The Scottish Parliament - Justice Committee Report

Jim Barker-McCardle, Deputy Chief Constable, National Policing Improvement Agency;
Rachel Tuffin, Research Officer, Home Office;
Professor Martin Innes, Director, Universities Police Science Institute, Cardiff University;
Professor Adam Crawford, Director, Centre for Criminal Justice Studies, University of Leeds;
Professor Wesley Skogan, Professor of Political Science, Northwestern University, USA;
Dr Daniel Donnelly, Scottish Centre for Police Studies;
Alistair Henry, Lecturer in Criminology, University of Edinburgh.

13th Meeting, 2008 (Session 3), Tuesday 27 May 2008

Oral Evidence

Paddy Tomkins, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland, Malcolm Dickson, Assistant Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland, and George Denholm, Staff Officer, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland;
William Campbell, Chairman, and James Carr Watson, Treasurer, Association of Scottish Neighbourhood Watches;
Professor Norman Bonney, Vice-President, Association of Scottish Community Councils.

14th Meeting, 2008 (Session 3), Tuesday 3 June 2008

Oral Evidence

Councillor Paul Rooney, Convener, Strathclyde Joint Police Board and Chair of the Scottish Police Authorities Conveners Forum;
Councillor Martin Greig, Convener, Grampian Joint Police Board and Member of the Scottish Police Authorites Conveners Forum;
Councillor Iain Whyte, Convener, Lothian Joint Police Board and Member of the Scottish Police Authorities Conveners Forum;
David Higgins, Secretary, Scottish Police Authorities Conveners Forum;
Joe Grant, General Secretary, Scottish Police Federation;
Chief Superintendent Val McHoull, President, and Chief Superintendent Matt Hamilton, Association of Scottish Police Superintendents;
Chief Constable John Vine, Tayside Police, Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland.

16th Meeting, 2008 (Session 3), Tuesday 17 June 2008

Oral Evidence

Kathy Tooke, Neighbourhood Warden Co-ordinator, Renfrewshire Council, Scottish Community Warden Managers' Network;
Liz Kay, Community Safety Manager, Dundee City Council, Scottish Community Warden Managers' Network;
Sid Pask, Community Warden Co-ordinator, Stirling Council, Scottish Community Warden Managers' Network;
Colin Bain, Wardens and Antisocial Behaviour Co-ordinator, Scottish Borders Council, Scottish Community Warden Managers' Network.

17th Meeting, 2008 (Session 3), Tuesday 24 June 2008

Oral Evidence

Sir Ronnie Flanagan, Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary;
Chief Constable Stephen House, and Chief Superintendent Anne McGuire, Head of Community Policing Implementation, Strathclyde Police;
Kenny MacAskill MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Justice; Alastair Merrill, Deputy Director, Police Powers, Performance and Resources, Scottish Government.

Written evidence is published separately on the Committee’s web‑page at:
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/justice/inquiries/CommunityPolicing/index.htm

ANNEXE C: NOTES OF FACT-FINDING VISITS

Remit and membership

Remit:

To consider and report on (a) the administration of criminal and civil justice, community safety, and other matters falling within the responsibility of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and (b) the functions of the Lord Advocate, other than as head of the systems of criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths in Scotland.

Membership:

Bill Aitken (Convener)
Robert Brown
Bill Butler (Deputy Convener)
Angela Constance
Cathie Craigie
Nigel Don
Paul Martin
Stuart McMillan

Committee Clerking Team:

Douglas Wands
Anne Peat
Euan Donald
Christine Lambourne

Report on Inquiry into Community Policing

The Committee reports to the Parliament as follows—

Introduction

1. In 2007 the Justice Committee undertook an inquiry into the effective use of police resources. One aspect of this inquiry was the consideration of the effective delivery of community policing. In its report, the Committee expressed concern about the delivery of community policing —

“The Committee is extremely concerned at the lack of a clear, commonly agreed definition of community policing among Scottish police forces and the Scottish Government.”¹

2. The Committee report went on to note that while a “one size fits all” approach was not appropriate for policing in Scotland there was a need for a clear definition of community policing, so as to enable measurement and monitoring of its delivery and to establish a baseline figure of officers assigned to community policing roles.

3. It was with these continuing concerns in mind that the Committee agreed to undertake a detailed inquiry into the delivery of community policing in Scotland.

Inquiry remit
4. The initial remit for the inquiry was—

“To review the purpose and effectiveness of community policing in Scotland including consideration of the definition of community policing and the resources currently available for community policing.”

5. In order to focus the inquiry still further, in issuing the call for evidence, the Committee posed the following questions—

What do the police and other stakeholders (including the Scottish Government, local authorities and the general public) understand by the term ‘community policing’?
What level of priority do the police and other stakeholders give community policing as compared with other elements of police work?
Does more emphasis need to be placed on community policing (with more resources being directed to that area)?
How do services other than police forces contribute to community policing?
What examples are there of good practice in relation to community policing (both within Scotland and elsewhere)?
What examples are there of good practice in relation to community warden schemes and other local initiatives which assist in the policing of communities?
Do community policing initiatives face any common problems (e.g. it has been suggested that officers are likely to be extracted from community policing duties where staffing needs arise in other areas)?
What impact have community policing initiatives had on: (a) community-police relations; (b) the prevention and detection of both crime and antisocial behaviour; and (c) perceptions of crime and antisocial behaviour within communities (e.g. the ‘fear of crime’)?
What challenges face communities in articulating their policing needs and what are the views of communities about participating in policing?
What different mechanisms are used to engage local communities in policing and what is the perceived effectiveness of these mechanisms from both a police and community perspective?

6. In the course of this report, the Committee seeks to answer these questions. Before doing so, however, the report sets out the background to community policing and policing in Scotland more generally. The report also explores initiatives taken so far by the current Scottish Government and finally sets out the Committee’s vision for how best community policing can be delivered in Scotland.

Evidence taking
7. To inform the Committee’s report, the Committee launched a call for written evidence, seeking responses by 5 May. The Committee received 13 responses. For a list of those who submitted evidence please see the Committee’s website.

8. The Committee began taking oral evidence on 20 May, concluding the process on 24 June.

9. The Committee took oral evidence in the following format—

Tuesday 20 May 2008

Jim Barker-McCardle, Deputy Chief Constable, National Policing Improvement Agency;
Rachel Tuffin, Research Officer, Home Office;
Professor Martin Innes, Director, Universities Police Science Institute, Cardiff University;
Professor Adam Crawford, Director, Centre for Criminal Justice Studies, University of Leeds;
Professor Wesley Skogan, Professor of Political Science, Northwestern University, USA;
Dr Daniel Donnelly, Scottish Centre for Police Studies; and
Alistair Henry, Lecturer in Criminology, University of Edinburgh.

Tuesday 27 May 2008

Paddy Tomkins, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland, Malcolm Dickson, Assistant Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland, and George Denholm, Staff Officer, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland;
William Campbell, Chairman, and James Carr Watson, Treasurer, Association of Scottish Neighbourhood Watches; and
Professor Norman Bonney, Vice-President, Association of Scottish Community Councils.

