with each of their secondary schools prior to embarking upon a programme with the school.

• SSP officers should initially be deployed in schools located within borough crime and disorder ‘hotspots’ or where the demand on police resources is greatest.

Where this is encouraged as a good deployment of resources, there has to be agreement with the head of each school that they are willing to participate in the programme. This approach links in closely with the Safer Neighbourhoods role out programme in the identification of schools in Safer Neighbourhoods areas.

• SSP officers should only be deployed on a one officer to one school basis if there is sufficient demand.

The SSP is most effective where there is one officer per secondary school with a cluster of primary schools, however some boroughs that have up to 20 secondary schools and only have a handful of officers split their time between schools in order to provide a blanket cover. This is something, which the borough police have historically provided for schools and wish to maintain the good links.

• Officers should have a minimum tenure of 3 years with the option of extending their time in the post to 5 years.

This is a long-term programme, which needs school officers to be given flexible working conditions and access to long tenures. Many boroughs are offering 3-year tenures, which are extendable to 5 years. This allows the officer to develop effective working practices and good relationships with the staff, pupils and local community. In addition special priority payments are available to SSP officers.

• SSP officers should where possible be ‘ring fenced’ against abstractions.

Some officers identify that they are often abstracted for AID. This amount of commitment differs across boroughs and it would be helpful if SSP officers were ring fenced in the same way as Safer Neighbourhood officers in order to undertake their role more effectively.

• BOCU’s should review SSP officer’s shift patterns to ensure greater alignment with the working school day and school holidays.

Officers are in general offered flexible working hours which allows them to run breakfast clubs and after school activities as part of the Extended Schools programme and to police the safer routes to school programme with other agencies.

• Laptops with access to police data bases would reduce the amount of time officers spent on returning to their police station to input reports or retrieve data.

This has been looked at in detail but there are issues with regard to finance and the technological capabilities of providing access to crime reporting and criminal intelligence via a laptop.

• Schools should where possible provide adequate facilities for their SSP officer.

Schools have been very forthcoming in providing officers with rooms to work from and adequate storage and changing facilities. In many cases officers share rooms with other agencies such as Connexions, educational welfare, and school nurses as part of the Behaviour Educational Support Teams.

3. Training and development of SSP officers and partners.

• SSP managers and local education authorities should consider joint training initiatives.

There is a comprehensive training package on offer for school officers and their partners, which cover 22 training modules.

• Police delivered training should where possible be delivered during school holidays to avoid any unnecessary disruption to their daily routine in schools.

There are conflicting opinions as to when is the best time to run a course. Many officers who work extended hours are off during the schools holidays as are teachers, and teachers can rarely get time away from the school in term time.

• TPHQ should regularly review and update training provided for SSP officers.

The training provided is extensive and forms part of a blended learning approach which provides training courses, an e-learning platform and book and various publications to assist the officer and partners with their role.

• Police partners should, where possible, take part in police training such as ‘problem solving’, which has been delivered to some partners by the ‘problem solving team’ at TPHQ.

A number of teachers have attended but operational school duties restrict the numbers. Problem solving training and safer neighbourhood training has helped reach a far wider audience with 3300 officers being trained

• SSP officers should have an input into INSET days where they could explain the law and police powers and procedures to their teaching colleagues.

Many of the SSP officers are now undertaking inputs in schools especially through inset days. An example is critical incident training in Westminster.

4. Internal and external linkages.

• Primary schools that have a large number of potentially difficult children should be identified and prioritised, so that early intervention programmes can be instigated. These intervention programmes should be developed and delivered in partnership with other agencies.

A number of SSP officers are engaged with primary schools and provide regular inputs. In addition weeklong multi agency programmes are organised under the long established Junior Citizenship banner. There is also a number of transition phase programmes developed by the school and the officer, which look to help primary school children in Year 6 successfully transfer to Year 7 at secondary school thus avoiding issues of bullying and victimisation.

• SSP managers and officers should map out all the agencies they currently work with or should be working with. They should analyse how effective these relationships are in relation to meeting the objectives of the SSP initiative and implement action plans where there are areas for improvement.

Day three of the National Training course looks at how officers and their partners can work with other agencies both internally and externally. These include partners such as the Prince’s Trust and the Duke of Edinburgh Award as well as Youth Inclusion Panels and the local Youth Offending Team.

