Dial 'M' for Merger

I haven't blogged for a while with much going but most of it out of bounds for this blog and this writer!

The constant by my side of late and the consistent theme of much of my thinking at the moment is the controversial issue of police force mergers and I've decided to finish the blog I've started so many times before but never quite finished. 

There are two reasons why I have so far resisted the urge to put pen to paper on this issue.

Firstly, it's a very current and personal issue at work. 

As an Assistant Chief Constable working in two police forces where the vast majority of staff now work in single departments across two forces I am very aware of the debates and issues that swirl round mergers. Warwickshire and West Mercia are, in my view, as close to merged as any in the country. However they retain two Chiefs, two Deputies and there are two Police and Crime Commissioners and at present there are no plans to go beyond the current 'Alliance' supported by collaboration agreements, recruitment of joint staff and a single operating model for both forces. 

So, let's be clear. My views on the issue are personal and well known by my colleagues and in blogging about them I'm not reflecting the views of either of my two forces or seeking to position anything or anyone.

Secondly, and possibly why my views are already known, I have a personal perspective on the subject because of my professional involvement in the issue that started well before my current posting. 

In 2005 when the Labour Government attempted to force mergers on a predominantly supportive service but dubious public, I was the programme manager in the West Midlands Region working to merge the police forces of Staffordshire, Warwickshire, West Mercia and West Midlands. This role was one of the most interesting, challenging and ultimately frustrating that I have ever undertaken.

Indeed I now work for two forces who at the time were on opposites sides of the debate with West Mercia possibly the most public, principled and persistent critics of mergers. Two organisations diametrically opposed to merging then but who are now the closest collaborators in policing.

  

So, a blog long in gestation, but prompted to come to fruition by two unconnected events in the last week. 

Enter Ed Balls and the Mercian Regiment.

On Monday, during his speech on future spending priorities for a Labour Government, Ed Balls said:

"Does it really make sense to have separate costly management and bureaucracy for so many separate government departments, agencies, fire services and police forces – the same number as when this Government came into office – all with separate leadership structures and separate specialist teams?"

Now I assume Ed discussed this with 'Mrs Balls' aka Yvette Cooper the shadow Home Secretary. If he didn't I'm sure it didn't go unnoticed in the Balls household later that evening, so I think we can safely say that the issue of police force mergers is back on the political agenda. 

This is significant because it has been a taboo subject since the debacle of 2005/6 when a switch of Home Secretaries, the subsequent labelling of the Home Office as not fit for purpose and a tenacious campaign by the then Tory opposition saw the plans consigned to the 'too difficult to deal with / don't darken my door again' in-tray where it has languished ever since. 

On Thursday, I had the honour and privilege to be present in Worcester when the Mercian Regiment received their new colours from HRH The Prince of Wales. 

These were new colours for a new regiment. 

I also heard the retiring Commanding Officer recall the challenge of bringing together the precursor regiments (the Cheshire Regiment, the Staffordshire Regiment and the Worcestershire & Sherwood Foresters). These were proud organisations with lengthy histories cataloguing hundreds of years of heroism and gallantry. They were 'forcibly' merged in a Ministry of Defence review against the backdrop of history, emotion, local pride and differing cultures.

Remarkably the work to merge these regiments was undertaken alongside simultaneous deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. Comrades were lost and dozens injured. But they remained focused on their task both in war and in transforming themselves and through those extraordinary times the Mercian Regiment emerged. 

On Thursday, this new Band of Brothers (and Sisters) stood proudly to attention in front of their Colonel in Chief and claimed their stake in the future; they have not forgotten their proud past and it was apparent that change had not always been easy. They now face the next challenge of losing one of their 4 battalions which again will be managed while deployed but it was apparent to all that they were confidently looking to the future.

Readers of my previous blogs will know that I am a sceptic of the idea that the armed forces have ready made answers for police leadership. They are are different organisations with differing roles, cultures and  histories. But I do recognise the strength in learning from each other and in acknowledging how things may be done differently. 

The Mercian experience is one such example. 

Since 2006 there have been a range of successful collaborations between forces, statutory guidance 'encouraging' and 'requiring' joint working and a few skirmishes between forces wooing each other to take the next step. But the 'M' word has remained by and large silent while forces are Inspected and assessed on their collaborations and shared working.

Up until Monday both the Government and Opposition were also silent on the issue of mergers. The official Home Office stance is that merging forces is not on their agenda of reform but they would not block forces from merging. The Government know the strength of feeling generated in their own back benches last time.

So police forces up and down England and Wales are finding creative and cost effective ways of sharing assets, merging functions, outsourcing activity and saving literally millions of £s as part of the CSR. There are regional units, joint boards, commissioning groups and steering bodies working across over forty police forces who remain firmly part of the fixtures and fittings of policing. There is no shortage of deck chairs to rearrange should the service hit an iceberg.

The arrival of new governance structures for policing in November with PCCs embodying localism and direct accountability were seen as a further sign that mergers were undeliverable. For the record as a Chief Officer who works with two PCCs I do not see the new governance arrangements as an obstacle to mergers. Yes there would be challenges and of course there would need to be compromise and negotiation but I don't subscribe to the view that it is now a bridge too far.  

Since April this year Scotland has had a single police force. It's been built from the bottom upwards grounded in local policing linked to existing local authority areas. Specialist units that offer protection against threats which don't recognise force boundaries are embedded. I'm sure colleagues in Scotland won't claim that this has all been as easily achieved as it seems and I have no doubt there will be challenges ahead, but they have delivered a model of policing and the baby and bathwater appear intact.

As we await the outcome of the current spending review and the service prepares itself for further significant cuts in funding, it seems inconceivable that we can look to find further savings without looking at the most obvious overheads - the structure of force boundaries. 

In overseeing a current review of local policing in two forces where the prospect of police station closures, reducing officer numbers and the challenge to maintain key services are daily features I don't believe it would be acceptable to the public that we would look again at front line service delivery in future cuts and avoid a debate about force boundaries, overheads and the existing police landscape. 

In addition, as the College of Policing matures and starts to make real on the promises of national standards and evidence based practice I cannot see how a model that relies on 43 Chief Constables to reach a consensus on delivery can be sustained. 

Deconstructing ACPO may be politically convenient but it avoids the real issue. There are too many Chiefs running too many forces. 

Bodies like the NCA provide protection at a national level; neighbourhood policing delivers locally. The force structure in between needs to enhance and support policing at both ends of this spectrum and it is fanciful to imagine that 43 is now the answer. 

It may come as a surprise to some that West Mercia Police was not referenced in the Doomsday Book or the Magna Carta. It is in fact a construct of local government reorganisation in 1967. However, for over forty years it has shown that it can deliver outstanding policing at a local level to communities as different and geographically distant as Oswestry and Ross on Wye with one police force spanning 3 counties. Thames Valley and Avon and Somerset also work on a similar scale and structure and there is no evidence that they deliver less effective local policing. In fact I am absolutely certain that most people have no idea where their force HQ is or what the boundaries are. They want effective policing and the 'thrilling' world of co-terminoisity and the flukes of 1960s local government planning are an irrelevance.

In 2005 the debate on mergers was overly political, driven top down and vested interest on both sides of the debate drowned out reasoned and balanced argument.

In 2013 the time has come to revisit the issue. The debate needs to be on the real issues in the context of preserving local service delivery in the reality of a transformed national landscape and unprecedented reductions in funding. Anyone who imagines we can make savings by cutting the much quoted and now nearly none existent back office or working more closely with other partners doesn't recognise the reality of the challenge.

The time has come to restart the dialogue.

It's time to Dial 'M' for Merger.

DOES WHAT COUNTS ALWAYS GET COUNTED?

As we hurtle towards the end of the ‘performance year’ and next years Police and Crime Plans are being topped and tailed by PCCs it seems timely to reflect on the ongoing debate about police performance and target setting.

The broader issue of the police approach to performance has been brought under the glare of public scrutiny and comment by the recent media coverage following the IPCC report into the investigation of rape and serious sexual offences in Southwark.

This report prompted an avalanche of comment much of it focusing on the apparent inevitability of perverse outcomes from target setting and the supposedly inherent weak leadership within policing that allowed such practises to operate. Many have sought to make links to the scandal at Mid Staffordshire hospital where the results of achieving targets at all costs appears to have reached a zenith.

However, I am not going to comment on the specifics of these most recent high profile cases.

I’ve had the privilege to lead a range of different teams, including those investigating rape, as well as three years as a BCU Commander steeped in a culture of performance management. I’ve worked within organisations that have grappled to achieve a balance in measuring performance and have got it right and wrong. I am now responsible for the performance of local policing in two forces. So, I feel qualified to discuss the general themes emerging!

 

As a police officer I find it hard to reconcile that colleagues would set out to treat victims poorly so as to deliver a performance target, which itself can often be chosen with little or no regard for the needs of individual victims. Given that many forces also measure victim satisfaction the motivation to treat people badly would seem contradictory.

I also believe the role of senior leaders in these scenarios is less to do with alleged bullying of officers into 'delivering' targets at all costs and more to do with leaders failing to grasp the implications of an overall plan and the impact on the individual victims within it.

Losing sight of the victim and witnesses in this mix also follows when people manage performance as a set of metrics rather than the messages, activities and behaviours which sit behind them. Managing performance is about culture not calculators.

I find it more likely that officers, possibly confronted by reluctant victims/witnesses and all too familiar with the perceived hurdles ahead in the race for a conviction, seek to stop at the first opportunity and persuade themselves that it is in the best interests of the victim. The managers, seeing the improving picture of detections versus recorded crimes satisfy themselves that they too are on track. Meanwhile behind the spreadsheet a tale of missed opportunities and personal trauma can sit undetected.

Now there may be individuals who choose to behave like this but I believe they are a rare exception.

However I do believe that some police forces and other public service organisations continue to frame performance in a manner that may invite ‘corrupt’ behaviour that is neither in a good cause or noble. The debate about who is responsible veers between the organisation and the individual and it is clear to me that both can and have been culpable.

So the solution?

This is not an exhaustive list but I would start with the following.

Organisations need to have a performance framework to judge effectiveness and to enable them to be held accountable. Talk of allowing people just to do the right thing without some kind of measurement is naive.

Targets need to be grounded in priorities determined with communities. Engagement and consultation on target setting therefore needs to be meaningful and genuine.

Targets need to be specific. The more general and all encompassing the more likely they are to produce perverse outcomes.

The plan needs to be simple, focused and understood by communities and staff. All colleagues should be able to recognise where they make a contribution.

Avoid at all costs the attempt to compare organisations with each other. They just invite detractors and well constructed arguments as to why the data is flawed, normally when it is heading in the ‘wrong’ direction.

Data should be the start of the discussion not the sole purpose. I have every expectation that leaders and staff should know what is going on behind the graphs and trends, so that we can focus on solutions rather than debating the relative merits of the percentages.

Don’t be seduced by systems and processes. People deliver service and they transform lives. This is more likely when they are well led and understand what the issues are and what their role and contribution is to solving the problem.

‘Play the long game’. Be confident in your staff to achieve and don’t get distracted by short termism. Whatever change you are a part of needs to be sustainable and reducing crime should not been seen as a snap shot where current activity is driven by the relative performance of the previous month or year.

Finally start from the position ascribed to Albert Einstein, "Not everything that can be counted counts and not everything that counts can be counted.”

Time to call for Inspector Clouseau?

What do we look for in our leaders?

There is a passage from an unused script in the West Wing which poses the question, who would you follow?

1.       The man with crooked associates and two mistresses, who hides his disability, chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day

2.       The man who was sacked twice, used opium in his youth, drank brandy and champagne to excess daily and hid his mental illness

3.       The vegetarian, teetotaling, non-smoking war hero who never had an affair

I hope most would go for FDR (1) or Churchill (2) rather than Hitler (3).

The point is the portrayal of leadership and the requisite skills depend on context and circumstance.

This is why the current furore over direct entry and overseas appointments is such a difficult subject to unravel.

The answer gets even more uncertain when you throw into the mix, what problem is the government trying to solve?

Along with large parts of the service I am absolutely clear that the police are not representative of the wider society that we are entrusted to police. Now let’s be clear, it’s impossible to mirror society but it needs to be representative and it isn’t.

But is direct entry and overseas appointments the answer? Well it’s hard to see how. The military may have many virtues but its leadership is not diverse. When did you last see a woman or black senior officer at the higher echelons of the military? How will importing white men in their 30s assist the police service to address under representation?

So let’s turn to business. Fewer than 3% of FTSE 100 companies have a female CEO and they appointed their first black CEO in 2009 and I don’t think there has been another since.

The scandalous lack of diversity (and not just in terms of gender and ethnicity) in leadership roles across the spectrum of the public and private sector is an issue of national scandal, so why is it felt that policing should be singled out for ‘reform’?

I am the first to acknowledge that the service needs to do more to tackle these profound issues but I cannot work out why we should be singled out for special attention and I am even less clear how the proposals as presented will solve the ‘problem’.

So let’s move to competence.

The government announced this week they have paid out over £15 million in compensation to detainees in Iraq for uncontested cases of torture and human rights abuses. I must have missed the clamour for the public inquiry into the ethics, integrity and leadership within the military that allowed this to happen on their watch. I am even less certain how the National Decision Making model, framed from the ECHR and the values and mission of policing, will be greeted never mind the principles enshrined in policing by consent and accountability to a PCC. It’s not a question of being better than each other; we are different and to assume we are interchangeable is an insult to both the police service and the military.

Then there are the wunderkinds in the City who steered the economy onto the rocks and the politicians who borrowed, then spent and then cut their way out of crisis. I am sure amongst their many skills the ability to deliver over 20% of savings in budgets, whilst maintaining service, will be at the forefront of their applications to join the leadership in policing. Alongside honesty and integrity.

So, in what other organisation would we be making a virtue of getting to the top quickly? The judiciary, medicine, politics, teaching or indeed the military? These are all professions with a career path but I have never heard a government Minister promulgating the virtue of getting to the top of these professions quickly as a goal in itself. Surely it is what you do and what you deliver along the way that helps you learn and improve. It’s about making a difference and building teams and when you get to the ‘top’ you apply what you have learnt to support and lead others to make a difference.

Now, for the record I am not against the appointment of foreign cops to roles within the UK. However, in delivering comparable competence there is no evidence that it will address diversity or under representation. The vast majority of jurisdictions being considered also operate without an officer class in policing so they would bring with them the virtues instilled in them from a lifetime in policing, invariably modelled on the UK.

As a service we export police officers across the globe and they adapt to their new role and generally add value so it would seem hypocritical to say that we are somehow unique and that we only export policing. But prospective candidates for Chief Constable would need to adapt their experience and approach to the UK tradition of policing and acknowledge the constraints that this may place on their leadership and style. So deciding that everyone needs to be armed might be a hindrance!

I am an advocate of a testing, challenging and larger fast track promotion process that could and should discriminate in favour of ability. It may be that we need to focus these schemes to positively attract under represented sections of our communities. But we come back to the underlying challenge. People need to want to join the police and we need to make it a positive choice for them and at the moment that has not been their experience. So in my view this is about building confidence in policing. Announcing by implication that there is a crisis in the leadership and potential within the service seems counterproductive.

But let’s not forget few of us have been recruiting and underrepresented staff profiles just got worse over the last 3 years. As forces move to recruit there is no reason why they cannot focus recruitment and take positive action to attract the best possible candidates from underrepresented groups. This benefits policing and society and should not be seen as a threat by the service.

I do believe that ‘fast track’ should start at the foundation of policing as a constable – this is not some emotional attachment to nostalgia; it is the bedrock upon which policing by consent is built and the challenges facing officers every day is experienced. It is invaluable as learning and should not be so easily dismissed by those who have never experienced it. However this is not an argument for time served or incremental progress through every rank and the service needs to accept that we can be more creative in designing our future.

As is probably clear by now I am unpersuaded by the appointment of superintendent ranks from outside policing. Again police colleagues from other jurisdictions may be able to add a new dimension to our approach but I remain unconvinced that the numbers waiting to land in the UK to police will ever make this more than a symbolic nod to openness whilst avoiding the wider societal problems of under representation.  

I think the police service should do more to attract skilled professionals with expertise in areas such as IT, HR and finance, forensic accounting and covert techniques etc but I cannot understand why they would need to come, or indeed want to come, as police superintendents and spend months training to undertake a generic role when it is their expertise we need. Instead of creating new pathways into policing lets celebrate the police staff that serve the public and deliver policing every day.

Finally let’s not forget the context of the other changes being introduced into policing.

What is the incentive to be a chief officer in your 30s if you have to work till your mid 60s? Why would anyone speed to the top, to end up on a 4 year contract aligned to a PCC and the vagaries and risks associated with the electoral cycle?

So, in acknowledging that policing could and should do better to bolster the breadth and depth of leadership in the service I feel that the approach being advocated from the Home Office fails to recognise the complexity of the issues and seeks to provide simplistic and headline grabbing solutions. While this at least is consistent with many of the solutions proffered to address the ‘problems’ in policing, these solutions have the potential to alter the vital relationships within policing but more importantly in the fundamental relationship policing has with the public.

Which brings me back to the question, what do we look for in our leaders?

Let’s face up to this question and avoid the headline grabbing gimmicks.

MISSION & VALUES FOR USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

This coming week the use of social media within and by the police service is going to be discussed at a round table somewhere in Bramshill, so I thought it timely to volunteer some thoughts.

As is customary I will start by reaffirming these are my views and not necessarily representative of the two police forces I serve. This in itself is an interesting convention because it assumes that I am about to say something which may cause some anxiety, concern or litigation! I’m aiming to do none of them.

In writing this I know that some colleagues in both forces will already be feeling nervous and I can do no more than offer them and anyone else anxious at my access to the internet and a thesaurus, reassurance that I endorse and strive to conduct myself at all times within the Statement of Mission and Values for the Police Service.

My operating principle starts with the use of discretion, professional judgement and common sense. I can think of no better framework to guide my thoughts and actions.

So I tweet and blog about work and the police service in general. I also choose to discuss aspects of my home and personal life. I am very alert to the issues of personal security and safeguarding the privacy of my family. However I do not think they or I are jeopardised by my domestic revelations, cooking tips or commuting calamities.

Neither am I a self obsessed narcissist with an insatiable ego (no, I’m not!) who feels the need to discuss what I had for breakfast (toast) or who cannot function without knowing what other people think of me (really, you do?).

Whilst I am passionate about the vocation and profession of policing I do have a life (!!!) away from work where faith, family and friends help define me as a human being and I want to represent the service as a person not an avatar.

I use social media because I believe I have a positive obligation to engage and communicate about policing and it is an incredibly powerful way to connect with people. I have lost count of the number of times I have met people who already ‘knew’ me because of twitter. The vast majority of these occasions were really positive. We had started our ‘conversation’ and ‘connection’ with each other long before we met and although we were meeting about policing we were invariably talking about life. What a great place to start.

Yes, there have been interactions online and in person that have been less positive. Let’s be absolutely clear that phenomena did not start because of social media and no activity is devoid of risk. However, our role is to identify and manage risk.

In all my conduct as a police officer, both on and off duty, I am accountable for my decisions and actions and I operate on the basis that I need to be able to justify and explain myself. I also strive to act with integrity, compassion, courtesy and patience. The latter is a perennial challenge but I continue to work on it.

In factoring in all of the above I feel able to use social media to engage directly with communities, stakeholders and colleagues for the benefit of both policing and wider society. 

I am conscious that as a senior police officer my views and thoughts are scrutinised and I think very carefully before pressing send. But this discipline is not defined by seniority or role and it is a necessary requirement to underline that, amongst other things, we must strive to show neither fear nor favour in what we do as representatives of the service.

Conversation, discourse and argument are all essential in a democracy (and a mainstay in my house) but they must be conducted in a spirit that is sensitive and dignified and which demonstrates respect for the human rights of all.

So this is my Modus Operandi for social media. But it is also my MO for life and work and I think that is the point. Other than limiting myself to 140 characters I don’t operate differently online than I do in meetings or with colleagues or communities.

Having this framework to work within is why I am able to be a vocal advocate of the wider use of social media in the police service. I want to positively support the use, not begrudgingly surrender to the inevitable. Too much time is taken up discussing what might go wrong at the expense of celebrating the huge impact policing has in positively transforming lives and communities and the part that social media should play.

Let’s be clear, any system can be misused. Anyone with a pencil can be an organisational terrorist but we don’t ban stationary. There have been and will be in the future, many transgressions of common sense and professional judgement via social media. The vast majority are preventable and rectifiable through education and a commitment from individuals and organisations to learn.

However, some are inexplicable, distasteful and unprofessional. My approach to this is uncomplicated. If you want to be offensive, rude or party political via social media or any other interaction then it is not compatible with your role and I believe you should be held accountable for your actions. This can be subjective stuff but integrity and professionalism are personal barometers and in posting comments the test of ‘what will people think’ appears often to have been overlooked.

The recent elections of Police and Crime Commissioners were an interesting test for the service. For the record it was not ACPO who constrained comment on candidates, policies or the electoral process by police officers. It was the law. To be specific, ‘The Representation of the People Act 1983’ and the ‘Police and Crime Commissioners Order 2012’.

As many offenders will tell you the law can be an inconvenience but our job is to uphold it, not ignore it.

I also think that the difference between marching en masse to demonstrate against changes to pay and conditions is a world apart from an individual placing personal commentary on the Government and individuals within it into the public domain.

However, this is not a vote for the Thought Police. I’ve lost count of the times I have been incensed by the inane commentary of a misinformed politician or pundit. But I’ve not gone and shared my thoughts with the wider world in an offensive or party political commentary. If and when I do, I won’t be fulfilling the Oath of Constable.  

I am equally certain that some forces have over reacted or misconstrued the use of social media by their staff. Chief Officers, like everyone else, make mistakes. I’ll say that again.  Chief Officers, like everyone else, make mistakes. They too need to be allowed the opportunity to learn and reflect.

But there will be cases where accounts need to be closed and misconduct proceeding taken against officers and staff. Unlike some journalists and politicians I don’t comment on cases that I am unsighted on and we know that facts can get in the way of a good story. I do recognise that both individuals and organisations have rights and that due process has to be followed.

This leads on to the vexed question of people who comment and communicate in a personal capacity. In my view, once you have identified yourself as a member of the police service you are bound by your professional responsibilities and subject to the same guidance and rules as if you were at work. So, I don’t think the public would expect you to talk to them using the F word so why would it be acceptable to include it in a tweet? You are no longer a private citizen and the ‘none official’ status of your account is, in my view, not a defence.

The solution?

Encourage and enable people who want to speak for the service to do so as members of the service.

Provide them with the training and the ‘rules of engagement’.

Trust them.

Celebrate their success.

Help them learn from their mistakes.

Hold them to account when needed.

Overall embrace the opportunity to engage with communities.

If we did this then the fall back into anonymity would be unnecessary.

In my experience the vast majority of police users of social media, notwithstanding the associated risks, achieve successful outcomes and reduce the risk of harm to individuals and our communities.

And that, when all is said and done, is our Mission.