Tuesday 3 June 2008

Councillor Paul Rooney, Convener, Strathclyde Joint Police Board and Chair of the Scottish Police Authorities Conveners Forum;
Councillor Martin Greig, Convener, Grampian Joint Police Board and Member of the Scottish Police Authorites Conveners Forum;
Councillor Iain Whyte, Convener, Lothian Joint Police Board and Member of the Scottish Police Authorities Conveners Forum;
David Higgins, Secretary, Scottish Police Authorities Conveners Forum;
Joe Grant, General Secretary, Scottish Police Federation;
Chief Superintendent Val McHoull, President, and Chief Superintendent Matt Hamilton, Association of Scottish Police Superintendents; and
Chief Constable John Vine, Tayside Police, Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland.

Tuesday 17 June

Kathy Tooke, Neighbourhood Warden Co-ordinator, Renfrewshire Council, Scottish Community Warden Managers' Network;
Liz Kay, Community Safety Manager, Dundee City Council, Scottish Community Warden Managers' Network;
Sid Pask, Community Warden Co-ordinator, Stirling Council, Scottish Community Warden Managers' Network; and
Colin Bain, Wardens and Antisocial Behaviour Co-ordinator, Scottish Borders Council, Scottish Community Warden Managers' Network.

Tuesday 24 June

Sir Ronnie Flanagan, Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary;
Chief Constable Stephen House, and Chief Superintendent Anne McGuire, Head of Community Policing Implementation, Strathclyde Police;
Kenny MacAskill MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Justice; and
Alastair Merrill, Deputy Director, Police Powers, Performance and Resources, Scottish Government.

Fact-finding visits
10. In addition to taking evidence in a formal setting, the Committee conducted a series of fact-finding visits between 15 April and 19 May. The Committee visited Dundee, the Scottish Borders and Motherwell. The Committee was also due to visit Central Scotland Police, but due to circumstances beyond the control of the Committee, the visit had to be cancelled. Notes of these visits can be found at annexe C.

Background

11. Before setting out the evidence the Committee has taken in its inquiry and the conclusions the Committee has reached, it is important to first set out the context in which the police in Scotland operate in terms of organisation and development.

Organisation of the police

12. This section of the report provides background information on: the organisation of the police; police duties and powers; police governance; police funding; police support services; and the role of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland.

Police Forces
13. Scotland has eight territorial police forces:—

Central Scotland Police
Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary
Fife Constabulary
Grampian Police
Lothian and Borders Police
Northern Constabulary
Strathclyde Police
Tayside Police

14. These eight forces came into being in 1975 as a result of local government reorganisation. Prior to the reorganisation there were 22 forces operating in Scotland, but regionalisation of local government precipitated the amalgamation of the forces into the existing eight forces.² In spite of the move away from regionalisation in the 1996 reorganisation of local government, the model has been retained for police forces.

15. The forces vary in size from Strathclyde Police, which covers half of the population and area of Scotland, to Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary which has fewer officers than one Strathclyde Division.³

16. In addition to the eight territorial police forces, the British Transport Police, Ministry of Defence Police and Civil Nuclear Constabulary operate in Scotland. Unlike the eight territorial forces, these forces fall under UK rather than Scottish jurisdiction.⁴

Police force organisation
17. In general, the eight forces are organised along similar lines with a physical distinction between headquarters and divisions. Headquarters is where the senior management of the force is situated and where matters pertaining to central strategic planning, central administration and central services are based. Divisions are geographical units that deal with policing in local areas. While the forces are generally organised in this manner there is some variation in the autonomy given to the divisions.⁵

18. Forces are also divided in terms of general operations and specialist operations. General operations are routine tasks undertaken by uniformed patrol officers in the divisions. Specialists operations concern tasks which require specific training and experience. Specialist operations include Criminal Investigations Department (CID) work, traffic, child protection units and wildlife crime.⁶

19. Specialisms also include those functions which support the organisation. These include human resource management, training, health and safety and organisational development. In many of these areas police officers have been replaced by civilian support staff.

Police officers
Within the eight forces, police officers are divided into the following ranks:

(1) Chief Constable	(6) Chief Inspector
(2) Deputy Chief Constable	(7) Inspector
(3) Assistant Chief Constable	(8) Sergeant
(4) Chief Superintendent	(9) Constable
(5) Superintendent	(10) Probationary Constable

21. These ranks are represented by three distinct staff associations. The Scottish Chief Police Officers' Staff Association represents chief police officers and senior support staff,⁷ the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents (ASPS) represents Superintendents and Chief Superintendents and the Scottish Police Federation (SPF) represents Chief Inspectors, Inspectors, Sergeants and Constables.⁸

ACPOS
22. In addition to the three staff associations, there is the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland (ACPOS). It is comprised of the chief police officers and senior support staff of the eight Scottish police forces, the Scottish Police Services Authority, the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency, and the Assistant Chief Constable of the British Transport Police (Scotland). Its aims are as follows:

to promote excellent leadership;
to coordinate and develop policing policy;
to set strategic objectives for policing in Scotland;
to promote efficient and effective policing in Scotland; and
to promote greater partnership working, particularly with central and local government. ⁹

23. Formally a staff association, ACPOS has evolved in to the strategic body which oversees and co-ordinates all aspects of the direction and development of the Scottish Police Service as a whole. Senior support staff and superintending ranks are also involved in its business. Developments are overseen by the Council of Chief Constables beneath which are eight standing committees focusing on a particular aspect of the service or business area.

Police duties and powers

24. The Police (Scotland) Act 1967 details the general functions of the police and imposes on them the duties to guard, patrol and watch so as to prevent the commission of offences; preserve order; and protect life and property. The duties of the police are further set out in the report of the 1962 Royal Commission:

to maintain law and order and protect persons and property;
to prevent crime;
to detect criminals and, in the course of interrogating suspected persons, play a part in the early stages of the judicial process, acting under judicial restraint;
to control road traffic and advise local authorities on traffic questions;
to carry out certain duties on behalf of Government departments - for example, to conduct enquiries on applicants for British nationality; and
by long tradition, to befriend anyone who needs their help, and to cope with any minor or major emergency which may arise. ¹⁰

25. Following a Home Office Review of Police Core and Ancillary Tasks in 1995 a Scottish Review was conducted into the role and duties of the police.¹¹ However, this did not lead to a new definition and the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 Act continues to define the statutory role and duties of the police.

Police governance

26. The Police (Scotland) Act 1967 provides for a ‘tripartite’ sharing of responsibility for policing between the Scottish Ministers, police authorities or joint police boards and Chief Constables.

The Scottish Ministers
27. The Scottish Ministers have overall responsibility for policing policy in Scotland. In carrying out this responsibility they are answerable to the Scottish Parliament.