5. Strategic management of the partnership.

• Strategic assessments and control strategies should make explicit reference to the SSP and identify areas where the roles and activities of SSP officers can make a positive contribution to the BOCU business plan and the crime and disorder reduction strategy.

Boroughs are encouraged to put SSP at the heart of their strategy when addressing young people. It should form and integral part of their Crime and Disorder Strategy and all partners should be made aware of the contribution and impact it has when addressing youth crime.

• TPHQ needs to develop a robust performance management framework to support the SSP. This should include a measurement of outputs and outcomes and value for money analysis. The framework should also include performance indicators of non-crime indicators such as bullying, truancy, exclusion etc.

The national training course addresses the need for boroughs to evaluate their SSP programmes effectively by providing key areas of evaluation, namely evaluation, environment, efficiency and effectiveness. All boroughs are requested to provide a return of work to TPHQ, which reveals the wide-ranging activities, which they are engaged in as a SSP. A framework has been devised for all boroughs to provide a return of work.

• SSP branding should be clarified. The local community needs to understand the aims and objectives of SSP and the part they can play in the success of the initiative.

SSP is an integral part of the Safer Neighbourhoods programme. School officer should be seen as part of these teams but recognised for their particular skills and expertise when dealing with young people. Criteria for selection is based on safer neighbourhood areas.

Appendix 2: London Borough of Waltham Forest Police Joint Protocol with Warwick Boys School

Safer School Partnerships are part of the package of measures being taken forward by the Prime Minister’s Street Crime Action Team to combat street robberies and related crime. The scheme is supported by the Department for Education and Skills, the Home Office, the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales , the Association of Chief Officers, the Association of Chief Education Officers, the Secondary Heads’ Association and the National Association of Head Teachers.

The scheme to place police officers in schools is part of a more general agreement to promote effective working relationships between the schools and the police.

The purpose of this protocol is to establish effective programmes of joint working between schools, police and partnership agencies.

Guidance has been given under Police School Protocols – Principles. This document states that the purpose of the protocol is:

• To help promote dialogue and further develop effective partnerships between schools, police and other agencies that are based on cooperation and shared understandings;
• To set expectations for local partnerships, while allowing police services and schools to address service delivery arrangements and local circumstances;
• To define the respective roles and responsibilities for the police, schools and partnerships agencies.

The key principle in drawing up a protocol should be to enhance the learning environment by providing a safe and secure school community.

It should deliver:

• Young people feeling safe and valued;
• Young people engaged in education, actively learning and achieving at higher levels; and
• The lowest possible levels of bullying, intimidation and crime experienced by groups of young people.

It should not be and end to itself, but a reflection of genuine understanding that enables the involvement of police in schools to be on the basis of regular, visible and well supported contacts that that promote positive outcomes for school staff and pupils as well as the police and the wider community.

This collaboration between the schools and police will be called the Safer Schools Partnership and officers attached to this school will be known as Safer Schools Police Officers ( SSPO) .

This protocol is an agreement between the Metropolitan Police in the London Borough of Waltham Forest and the Head teacher of Warwick Boys School.

The Aims and Objectives of the Safer School Partnership are:

To reduce the prevalence of crime and victimisation amongst young people and to reduce the number of incidents and crimes in schools and their wider communities by:

• Working together to provide consistent and appropriate support and intervention to divert young people from social exclusion and criminality.
• Sharing information to identify those people at risk of of becoming victims or offenders as well as those who already are.

To provide a safe and secure school community which enhances the learning environment by:

• Reducing the incidence of bullying and violent behaviour experienced by pupils and staff in the school and the wider community.
• Reducing substance misuse in the school and the wider community.
• Developing crime prevention strategies to improve the physical security of the school and the personal safety of all who use it.
• Developing a multi agency approach to supporting teachers and other school staff in managing the learning environment.

To ensure that young people remain in education, actively learning and achieving their full potential by:

• Developing strategies to improve attendance by addressing both authorised and unauthorised absence.
• Raising attainment by ensuring a calm learning environment free from disruption.

To engage young people, challenge unacceptable behaviour, and help them develop a respect for themselves and their community by:

• Developing a whole school approach to conflict resolution.
• Ensuring that young people have opportunities to learn and develop citizenship skills.
• Promoting the full participation of all young people in the life of the school and its wider community and decisions that directly affect them.

