Reform of the way the police are held to account is needed if they are to maintain the confidence of the people they serve, according to the Local Government Association in a new report.
The report, Answering to you, by the LGA wants local people to have a greater say over how their force is run, helping set police priorities for their areas.<br><br>Meanwhile, a July 18 conference by the LGA is on the same topic – the Police Green paper due to be published this summer. It’s at Local Government House Conference Centre, Smith Square, London, SW1P 3HZ. Speakers invited include ACPO president Ken Jones, and Alison Mawson, Head of Community Safety and Prevention, Hartlepool Borough Council.<br><br>The Green paper will build on the roll out of neighbourhood policing teams across the country from April 2008, the recommendations from the Flanagan Review of Policing, as well as the Crime and Communities Review and is likely to propose further changes to the policing landscape in England and Wales.<br><br>The LGA report believes that if residents feel that the police are “anchored” in their local area and answerable to local people and councillors, they will feel more willing to pass on information and support officers in their work – and consequently help cut crime and the fear of crime.<br><br>The report sets out 12 proposals for making police more locally answerable to the areas they are meant to serve.<br><br>Among the suggestions is the merger of police authorities and local authorities so police are held to account through councils.<br><br>It proposes the introduction of community safety charters between a local authority and its residents against which the performance of the police can be measured. The report also wants to see local police budgets brought under council control.<br><br>Sir Simon Milton, chairman of the LGA, said:<br><br>“Every service delivered to people in their local area should be directly accountable to residents through their locally elected council. As the power of police authorities has waned, connections between the police and the people they serve have weakened.<br><br>“Without reform there is a risk that the lack of confidence felt by local people in the police will increase making it more difficult for officers to fight crime, cut crime and cut the fear of crime.<br><br>“Council leaders are elected to put people first, and regardless of which services they are using, seeking help or redress, their first point of contact for local people must be their council.”<br><br>And the think-tank the Institute for Public Policy Research (ippr) has brought out its report on the same subject, A New Beat: Options for More Accountable Policing.<br><br>It welcomes the Government’s decision to improve police accountability but argues that whichever solutions are put forward, local communities must be given real powers to set policing priorities and that because of regional variations a one-size-fits-all approach will not work. The Government should allow different models of police accountability to operate in different areas.<br><br>The Government has already indicated that the Green Paper will propose that ‘directly elected representatives’ should oversee police forces. Direct elections to police authorities have their merits: they could combine a clear electoral mandate with effective powers to hold chief constables to account.  However, this is not the only option on the table – indeed some police forces are so large that having direct elections at that level would leave decisions being taken at a remote distance from people’s everyday concerns about crime.  One alternative would be to give more powers to local councils to set community policing priorities.<br><br>ippr identifies several potential options to increase accountability and calls on the Government to give consideration to them all.  These include:<br><br>*Directly elected police commissioners<br>*Directly elected police authorities<br>*Giving local authorities greater influence over community policing, where councils would approve local policing strategies and retain the police precept element of the council tax, and be given some say in the appointment of local police commanders <br>*Introducing directly elected mayors and giving them powers to hold the police to account<br>*Elected police boards<br><br>The report argues that a one-size-fits-all approach will not work.  London already has its own arrangements and what might suit a large city like Birmingham may not be appropriate for a small rural police force like Warwickshire.  Because of regional variations the government should allow different models of police accountability to operate in different areas <br><br>Whichever option is chosen locally the new local policing bodies must be given real powers to set police priorities, some control over budgets to deliver local policing priorities, and powers over the appointment of local police commanders. Without these powers the new elected bodies will be toothless.<br><br>The ippr report argues that a lack of local accountability is undermining police effectiveness.  Despite record increases in spending on the police, performance on key indicators has not improved and public satisfaction with the police is lower than in the past. The report concludes that one reason for this is that police forces are insufficiently accountable to local people and that police management and governance are weak.<br><br>The report says that Home Office targets intended to increase force accountability have failed to improve performance in key areas and have made policing even less responsive to local needs and circumstances. It identifies an accountability deficit at the local level where police authorities are weak, remote and unaccountable, while elected local government has no effective say in setting local policing priorities. As a result say ippr, there are insufficient pressures to improve performance and police forces are not responsive enough to local needs and priorities.<br><br>Guy Lodge, ippr Senior Research Fellow, said: "There is an accountability deficit in policing. Recent efforts to increase police accountability to the Home Office through central targets have had only limited success and have made policing less responsive to local needs and circumstances. At the local level, weak and remote Police Authorities do not provide an effective check on police performance.