28. Scottish Ministers have the power to make regulations concerning the terms and conditions, and certain duties, of police officers. In exercising this power they are advised by the UK Police Negotiating Board (pay and conditions) and the Police Advisory Board for Scotland (other matters). ¹²

Police Authorities and Joint Police Boards
29. Since the reorganisation of local government in Scotland into unitary local authorities in 1996, two of the eight Scottish police forces (Dumfries & Galloway and Fife) have been administered by Police Authorities. Each Police Authority covers a single local authority area and consists of councillors from that local authority. The other six police forces are covered by six Joint Police Boards. Each Joint Police Board consists of representatives from the various councils covered by the relevant force area. At present, the number of local authorities involved in a single Joint Police Board ranges from three to 12 councils. Details of the local authorities involved with each police force are set out in the table below.¹³

Police Force	Local Authorities
Central Scotland	Clackmannanshire, Falkirk, Stirling
Dumfries & Galloway	Dumfries & Galloway
Fife	Fife
Grampian	Aberdeen City, Aberdeenshire, Moray
Lothian & Borders	City of Edinburgh, East Lothian, Midlothian, Scottish Borders, West Lothian
Northern	Highland, Orkney, Shetland, Western Isles
Strathclyde	Argyll & Bute, City of Glasgow, East Ayrshire, East Dunbartonshire, East Renfrewshire, Inverclyde, North Ayrshire, North Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire, South Ayrshire, South Lanarkshire, West Dunbartonshire
Tayside	Angus, Dundee City, Perth & Kinross

30. A Police Authority or Joint Police Board is responsible for:

setting the budget for its force;
appointing senior police officers (with the agreement of the Scottish Ministers);
determining the numbers of police officers and civilian support staff for its area;
appointing civilian support staff (such staff, once appointed, come under the control of the Chief Constable); and
playing a role in securing best value and continuous improvement within its force.¹⁴

Chief Constables
31. The final element of the governance of police forces is the Chief Constable. Chief Constables are appointed by the relevant police authority after consultation with and subject to the approval of the Scottish Ministers. Although the Chief Constable is accountable to the police authority or joint police board, the management and utilisation of both police and support staff is under the direct control of the Chief Constable, providing operational independence.

Police funding

Police Grant Aided Expenditure (GAE)
32. The Scottish Ministers determine a total for Police Grant Aided Expenditure (GAE) each year. This is an estimate of the money required by the Scottish police forces to cover running costs for that year. In determining GAE the Scottish Ministers set the amount of money which the Scottish Government is prepared to make available to each police authority. However, it is the relevant police authority which sets the budget for a police force and this may be set at, above or below the level of GAE determined by Ministers. Assuming the budget for a police force is set at or below the level set for GAE, the Government provides 51% of the money required – covered by the ‘Police Grant’. The remaining 49% is provided by the local authority (from revenue support grant, non-domestic rate income and the council tax). Where spending is greater than the GAE level, the local authority must cover all of the costs incurred over and above the GAE limit.¹⁵

33.In addition to this, there is flexibility in police funding for the Scottish Government to provide additional funding relating to a special project or “extraordinary demands” upon a force.¹⁶

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland (HMICS)

34. HMICS is responsible for inspecting the eight Scottish police forces and five police services.

35. HMICS operates independently of the Police Forces, Police Authorities and the Scottish Government and exists to monitor and improve the police services in Scotland by:

inspecting and advising Police Forces and the services provided by the Scottish Police Services Authority;
carrying out annual reports;
carrying out 'Thematic' Inspections; and
providing advice to Scottish Ministers.¹⁷

36. Even though HMICS is independent of the Scottish Government, Ministers can call upon the Inspectorate to undertake particular pieces of work. Its staff include HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary (normally a former chief constable), the Lay Inspector (with no police background), police officers on secondment from police forces and civil servants employed by the Scottish Government. ¹⁸

Community Policing: Historical Context

37. This part of the report considers the historical development of community policing.

38. Community policing is not a new phenomenon. What we now might term community policing could be considered to have been the norm in the 1950s and early part of the 1960s. This so-called ‘golden age’ of policing referred to a time in the 1950s and 1960s when police officers walked the streets of their local communities, when telephones were not common place and to report a crime, members of the public came into contact with their local officer(s) whether this was on the street or at the local police station.¹⁹

39. In the course of the 1960s, with more use of police cars, radio communication and greater public ownership of telephones, this regular engagement with communities was lost. There was also a shift to more response led policing, which again contributed to a move away from engagement with the community on a regular basis.²⁰

40. In Policing Scotland, Dan Donnelly and Ken Scott suggest that in course of the 1970s, continuing through the 1980s and 1990s to the present day, there was a reversal of this trend, as forces attempted to implement community policing.²¹

HMICS reviews

41. HMICS has inquired specifically into the delivery of community policing on two separate occasions in the last six years, in 2002 and in 2004.

42. In 2002, HMICS published its Thematic Inspection report on police visibility and public reassurance, 'Narrowing the Gap', which observed that:

“… there is a need for the police to address more coherently the management of demands and expectations in the community, to minimise variances between public perceptions of need and service delivery in targeting priorities”²²

43. HMICS recommended that forces take renewed steps to review the extent to which they are accessible to their communities; that they develop the opportunities which exist to optimise community intelligence; accord due status to patrol and community policing as distinctive elements of service delivery and explore novel ways of engaging civic interest and skills in voluntary assistance to the police within the community.²³

44. In 2004 HMICS undertook a study into policing in the community and drew the following conclusions—

“In determining how communities are being policed, the study highlights that in terms of Community Policing, there are varying styles and approaches with different labels and designations applied to Community Police roles with roughly the same aims. While local creativity and responsiveness are desirable, HMIC considers that there is a need for more consistent force and national strategies in this area. HMIC found a common concern from community officers regarding:

The high level of abstractions from their primary role

Their role being misunderstood and unappreciated by peers, supervisors and senior managemet

HMIC therefore sees a need to clarify what is understood by Community Policing and to develop more coherent community policing strategies which will embrace emerging developments in problem solving, the National Intelligence Model (NIM), restorative justice, warden schemes and the partnership elements of Community Planning. These same developments require a re-examination of the training delivered to community officers, to ensure a more consistent and standardised approach and to recognise the increasingly specialist nature of the community policing role.”²⁴

45. The HMICS report went on to draw a number of other conclusions about the delivery of community policing in Scotland in 2004 as well as making recommendations to both ACPOS and the eight forces on how delivery could be improved.

46. The report also reflected upon community planning, Community Safety Partnerships and more generally, partnership work. While acknowledging some good work in these areas, it found an uneven picture across Scotland, but accepted that community planning legislation was relatively new and, as such, in some forces had had limited time to develop.²⁵

47. However, the report’s main conclusions were focussed on the lack of coherent community policing strategies and priority given to community policing and the report concluded—

“A lack of any consistent or standardised approach to community policing is evident, largely due to the continuing challenge of meeting reactive resource and operational demands. There is an opportunity to redefine community policing strategy at force and national levels, in line with emerging developments in NIM (National Intelligence Model), joint problem solving and warden schemes. Central to this study is the relationship between the police and the community and the evolution of new policing models to embrace public reassurance. The strategic thrust of the report, therefore, is to suggest a stronger bias towards proactive crime prevention and problem solving, within a climate of strong community support and partnership working as a foundation for policing styles.”²⁶

cOMMUNITY POLICING IN SCOTLAND TODAY

48. Against the background of the HMICS findings, the Committee sought first to establish what the position with regard to community policing is in Scotland today.

49. In the course of this section of the report, the Committee considers the current definitions of community policing, the priority given to community policing in Scotland more generally and sets out how the eight forces are delivering community policing in practice.

What is community policing?

50. As set out in the inquiry remit, one of the initial aims of the Committee was to endeavour to establish a definition or common understanding of what practitioners and commentators commonly refer to as “community policing”.

51. Having developed a significant degree of understanding of community policing in the course of its earlier inquiry into the effective use of police resources, the Committee appreciated that this would not be an easy task, may indeed prove impossible to achieve and may ultimately not be as vital to improving the delivery of community policing in Scotland as other factors.

52. In its inquiry into the effective use of police resources, there was also a recognition by the Committee that a “one size fits all” model for community policing was not necessarily desirable, and that there needed to be scope for forces to have the flexibility to vary their community policing strategy to reflect their geography and populations.

53. In the course of the inquiry, the Committee invited those providing evidence to give their vision of what constitutes community policing.

Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy (CAPS)
54. Among those to give their opinion was Professor Wesley Skogan of Northwestern University, USA who discussed his experience of community policing having studied the Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy (CAPS).

55. CAPS was introduced in 1993. Professor Skogan has been studying it for the whole of its lifetime, examining its evolution and effectiveness. In fact, Professor Skogan began looking at CAPS in 1992 prior to its introduction.

56. The Committee was grateful to Professor Skogan for sharing many of his research findings as a contribution to the Committee’s inquiry.

57. With the introduction of CAPS, 2,800 officers were designated as community beat officers to serve Chicago’s 280 beats. Each team consists of nine officers, plus a sergeant who is assigned to coordinate their activities. The 911 emergency system was reconfigured to concentrate their activities in their assigned beat, effectively restructuring the daily work of thousands of patrol officers. The system prioritises dispatching in a way that keeps them in their beat about 70 percent of the time, with some “unassigned” time available for getting out of their cars to attend meetings and talk with residents, merchants and building managers. ²⁷

58. One of the main features of CAPS is its focus on community engagement. In Chicago’s plan, beat community meetings are the most important mechanism for building and sustaining close relationships between police and the public. Police beats are the department’s smallest administrative unit: there are 280 beats, and on average about 250 meetings are held each month, involving about 6,700 residents. Residents meet with an average of five police officers, most of whom regularly patrol in the area. Beat officers working on other shifts are paid overtime to attend, to ensure that day-time and late-night problems are also discussed. Officers serving in specialised units, such as gang officers or detectives, are often present as well, along with a representative of the police district’s neighborhood relations unit. Meetings are sometimes attended by representatives of the city’s service departments and area community organisations, and the local aldermen’s staff.²⁸

59. The meetings are designed to provide a forum for exchanging information and a venue for identifying, analysing and prioritising problems in an area. Local crime maps, “Top Ten” lists of the most frequent crimes, and other informational materials are distributed at the meetings. There is always a discussion of what has happened with regard to issues raised at the last meeting, and this provides some community oversight of police activity. The new business segments of the meetings focus on identifying new issues and debating whether they are general problems or just the concern of one resident. Beat meetings are also a very convenient place to distribute announcements about upcoming community events, circulate petitions, and call for volunteers to participate in action projects. Importantly, they also provide occasions for residents and police who work in the area and will likely answer their calls to meet face-to-face and get acquainted. ²⁹

60. Drawing on his experience of CAPS, Professor Skogan explained to the Committee what he viewed to be the key features of community policing—

“The first principle is to establish what we call a turf orientation, which has to do with decentralising police and affixing responsibility for particular pieces of geography—neighbourhoods, police beats and precincts—to individual units.

The second principle is civic engagement, the organisation of which by communities and police departments varies enormously from city to city. Some places have advisory committees to the chief of police, some have citizens police academies and some conduct public opinion polls. In Chicago, which I will talk about later, we have public meetings between the police officers who work in neighbourhoods and the residents who live in them.

The third feature of community policing in the United States is that, of necessity, it involves the police adopting an extremely broad problem-solving view of the nature of the problems that they face. For reasons that I can discuss, that is one of the prices of civic engagement. The public come to meetings to talk about their problems. The police must be organised to respond affirmatively, if only by connecting systemically with other city services.

The three general principles of community policing are turf orientation, civic engagement and a broad problem-solving focus, but how it manifests itself in every municipality is strikingly different.”³⁰

Conclusion on CAPS research
61. The Committee recognised the extent and quality of research conducted by Professor Skogan into CAPS. The duration and depth of scrutiny he has dedicated to CAPS is admirable and appears to have contributed significantly to its evolution.

Neighbourhood Policing
62. In England and Wales community policing has come under the auspices of a national neighbourhood policing programme.

63. In the White Paper ‘Building Communities, Beating Crime’³¹, the UK Government set out its vision for policing in England and Wales that is accessible and responsive to citizens. This was to be achieved by having Neighbourhood Policing Teams in every neighbourhood in England and Wales by 2008, supported by Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs).

64. By 2005, 43 pathfinder areas were established to pilot neighbourhood policing in local command areas in forces across England and Wales.

65. There are currently more than 12,000 Police Constables and Sergeants dedicated to neighbourhood policing across England and Wales supported by more than 16,000 PCSOs.
Neighbourhood policing has several distinctive features. It is delivered by a team typically made up of—

uniformed police officers who will act as team leaders and will tackle crimes that require the full use of police powers;
PCSOs who will provide a high visibility presence and will use their more limited powers (e.g. fixed penalty notices);
Special Constables and other volunteers;
local authority wardens; and
partners from other organisations, such as housing managers, youth workers, the health services, the fire service and local ward councillors.

67. Neighbourhood policing teams are intended to be permanent, dedicated, visible teams with a specific responsibility for a defined neighbourhood, and who are known by and easily accessible to the public.

68. Neighbourhood policing teams work closely with local authorities, voluntary groups, businesses, criminal justice agencies and other partners to tackle issues. An integral part of Neighbourhood Policing is therefore a problem-solving approach.

69. HMICS drew the Committee’s attention to the definition of ‘neighbourhood policing’—

“dedicated resources to avoid abstracting officers to duties outside neighbourhoods;
community engagement to identify and address priority problems;
stronger partnership working arrangements and mechanisms to target resources at local priorities, such as joint tasking and coordination groups through NIM; and
organisational and cultural change to support the emphasis on local problem solving.”³²

Scottish perspective of community policing
70 In its written submission, the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents (ASPS) set out a definition of community policing, which included many similar features to that presented by Professor Skogan—

“Policing that is locally accessible, accountable, responsive and visible within the communities that they serve, taking a consultative and problem solving approach with both communities and local partner agencies.”³³

71. However, when giving oral evidence, Chief Superintendent Val McHoull of ASPS was doubtful of the value of imposing a nationally defined model of community policing given the diversity of Scotland. Instead, she advocated the adoption of a common ethos.³⁴
72. She went on to provide greater detail on what she saw as the key elements to community policing—

“It is about visible, accessible officers in the community, who are there not just to attend community meetings and run youth initiatives but to deal with crime in their area. They are there to understand their community—not just residents but business premises and so on—and the issues that arise and, collectively with other partners, to come up with long-term, proactive, preventive solutions. It is about early intervention and crime reduction.”³⁵

73. William Campbell, Chairman of the Association of Scottish Neighbourhood Watches (AOSNW), provided the Committee with a definition of community policing—

“There is general agreement that "community policing" means the provision of designated officers to cover a specific area of a town or city or, in rural areas, several villages or hamlets. Those officers will be seen as part of the community rather than as a separate entity. They will probably patrol on foot or on bicycle… and will communicate with members of the public while they are on patrol. They will not just keep themselves to themselves; they will talk to the public.”³⁶

74. As previously noted, in 2004 HMICS had called for greater consistency and uniformity in the delivery of community policing. In its written submission, HMICS recognised the allure of a standardised approach to community policing, an approach advocating a return to a so-called “traditional approach”, which prioritises high visibility and local accessibility.

75. In evidence to the Committee, the current HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Paddy Tomkins, was not convinced of the value of uniformity in community policing—

“I feel some unease with the idea of a uniform model that would apply to all areas of Scotland. I know that the committee has heard about the neighbourhood policing model in England and Wales. I have reservations about that model. Scotland is diverse, and we are able to deliver the agreed benefits of community policing in very different ways, depending on the circumstances.”³⁷

76. Malcolm Dickson of HMICS argued that it is impossible to define community policing—

“Trying to define community policing is like pinning the wave to the sand. It might be better to talk about the benefits that come from community policing.”³⁸

77. Paddy Tomkins, HMCIC, went on to say that all policing is serving the community and as such could be termed community policing—

“One concern that I would like to voice at this stage is that if we see community policing as a distinct discipline within policing, we do a disservice to our police officers and misrepresent the nature of policing in Scotland. You would be hard pushed to find a police officer at any stage of service, undertaking any role in the police service, who did not join to serve the community and does not believe that they are serving the community in whatever role they are undertaking.”³⁹

78. Councillor Paul Rooney, Convener of Strathclyde Police Board, argued that there was little value in defining community policing—

“The starting point is that the Scottish police authorities conveners forum is clear that spending time trying to define community policing will not enable us to move forward and deliver what communities want. Communities are clear about what they want—we will explore that in due course. We must ensure that we incorporate within the definition of community policing the visibility that communities want. We have had successes throughout Scotland where we have employed visible policing and we have seen the results—reductions in crime and, perhaps more important, in the perception of crime.”⁴⁰

79. Joe Grant, President of the Scottish Police Federation (SPF), explained why the SPF too thought there was little merit in defining community policing—

“We think community policing should comprise a focus on establishing community priorities and on crime and antisocial behaviour. That has to be integrated with other policing responses. In other words, it cannot be separated entirely from response policing or specialist policing services, but must be focused on engaging all members of the community and local authority and other service providers, and on getting problems solved in the most appropriate way, by the most appropriate agency. It must involve reporting and publicising results in meaningful statistical information that relates to neighbourhoods and communities, and it must have high policing priority. In our view, some attention must be paid to abstraction. We were attempting not to redefine or to avoid the term "community policing", but to give the concept greater breadth.”⁴¹

80. At the same time, however, Joe Grant did indicate that providing consistency in the terms used to describe community policing would assist the communities the police serve and in turn improve engagement between the police and communities.⁴²
81. Giving oral evidence on behalf of ACPOS, Chief Constable John Vine also recognised that there was a lack of consistency in the terminology used in community policing, but was keen that this consistency should not be achieved to the detriment of local initiatives. ⁴³

82. In its written submission, ACPOS suggested that given the variety of policing needs across Scotland it is impossible to develop a “one size fits all model” for community policing in Scotland. At the same time, however ACPOS recognised that there were recurring features, which underpin community policing—

“Central to the delivery of community policing in Scotland is the objective of providing high police visibility to reassure the public, with officers addressing local issues through a problem solving approach that engages with local partners/agencies and the community as a whole, and is sufficiently flexible to meet the varied needs of Scotland’s communities. It is a style of policing in which the police interact closely with members of communities in order to address the specific concerns of those communities through readily identifiable and named individuals, whether those individuals are Police Officers, Special Constables or other staff.”⁴⁴

83. Drawing on the evidence it received, from both within and outwith Scotland, the Committee believes that establishing a single, universal and coherent definition of community policing would be an extremely difficult task. Indeed, the Committee contends that seeking to do so would perhaps be counter productive. Scotland is an economically, socially and environmentally diverse country and no simple community policing model could meet the needs of all of its communities.

84. However, the Committee noted that while witnesses indicated that it was a difficult task to try to define community policing, the majority of witnesses did go on to identify key elements of effective community policing.

85. Drawing on the views of witnesses, the Committee identified key elements which it considers lie at the heart of community policing:

visible and accessible officers in the community;
readily identifiable and named officers;
dedicated resources;
a response to crime in the area;
clearly defined geographic boundaries;
a problem-solving approach;
civic engagement;
consultation with the community;
partnership working; and
public reassurance.

86. The Committee also recommends that there should be increased standardisation in the terminology used to describe community police officers. The Committee believes a term could be agreed upon for the benefit of the police, but more importantly for the benefit of the police’s partners and communities.

What priority is community policing given?

87. In the course of the inquiry the Committee gained an appreciation of the level of priority given to community policing in Scotland today and considered what could be done to improve the status accorded to it.

88. In evidence, Sir Ronnie Flanagan, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary for England and Wales, was keen to stress that community policing should be at the core of policing and should not be seen as an “add on”—

“Neighbourhood policing should be seen not as some special adjunct to policing or as separate to, for example, counter-terrorism measures or efforts to deal with serious and organised crime, but as very much integral to the fabric of policing.”⁴⁵

89. In its written submission, ACPOS affirmed its commitment to community policing—

“…real success in addressing local problems and providing the levels of reassurance and satisfaction which meet local community expectations.”⁴⁶

90.. That said, ACPOS was keen to stress that the first priority should be providing an emergency response and providing community policing must be balanced against other priorities.⁴⁷

91. In order to ensure that police forces can commit more resources to community policing, ACPOS indicated that there is a need to manage demand and public opinion, so that less resources are committed to response policing.⁴⁸

92. In its written submission, ASPS argued that community policing is given a high priority by police forces in Scotland. ⁴⁹
93. Another source of evidence in terms of the priority given to community policing was the experience of the community police officers Members met in the course of the fact-finding visits.

94. Community Liaison Officers in Dundee accepted that the recognition and profile of community policing had improved recently, but officers expressed concern that there is still a lack of support and encouragement for community policing from their colleagues, including those in senior management. Some officers suggested that community policing is seen as a ‘soft option’ and that this was reflected in the tendency to abstract officers from their roles.

95. However, the experience of officers in Motherwell was that their role was valued, was given a high priority by senior officers and was not seen as a ‘soft option’.

96. The Committee was also given an insight into the importance given to community policing when it took evidence from members of the Scottish Police Authorities Conveners Forum.

97. Councillor Paul Rooney suggested that the priority accorded to community policing varies from force to force, but was keen to stress that in Strathclyde they are placing great emphasis on community policing.⁵⁰

98. Councillor Martin Greig, Convener of Grampian Police Board, said that in the Grampian police area they were also committed to delivering high quality community policing, but at the same time he conceded that there were problems in terms of officers being abstracted and that his constituents had raised concerns about this. He argued that this was as a direct result of under-funding and called for greater resources.⁵¹

99. Councillor Whyte, Convener of Lothian and Borders Police Board, indicated that in his experience Lothian and Borders Police was also prioritising community policing. Unlike Councillor Greig’s experience, however, he felt that under the regime of the new Chief Constable in Lothian and Borders there had been fewer abstractions and this was apparent in the reduced number of complaints he received from constituents on this issue.⁵²
In its submission, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE) argued that community policing should be at the centre of policing, but that this is currently not the case. SOLACE contended that “community policing should be at the core of policing rather than being conducted by a few specialist officers.”⁵³

101. Chief Constable John Vine, giving evidence on behalf of ACPOS, conceded that community policing has not always been seen as the most ‘exciting’ form of policing by officers. He said it was up to senior police officers to change the perception of community policing and to ensure that police officers, particularly new recruits, are aware of the importance of community engagement throughout their careers. He also told the Committee that he wanted experienced officers to stay in the communities they serve for as long as possible and that in Tayside he made special priority payments to these officers to encourage them to stay. ⁵⁴

Community policing in Scottish police forces

102. Having looked at the definition of community policing and identified some key features in effective delivery of community policing, the Committee was interested to look at the delivery of community policing by Scotland’s eight forces to see how successful they are in incorporating key elements of community policing, as identified by the Committee, into their strategies.

103. The Committee wrote to all eight forces inviting them to provide—

“A copy of your force community policing strategy;

A short description of how community policing fits within the organisational structure of your force, including figures on the number and rank of community police officers and how this resource is distributed across the force area.”

104. The Committee received responses from all eight forces and these are summarised below.

105. Central and Strathclyde police forces provided detailed community policing strategies, which set out how community policing is to be delivered in their areas of authority.

106. Other forces, however, were yet to develop specific community policing strategies.

Central
107. In 2008, Central Scotland Police published a New Community Policing Strategy Document, which is currently being rolled out. The strategy includes the following key features:

Eight Community Teams organised around existing Area and Sub Area Commands (consideration given to aligning them to the 21 multi-member electoral wards but viewed as impractical).
Community policing teams to have collective responsibility for community issues in their designated areas.
Current Community Policing establishment is 67 officers, but with a recommendation that this is increased to 76 officers.
Six step model for delivering community policing:

Know your community/neighbourhood
Engage with the public to identify signal crimes and signal disorders
Engage with partners
Local neighbourhood/community action
Divisional action
Review Progress and communicate results.

Community profiles to be established for each identified community and shared with partners and community members.
Dealing with ‘Signal crimes’ (i.e. incidents that act as warning signals to people about threats to their security and that have a disproportionate impact on the way people think, feel or act) to be at heart of the community policing strategy.
Community policing teams to work closely with community traffic wardens, Community Wardens and Special Constables.
Community officers to be retained in post for a minimum of 18-24 months.
Plans to produce a revised job description for community officers and sergeants setting out their key roles and responsibilities and to introduce specific training on community policing.

Dumfries and Galloway
108. In the Dumfries and Galloway area community policing is embedded within the Community Safety Strategy.

109. In Galloway there are 13 community officers supported by 3 crime reduction officers and a Divisional Coordinating Sergeant, while in Dumfries Divisions there are 19 community officers supported by one Crime Reduction Officer and a Community Safety Sergeant.

110. Community engagement ranges from Community Councils (via a Community Police Officer) to Area Committee and MSPs via Area Inspectors and Divisional Commanders.

Fife Constabulary
111. No specific community policing strategy was provided by Fife Constabulary, but a range of supporting documents was submitted to illustrate the way in which Fife Constabulary ‘police through partnerships’.

112. Seven Chief Inspectors work with Fife Council’s seven Local Area Committees and are involved in community safety and community planning work.

Grampian
113. Grampian police has no formal community policing strategy.

114. The force is, however, developing a partnership based approach called ‘Total Community’, which includes a Community Engagement Database and the appointment of an Engagement Coordinator.

115. Its response said that there are 169 officers in uniform with a community based role.

Lothian and Borders
116. Lothian and Borders Police has no overarching community policing strategy.

117. However, in its response it stressed that it had given community policing higher priority in recent years linked to the development of local community plans with partner agencies and the evolution of the community planning process.

118. At the time of Lothian and Borders correspondence there were 270 community police officers, constituting 30 inspectors, 21 sergeants and 219 constables.

Northern
119. Northern Constabulary has adopted an inclusive policy of community policing, which means it is delivered by all uniform operational officers supported by specialist and support staff. The response from Northern stated that as such it would be ‘inappropriate to categorise officers further as they are engaged within communities’.

120. There are, however, a ‘small number’ of Community Safety Officers within each Area Command Team.

Strathclyde
Strathclyde Police is in the process of rolling out a new community policing strategy, which will be centred on a team-based approach within a large Communities Unit. The strategy sets out the form these teams will take—

“The Community Policing Model is based on the establishment of a Communities Unit in each Sub-Division, under the command of the Sub-Divisional Officer and directly linked to the Tasking and Co-ordinating process. The unit is to consist of Community Policing Teams, Campus Officers, Community Safety, Field Intelligence, CID, Engine Room Staff and Special Constables. Additional resources can be attached to reflect local needs and the model further developed through multi-agency working.”⁵⁵

122. To increase awareness of the distinction between the roles of Response and Community Policing, the strategy proposes a clear work allocation process to be adopted throughout the Force to ensure clarity with the type of work community police officers will undertake to ensure they are not abstracted from their primary function. The strategy proposes that community police officers should be allocated to the following roles—

“All incidents in their area which will not result in them being unnecessarily abstracted by the protracted or geographically dispersed nature of the call
Crimes in respect of repeat victims or where the impact of such crimes may well have an adverse affect on the community
To assist in the investigation of serious crime within their community with a particular role of reassurance and gathering community intelligence
Priorities set through Tasking & Coordinating and community engagement
Execution of Intelligence packages to the point of arrest and report
Execution of warrants in their area
Enforcement of Bail and Curfew conditions
Community Intelligence gathering and submission (including Counter Terrorist Intelligence)
Enforcement Prevention Intelligence & Communication (EPIC) Templates
Limited diversionary activities
Restorative Justice Warnings”⁵⁶

123. The model also notes that due to the multiplicity of community policing approaches being pursued in Strathclyde, a wide variety of job descriptions, terminology and nomenclature had grown up. In order to tackle this inconsistency, the model notes that a corporate approach will be taken in future.

124. The geographical position of the teams will be based on the multi-member electoral wards with specific numbers informed by the Needs Assessment based on Social Indices of Multiple Deprivation, crime statistics and incidents.

125. Teams will focus on ‘effective problem-solving through enforcement, public reassurance and focused response policing. Unlike past models of community policing in Strathclyde, and for that matter elsewhere, officers will have limited involvement in diversionary activities, supporting community groups and place greater emphasis on enforcement.

126. Each Communities Unit will include Community Policing Teams, Campus Officers, Community Safety, CID and Special Constables.

127. It is envisaged that Special Constables will be an integral part of Community Policing Teams and be used exclusively in that capacity.

128. In order to ensure that these Community Policing Teams can operate as effectively as is possible, there is to be a policy of not abstracting officers from their roles in the community. Chief Superintendent Anne McGuire explained to the Committee that in the past a maximum level for abstraction of community police officers had been set at 20%, but this had regularly been exceeded, sometimes by as much as a further 23% This non-abstraction policy is to be enforced by means of ‘Red-Circling’ officers in their areas.

129. So as to attract and maintain officers, priority payments for constables will be linked to their membership of Community Policing Teams.

Chief Constable House explained that under Strathclyde’s Community Policing Model new constables’ first role will be as members of community policing teams and, as such, it is his hope that when the constables move onto response teams they will have a greater appreciation of the wider context in which they are operating.

130. Within Strathclyde’s Community Policing Model, there is reference to the Strathclyde Police Public Reassurance Strategy. This strategy will, to an extent, inform the delivery of community policing. The Model sets out the strategy’s eight strategic objectives—

“To engage with local communities to establish an understanding of the issues that affect their quality of life and sense of security, thereby ensuring they have a primary role in the identification of local policing priorities
To develop and improve our ability to gather, analyse and effectively utilise community intelligence
To work in cooperation with the community and other partners to deliver sustainable solutions
To improve our visibility and accessibility within communities
To reduce the incidence of antisocial behaviour in communities by making full use of the powers contained within the Antisocial Behaviour etc. (Scotland) Act 2004 and other associated legislation
To implement a performance framework that informs and drives police/partner activity and measures the public’s sense of security and well-being
To integrate and mainstream the practice and ethos of public reassurance policing with engaging criminality, response policing and other policing activity
To create safer environments by engendering the trust and confidence of all communities in order to combat the threat of violent extremism and terrorism.”

132. Finally, a performance measurement framework and training will be introduced for all Community Policing Teams.

Tayside
133. Tayside Police has no overarching community policing strategy, but community policing is included as part of Divisional Operating Procedure.

134. Divisional Commanders are involved with community planning and Inspectors are expected to develop local liaison arrangements.

135. Community Liaison/Community Crime Officers are assigned to each section within divisions, with responsibility for delivering force and local authority community safety strategies.

Conclusion
136. Having considered the information provided by the individual forces, it is apparent that all forces are seeking in their own ways to deliver effective community policing.

137. Reflecting on the key elements in community policing as identified by the Committee, it is apparent that forces are incorporating some if not all of these elements.

138. However, having considered all the evidence presented to it, it would appear to the Committee that while in some forces community policing is at the core of everything the police do, the priority accorded to community policing varies from force to force.

139. In 2004 HMICS recommended that forces adopt consistent community policing strategies. It would appear to the Committee that not all forces have so far fully committed to this approach.

140. The Committee noted the approaches adopted by Strathclyde Police and Central Scotland Police who have each prepared clear community policing strategies. The Committee will wish to study the implementation of these strategies with keen interest at a future point.

141. As previously noted, the Committee considered the research undertaken by Professor Skogan to have been of benefit to the development of CAPS. The Committee considers that the evolution of the models in Strathclyde and Central Scotland might also benefit from prolonged and detailed research in order to inform future development of community policing in Scotland

What are the challenges to the effective delivery of community policing?

142. In the course of the inquiry, the Committee was made aware of a number of challenges to the effective operation of community policing. In particular, concerns were raised about abstractions, tenure, the geography of community policing, training and resources.

143. In this section of the report, these challenges are explored and where appropriate the Committee has drawn its own conclusions.

Abstractions

144. As previously noted, in its 2004 report, HMICS recognised that one of the most severe challenges to effective community policing came from officers being abstracted to undertake other roles.

145. The Committee was first alerted to this concern during its fact-finding visit to Dundee where Community Liaison Officers complained that they were invariably the first to be abstracted from their roles. They suggested that senior officers considered that their tasks were less urgent than others and as such they were more likely to be abstracted.

146. The Committee encountered a contrasting experience in Motherwell. The Community Police Officers that Members spoke to there, suggested that when they were abstracted it was generally to other areas within the sub-division and in this way they still felt they were serving their community. They did, however, highlight concerns about how much time they are required to spend in court.

147. Councillor Greig suggested that abstractions were a common phenomenon in the Grampian Police area—
“Grampian Police has tried to allocate individual constables, sergeants and inspectors to specific areas. That is obviously a resource-intensive exercise and there are many examples of abstraction from the local areas. I hear complaints from constituents and others that local officers are being abstracted, for example to Royal Deeside to provide protection or to specific campaigns.”⁵⁷

148. William Campbell, of AOSNW, expressed his concern about the prevalence of abstractions in Fife—

“Abstractions happen. I live in Fife, and we lose community officers as a result of open golf championships and football matches. However, as has been said, that is part of community involvement.