The Role of the SSPO is to:

• Work directly with young people to increase their knowledge of the police service and to develop an effective partnership with the school community .
• To adopt both a proactive and reactive response to problem solving in order to reduce crime and disorder within the school community thus improving the environment for young people to learn.
• To act as an investigation liaison officer.
• To participate in multi agency initiatives to improve the school learning environment.
• To attend staff, Governor and Parent meetings.

School Premises

School Premises will include:

• The school buildings within the boundary of the school , including annexes, playgrounds and sports fields. This will be during school hours only (including immediately before and after school approx. 0800 - 1600). Incident happening outside these hours will be dealt with by response officers.
• Any street or public places that abut onto or form part of the boundaries to the school premises within prescribed hours.

Working Practises

Incidents in and around school premises will come to the notice of the SSPO either directly, during their patrols, or by being brought to attention of the officer by school staff.

The SSPO

• The school is to record all incident of crime occurring on school premises. Where an offence has been reported to the SSPO but the school wishes to deal with the matter internally, the officer will limit his/her action, unless it is of a serious nature where positive action is required regardless of the schools wishes.
• The SSPO will assist in a partnership approach to the delivery of the schools involvement programme.
• The SSPO will undertake the role in uniform
• The SSPO will assist school staff in the management of incidents when called upon to do so.
• Pupils will only be arrested on school premises when it is deemed absolutely necessary in the circumstances. If at all necessary an arrest can be made at a later date. The head teacher will be informed when such action is taken.
• The SSPO may search pupils in the execution of their statutory duty.
• The SSPO may assist staff to search pupils. Where the SSPO searches a pupil a record of the search will be made on MPS Form 5090
• The SSPO will receive evidential material seized by school staff and deal with it in accordance with MPS guidelines
• The SSPO may exercise his powers within the school in relation to any other person found on police premises
• An allegation of crime made against a member of the school staff will only be investigated in consultation with the head teacher or their deputy.

The Staff

• Assaults resulting in injury, robbery, sexual assaults, offensive weapons and drugs seized or found will be reported to the head teacher, who will then liase with the SSPO. If the SSPO is not on the premises staff will assist in the immediate capture of evidence
• It is at the discretion of the head teacher to report all other crimes to the SSPO
• Staff will assist in the partnership approach to dealing with incidents concerning the school, including bullying and truancy
• Staff will assist in the schools involvement programme (usually through the offices of the PHSE coordinator)
• Staff will be responsible for the initial care of evidential material seized
• Staff may call upon the SSPO to assist in searching the pupils. It will be the responsibility of the school staff to inform the parents of the pupil searched taken. Record of all pupils searched will be kept.

Exchange of Information

• Section 115 Crime and Disorder Act 1998 enables the sharing of confidential information between local authorities, schools and police. Use of the act covers the disclosure of personal data for the purpose of detection and prevention of crime.
• Any request for personal information contained on a database, registered under the data protection act, should preferably be made in writing unless it is of an urgent nature. Use of a pro forma is recommended. The head teacher, as signatory to this protocol must sign the request for disclosure.
• An exchange of information for the purpose of planning or problem solving, based on personal knowledge, is to be encouraged. There is no legislation the cover this type of exchange and care should be made to prevent any misunderstandings.
• Urgent disclosure in relation to pupils at risk, absent or missing must be a priority. Systems are to be put into place to facilitate an exchange of information under these circumstances.
• Waltham Forest Police have a dedicated disclosure officer based at Leyton Police Station. Tel : 0208 345 2445. Disclosures will only be processed on receipt of a written application . Records of all disclosures are kept.
• Education and the police already share information through the Youth Offending Team (YOTS).

Other Issues

• Whilst on duty the SSPO will always have with them, their personal safety equipment.
• The SSPO will be on duty for 8 hours a day. These hours are flexible but notice will need to be given first.
• The SSPO will aim to be on school premises as often as possible, however other commitments to the MPS will sometimes mean that the SSPO is not available. During these times the use of the usual police system will need to be used (ie. 999) . The SSPO will be informed of any incidents during their absence.
• The SSPO will attempt to inform a senior member of staff of any future absences which will occur such as annual leave etc.
• A review of the SSPO Partnership will take place at the end of each year.
• The Schools Programme Team is the responsibility of the Borough Liaison Officer 0208 345 2445.
• The purpose of this protocol is to establish effective programmes of joint working between schools, police and partnership agencies.
• The protocol should be a reflection of genuine understanding that enables the involvement of police on schools to be on the basis of regular, visible and well supported contacts that promote positive outcomes for school staff and pupils as well as the police and wider community.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback