This policy proposal is written for the attention of the Head of Lowfield Community Safety Partnership (CSP) and will discuss the introduction of ‘Lowfield Patrol Plus’. In accordance with the new scheme, the CSP can choose to purchase either 40 Police Constables (PC) or 75 Police Community Safety Officers (PCSO) on a buy one get one free basis for a period of two years. This policy proposal will consider the implications of both options, the benefits and drawbacks, before making a recommendation as to the best course of action for the CSP.
Benefits of supporting 75 PCSOs:
This recommendation will first discuss the benefits of deploying 75 PCSOs, in relation to the crime context in Lowfield. One of the main problems for the CSP to consider is the ‘reassurance gap’; despite crime declining, residents remain insecure about crime. These insecurities are correlated with a belief that police visibility has decreased, highlighting the expectation gap between public desire for visible patrol and what the police service is able to provide. PCs, due to reactive demands, are often abstracted from communities, leading to public dissatisfaction and subsequent lower levels of confidence. Utilising PCSOs would be beneficial as they were introduced for the purpose of delivering the reassurance agenda, through increased visibility, accessibility and familiarity. With 85% of forces stating visible patrolling is the main priority of a PCSO (Cooper et al, 2006), PCSOs could provide the capable guardianship that is currently redundant (Barker, 2013). Deploying PCSOs is advantageous because it utilises the wider policing family and adds efficiency by freeing up more expensive resources (Innes and Fielding, 2002).
Research in Lowfield suggests that ‘quality of life’ crimes are those that most effect residents perceptions of safety, street drinking, aggressive begging and young people ‘hanging around’. As addressed in the ‘Broken Windows’ thesis, individuals believe that if low level disorder is not dealt with adequately, further decay will occur. Innes referred to these as ‘signal crimes’, despite seemingly trivial, they remind residents of the risks they are potentially exposed to and make them demand greater security, often visible policing (Innes and Fielding, 2002). Deploying PCSOs in Lowfield would be beneficial because these incidents are not always defined as crimes in Law. These issues could be considered ‘nuisances’ that would be better resolved through tackling the root causes, rather than criminalising (Bruinsma and Weisburd, 2014). Utilising PCSOs would be beneficial because they are community focused rather than law enforcing (Innes, 2005). PCSOs are trained to reduce anti social behaviour, give advice and deter crime (Crawford and Lister, 2004). PCSOs ‘control’ signals and help to close the gap between fear of crime and reality (Cooper et al, 2006).
Furthermore, PCSOs would be constructive in building better relationships with residents and increasing trust and confidence. PCSOs spend long periods on the beat, with subsequent analysis illustrating over half of their time is dedicated to visible patrol and community involvement (Cooper et al, 2006). For this reason, PCSOs are referred to as the ‘eyes and ears’ of the community, emanating the ‘neighbourhood bobbie’ (The Police Foundation, 2009). PCSOs gather good working knowledge of the area and are able to build strong relationships with residents. As resources have previously been relocated, familiar staff is likely to be crucial to achieving trust in Lowfield. PCSOs are regarded as more approachable and accessible, making them beneficial “community intelligence conduits”. The public report being more likely to pass on information they thought was too trivial for the police (Cooper et al, 2006; 10).
Under Schedule 4 of the Police Reform Act 2002, PCSOs have 20 standardised powers, with an additional 53 at the discretion of the Chief Constable (College of Policing, 2015). The CSP should acknowledge that PCSOs are confined to smaller grievances and cannot arrest; however, as Lowfield is a lower crime area, this is less problematic. PCSO powers allow them to disperse groups, confiscate substances and give fixed penalty notices for anti social behaviour and graffiti. These would address the concerns, however are discretionary and would therefore need to be agreed upon. PCSOs would furthermore be beneficial by virtue of presence (Barker, 2013). In the evaluation of Reassurance Policing, Cooper found most individuals could not distinguish between PCs and PCSOs, giving them the same stamp of authority (Tuffin et al, 2006). The enhanced number of PCSOs afforded under LPP is likely to mitigate their limited powers and provide more effective policing than 80 PCs would. Theft from person has increased in Lowfield and more patrolling could help deter this. As Sherman found “if PCSOs are deployed tactically, soft policing can achieve comparable crime reductions to hard threat of immediate arrest” (Ariel et al, 2016; 297).
Additionally, PCSOs soft powers often provide a better quality of interaction, which is essential to engage residents and improve confidence. PCSOs rely on negotiation and discussion to resolve incidents, thus build good interpersonal skills (O’Neill, 2014). Moreover, as Lowfield consists of 130 different nationalities, it is beneficial that PCSOs are relatively more diverse. 15% of PCSOs are from ethnic minorities, in comparison to 3.5% of PCs, increasing their perceived legitimacy (Cunningham and Wagstaff, 2006).
Drawbacks of supporting 75 PCSOs:
A drawback that the CSP should consider is that PCSOs have been regarded as semi trained auxiliaries. PCSOs receive 6 weeks training in comparison to PCs who receive 104 weeks, this has been deemed insufficient in terms of safety, conflict management and resolution (Roger and Lewis, 2007). Evaluations of PCSOs suggest many felt they occasionally encountered situations where they felt vulnerable and almost all had experienced physical and verbal abuse (Cooper et al, 2006). Additionally, PCSO training is not standardised, resulting in lack of national consistency (Gilbertson, 2009).
Furthermore, the role of a PCSO is unclear. Evaluations suggest individuals lack awareness of powers, reducing them to community wardens (The Police Foundation, 2009). Moreover, the limited powers of PCSOs make them less versatile. In regards to theft from the person doubling, PCSOs are unable to stop and search, so this may be considered a false economy. PCSOs arguably offer the illusion of security, without having the powers to restore it when it is breached (Barker, 2013). Although PCSOs can detain for 30 minutes, they do not have the powers of arrest and must wait for re-enforcement, rather than taking decisive action. This may foster limited confidence in the PCSOs ability and damage perceptions further (Barker, 2013).
Financially, it is cheaper to employ PCSOs, thus LPP can afford more of them. The CSP should however consider whether this is cheaper policing, rather than better policing, as PCSOs have previously been regarded as a cost cutting exercise. Despite budget cuts, Pointon argues the role of PCSO is inherently problematic and money is better spent on less PCs (Tibbetts, 2008). This contends that visibility alone will not transform perceptions in Lowfield and that quality of service is paramount. Thus, reinforcing the need for a clear role and efficient training (Heenan and Wilkinson, 2008).
Benefits of supporting 40 Police Constables:
A substantial benefit of deploying PCs is that they are an indisputable symbol of security and provide a visible representation of the rule of law (Bahn, 1974). Institutionally, the police are responsible for maintaining social order and hold a special status that PCSOs do not have (Wright, 2001). The concept of the police is something the public have a powerful attachment to, the police are as important for what they symbolise as what they actually do (Innes, 2005). The symbolic and dramaturgic properties of the police mean that residents are always likely to favour PCs, regardless of whether PCSOs are as competent. Deploying PCs is likely to satisfy demands and maximise reassurance.
Additionally, deploying PCs would be beneficial because they hold full constabulary powers and have the jurisdiction to manage most situations. PCs have the states monopoly of legitimate coercion (Barker, 2013), differentiating them from other public servants (Smith and Henry, 2007). The special competence of the police lies in their capacity for decisive action, to many, they are the only people that legitimacy enforce codes of behaviour and solve disputes (Merritt, 2009).
Low level disorders, as reported in Lowfield, have fallen to a lower priority in the policing agenda and has resulted in public dissatisfaction. Deploying PCs would provide opportunity for the police to reconnect with residents and recover legitimacy (Innes, 2005). Evaluations of RP suggest that perceptions of police can be improved through integration, with confidence improving in 16 trial sites and a 15% increase in those that believed the police were doing a ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ job. Findings also illustrated self-reported victimisation decreased and there were perceptions of lower crime (Tuffin et al, 2006).
The CSP should consider that to improve the reassurance gap, there is a need for better communication between police and residents. Utilising PCs would encourage them to engage with the public and become more responsive and accountable to needs of residents (Innes, 2004). Resident confidence is likely to improve once individuals have a direct input on the issues that concern them (Skogan, 1999).
Furthermore, increased community cohesion would have extensive benefits for the CSP. Research suggests better relations result in a ‘virtuous circle’, as individuals come forward more, there will be more arrests and a greater willingness to work with the police (McLaughin, 2007). Residents in turn feel safer and trust increases, increasing their capabilities to self police (Wall et al, 2003). Moreover, as police are treated with more respect, they have greater levels of morale and are able to do their jobs more effectively (App.college.police.uk, 2016). The CSP should consider that PCs rely on community work to maintain vital relationships for intelligence gathering and replacing them risks limiting them to confrontational duties only (Carter, 2012).
Drawbacks of supporting 40 Police Constables:
A drawback of deploying PCs is that they are overqualified to deal with primarily local grievances. PCs are increasingly specialised and could be better utilised in areas that PCSOs cannot work in (Wright, 2001). PCs face an impossible mandate and the CSP should consider whether additional community work is feasible. Additionally, the residents issue are arguably symptoms of other dimensions of social policy, for example, young people ‘hanging around’, could be symptomatic of limited youth services (Innes, 2005). PCs capacity is constrained and they would likely be criticised for concentrating scarce resources on ‘insecurities’, rather than serious crime (McLaughlin, 2007).
Moreover, increased PC involvement would require rapid organisational change. PCs would need to become decentralised, flexible and spend sufficient time in Lowfield (McLaughlin, 2007). The CSP should consider whether this is practical in terms of the new managerialism of policing, where emphasis is placed on performance management. Officers are encouraged to focus on quantifiable crimes and community policing is difficult to receive a tangible result from, thus a new performance measure would be necessary (Merritt, 2010). Resources cannot be ring fenced to specific duties and divisional resources often lead to PCs being abstracted (Wall et al, 2003). This is problematic in terms of engagement as residents would not receive the consistency they require.
The CSP should acknowledge that occupational culture research suggests PCs are reluctant to engage in reassurance policing, favouring hard policing functions. Previous attempts for reform have generated tension and there is seemingly a consensus that community issues are less important (Innes, 2005). Improving perceptions in Lowfield are reliant on the quality of police-public interaction and negative mindsets or ‘working personalities’ are likely to be unhelpful. If the CSP decides to deploy PCs, retraining them to understand the link between order maintenance and crime control could be beneficial (McLaughlin, 2007).
Statistically, despite public demand, visible patrolling is shown to be ineffective. Newark and Flint found introducing or withdrawing foot patrols had no effect on crime levels. Similarly, Hopkins found there was little variation in perceptions of safety when being patrolled by PCs or PCSOs (Hopkins, 2015). This proposal would therefore contend that PCs would not be good value for money or effectiveness and that PCSOs offer a cheaper, feasible alternative.
Lastly, the CSP must consider the negative opinions of the police and how these could impact on relations. PCs have reported that community work is “easier said than done”, due to history of police misconduct and previous negative encounters (Herrington and Millie, 2004; 8). Residents that have been disappointed before are likely to be skeptical and fostering relationships of trust takes times and considerable effort (App.college.police.uk, 2016), of which PCs are unlikely to be able to give.
Recommendation:
Overall, this proposal recommends that it would be more effective for the CSP to deploy 75 PCSOs under LPP. The main reasoning for this is that residents report being concerned with low level disorders, rather than significant crime problems that require high levels of enforcement. Closing the gap between fear of crime and reality is of upmost importance and requires time and education. Reassurance extends beyond the capabilities of the police and is best performed by a plurality of providers. Deploying PCSOs would provide residents with the visibility, accessibility and familiarity that they desire and would act to ‘control’ their concerns. PCSOs are a cost effective alternative that free up resources and allow PCs to be utilised for more specialist demands.