<br><br>“The Government rightly accepts the need to improve police accountability and give the public a greater say in shaping policing priorities through direct election.  But the government must recognise that there are a range of options available and that given regional variations a one-size-fits-all approach will not work.<br><br>A New Beat: Options for more accountable policing by Rick Muir and Guy Lodge can be downloaded for free from www.ippr.org.uk<br><br>ippr’s report is intended to contribute to debate on police reform ahead of the publication of the Government’s Green Paper on Police Reform expected at the end of June.  It is ippr’s second report in a series on the Future of Policing. The first paper The New Bill: Modernising the Police Workforce, was published in January 2008. The final report will be published later this year and will address the wider challenge of how to deliver police reform.<br><br>Despite record increases in expenditure and the highest ever numbers of police officers, there remain concerns around police performance:<br><br>*Detection rates fell between 1998 and 2002 and are only recently approaching 1998 levels, with around 24 per cent of recorded crimes being cleared up in 2007 compared to 29 per cent in 1998/99.<br><br>*Performance is patchy across the country, with detection rates varying to a high degree between different police forces. For instance, detection rates or violence against the person vary from just 26 per cent in one police force to 59 per cent in another.<br><br>*Detections per officer are the same today as they were in 2001/02, but each police detection in 2007 costs the public purse more in real terms than it did in 2000. <br><br>*While there has been an increase in the number of offences brought to justice (OBTJ), this has not been due to more crimes being ‘cleared up’ and more offenders being brought before the courts. Rather, it has been a consequence of the introduction of new forms of discretionary punishment, such as Penalty Notices for Disorder and on the spot fines. <br><br>*Whereas police officers in the USA make an average of 21 arrests per year, police officers in England and Wales make just nine.  <br><br>*There is also evidence that the police are not felt by the public to be sufficiently responsive, reflected in lower levels of public confidence.<br><br>*The proportion saying that the police do a ‘good or excellent job’ fell from 64 per cent in 1996 to just 48 per cent in 2004/05.<br><br>*Satisfaction with the police is also negatively related to personal experience. In 2004/05, those people who had contact with their local police within the previous year rated them more negatively than those who had not had contact (51 per cent of those who had no contact rated them to be good or excellent, compared to just 45 per cent of those with recent contact). This is not simply because offenders rate the police negatively. People who have been victims of crime in the last year rate the police lower than those who have not been a victim of crime in the last year (41 per cent of victims rated them good or excellent compared to 52 per cent of non-victims). These findings contrast with those from other public services: for example, direct users of schools and hospitals tend to rate those services higher than the public as a whole.<br><br>*More prolonged contact with the police leads to more negative attitudes: according to one 2005 survey, while 89 per cent of people say they are satisfied with initial contact, only 58 per cent say they are satisfied with follow up contact.<br><br>*Declining satisfaction with the police is related to a perceived decline in traditional community policing and the loss of ‘bobbies on the beat’. When asked what the police should do more of, 59 per cent say more foot patrols, followed by 36 per cent saying community policing. Only 26 per cent say they want more patrols by car and just 19 per cent say more crime detection. A 2007 ICM poll found that 73 per cent of the public felt that the police do not spend enough time out on the beat.<br><br>*Related to this is a fall in sustained contact with individual officers. The same survey found that 73 per cent of the public did not know any of the police officers in their local area and a further 13 per cent did not know many. <br><br>All of this is despite record increases in public spending on the police: spending on the police has increased by 21 per cent in real terms since 1997 and most of this money has been spent on more police officers (up 11 per cent or by 14,000 officers between 1997 and 2007).<br><br>And the think-tank NLGN (the New Local Government Network) has welcomed the Government’s commitment to giving citizens a larger influence over local policing but urged the Government to ensure that councils were given a clear and powerful voice in the process. <br><br>NLGN – which last year called for council leaders to have the power to hire and fire Chief Constables – said that varying local circumstances meant that local citizens and elected representatives were in a better position to decide how resources should be targeted. <br><br>NLGN Director Chris Leslie said: “The Government has worked hard to bring local citizens closer to policing, however, central control of can leave some communities feeling that their concerns are not fully addressed. Crime is predominantly a local problem and research shows that 90% is committed within 10 miles of the perpetrator’s home. Neighbourhood accountability over local policing is the right way ahead. <br><br>“Local government stands ready to take on the role of police accountability and I hope that these reforms will see elected representatives helping their local forces to better target crime.”<br><br>However, one small point; privatisation of police seems no longer to be aired. Privatization – Reviving the Momentum a report from the free market think-tank the Adam Smith Institute calls for a new wave of privatisations – but makes no mention of the police. The institute does argue that the police suffer under far too much central control and funding, poor management, and a lack of customer responsiveness to the public. Is this another nationalised industry which needs a dose of new non-state skills? it asks.