An issue that worries us is the moving of officers from one area to another to handle a major incident. For example, police might be taken from central Fife to west Fife because of a shortage of officers to investigate a crime such as a murder or a rape. The scale of such an investigation calls for officers to be brought in to assist the local force. Normally, community officers are the first to go.”⁵⁸

149. ACPOS, in its written submission, recognised the problem of abstraction, but stressed it was a necessity on occasion. Indeed, the fact that officers are abstracted and that policing in Scotland is not compartmentalised, was highlighted as a strength by ACPOS.⁵⁹

150. Malcolm Dickson of HMICS, suggested that high levels of abstraction were not the problem they might at first seem, suggesting that when community police officers are, for example, policing football matches or other public events, they are still carrying out a service to the community and as such fulfilling their role.⁶⁰

151. Joe Grant, President of the SPF, recognised the difficulties associated with abstractions, but conceded that it would be impossible to eradicate them. He drew the Committee’s attention to Lancashire where an abstraction policy was in operation, but admitted that while Lancashire Police had been able to minimise and monitor abstractions, it would never be able to eradicate them.⁶¹

152. Professor Skogan explained to the Committee how abstraction levels are minimised in Chicago—

“The handling by police officers of traffic and general security—I emphasise "general", because police officers do not take tickets or guard the doors—is always an overtime assignment, for which the officers get extra pay. The cost is always met by the consumer of the product. Our football team has a contract with city government and pays for the officer hours, supervisory hours and administrative overheads for assignments such as providing general security on the football ground, directing and controlling traffic or providing an emergency van with communication equipment—all that is part of the contract.

That is true of other institutions. Chicago has the second biggest mass transit system in the United States after New York City. We have extensive subways and elevated railways, as well as buses. Transit policing is provided by the police department, but there is a contract with the transit agency, which pays. Likewise, the airport has a contract for the police service that it gets. The public housing agency, which is separately funded and runs substantial public housing developments, pays the costs of the public housing unit police who are provided by the police department. We have one policing provider in Chicago, but through contracts for regular policing or contracts for overtime policing the consumer pays for the policing of transit, public housing and sporting and other big projects.”⁶²

153. Chief Superintendent Hamilton, giving evidence on behalf of ASPS, provided evidence of similar approaches in Scotland taken to avoid abstraction. He gave the example of the T in the Park Festival, which is policed by officers on rest days and the cost of this over-time is recovered from the organisers of the event. This meant no financial costs to the community nor abstractions of officers from the community.⁶³

154. As previously explained, Strathclyde Police has encountered problems with high levels of abstraction of community officers and has responded to this by “red circling” community police officers as part of its new strategy.

155. In response to questioning from the Committee, Chief Constable House conceded that this would not mean an end to abstractions, but would go some way to avoiding what he deemed unnecessary abstractions—

“… the red circling is meant to deal with the day-to-day grind that we face of community cops being abstracted from their daily beat to cover, for example, football matches or demonstrations. However, the worst or most insidious abstraction is for staffing up response cars. To use a vernacular example, a sergeant deploys officers like a football manager and looks to fill a couple of slots on the team. The first slot that the sergeant will deploy and try to fill is the response cars because, understandably, our current mindset is that we must provide an emergency response to emergency calls from the public. If the sergeant does not have enough officers to do that, she or he will look to deploy them from the community cops.

Such deployment is what we seek to stop with the red-circling approach. We will require a senior officer to have a view on the red circling to ensure that abstraction does not happen as a matter of routine. My experience elsewhere tells me that the whole thing will turn on that. If abstraction levels stay high, community confidence will not be built. The officers will not develop awareness of community problems and will not be there consistently enough for the public to hold them to account.

I would not want to say that we can guarantee the red circling as such, but I guarantee that we will do all that we can as an organisation to make red circling work and to make it as difficult as possible for officers to be abstracted on a routine basis. It is not my expectation, as chief constable, that officers will be abstracted on a routine basis; rather, it is my expectation that they will patrol in the areas to which they are deployed.”⁶⁴

156. It is clear to the Committee that, to date, abstractions have been a key factor in preventing forces from delivering effective community policing.

157. It is the Committee’s strong belief that for the delivery of community policing to be effective abstractions must be kept to a minimum.

158. The Committee accepts that abstractions will never be fully eradicated, but recommends that all possible steps should be taken to minimise them.

159. The Committee noted the approach advanced by Strathclyde Police and supports its intention. The red circling of community officers appears to the Committee to be a strong commitment to minimise abstractions. That said, this approach is still to be tested, and the Committee will be very interested to see how effective it proves to be and whether it can be adopted more widely.

160. The Committee appreciates that demonstrations and events will continue to require policing. If this is not to be undertaken by community police officers, the Committee questions what impact this may have on other police service areas.

161. To ensure that abstractions of community police officers from their communities are minimised, it is critical that force policies are effectively monitored. The Committee recommends that police boards and authorities should undertake this role.

Tenure

162. Another significant problem drawn to the Committee’s attention was the short tenure of officers in post as community police officers.

163. Chief Superintendent McGuire explained the problems associated with short tenure in Strathclyde—

“… of 3,500 people who were surveyed in 2006, 52 per cent did not even know that they had a community police officer, never mind who the officer was, despite huge investment by the service. Part of the reason for that was a lack of tenure policy, which led to poor continuity, poor knowledge and a resultant poor service to the public.”⁶⁵

164. Giving evidence on behalf of ACPOS, Chief Constable John Vine recognised that one of the major complaints of the public is the high turnover of community police officers. He drew the Committee’s attention to the lead constable initiative in Tayside, whereby the majority of priority payments go to uniformed patrol officers, as a means to motivate officers and maintain them in post—

“I mentioned the lead constable initiative, which arose because I was looking for incentives to motivate people to say, "Community policing is really what I want to do. I joined the police to be a good cop and to police the community." I wanted to send a message to my workforce and to new recruits that that was a good thing, instead of wanting to jump into a car, run from call to call and record crime. I wanted to provide an alternative career for people who wanted to police the community, so that they did not feel that they needed to better themselves financially by becoming a sergeant or an inspector.”⁶⁶

165. William Campbell of the Association of Scottish Neighbourhood Watches, set out for the Committee what he believed should be the minimum period of tenure for a community officer—

“Our view is that a police officer needs at least six months to get to know his area and his people, and it would be ideal if he had another 18 months to work with them before he was moved on, which would mean two years as a community policeman.”⁶⁷

166. This view that there should be a minimum period of tenure was echoed by Councillor Paul Rooney—

“I would like a one or two-year commitment. There is currently none; community officers can be in place for as little as three months and no relationship is established. If we have a guarantee of at least one to two years, we can start to cement relationships, whereas at the moment there is no such commitment for local policing.”⁶⁸

167. Joe Grant of the SPF told the Committee that he believed setting a minimum period of tenure for a community police officer should be achievable. He drew the Committee’s attention to Lancashire Constabulary where by improving the status of what they term “neighbourhood beat managers” and by ensuring that this is a key element in career development Lancashire Police have been able to set a minimum tenure of two years.⁶⁹

168. Colin Bain, Sid Pask, Kathy Tooke and Liz Kay, giving evidence on behalf of the Scottish Community Warden Managers Network, all agreed that a minimum period of two years of tenure would be appropriate for community police officers.

169. This was also supported by Sir Ronnie Flanagan, indeed he suggested two years should be a minimum—

“I see no reason why constables cannot have a fulfilling career by staying in neighbourhood policing for their entire career. Not everyone feels the need to progress upwards. The culture has to be such that we value that work, and it mu