As he steps out of his vehicle, snow crunches underfoot, the crispness of the air irritates his sore throat, this is the time of year he does not mind wearing the bullet proof vest despite the bulkiness, it adds to keeping warm a bit, coughing slightly he heads into the imposing structure preparing to start his workday.
The doors close behind him but this is not where he stops being just a member of the public, that happened years ago, when he joined the force. That day was the last day that he could ignore the problems of others if he wished, or speak out openly about his workplace, or bosses, just to give a couple examples of how life changes in the pursuit of the desire to serve the public. That day he swore to uphold the law.
Over the years he has been shot, stabbed, beaten, threatened, had various disgusting liquids thrown at or on him, more than a few Officers die in the line of duty or the ones who took their own lives, and those are just the things I know, there are others I can guess at, but you see it’s not often discussed. Work mainly stays at work.
When you hear someone bad mouthing the Police, you want to point out to them what they don’t see. You know he won’t. They don’t. In some instances they can’t.
It is not that they exclude others from their day, so much as they need a break from it, home is a happy place and well there are just things you can’t share, if there were not, there would be no rules about what Police were allowed to say when not on the job about the job. Would there?
How was work? Gets you a raised eyebrow and “it was work, the usual.”
Yes, that is why you have bruises, cuts and other Officers are calling to say “hi” (check on you more like).
It is not that he does not wish to share, but unless your working in the same type of environment, your reactions are not going to be theirs, grounded, accepted, and less emotional.
Yes dear, two guys came at me with knives, bit of a scuffle but it all came out right in the end…your not going to calmly ask if he wants a coffee and tell him how soon to dinner.
That only makes the next day more difficult because he is going to step out that door again, to go to work and he doesn’t need you envisioning imminent demise or fussing at him to change career.
The most interesting trick, is when you stop worrying as they leave, because it is possible you will never see them again, but you trust them and their fellow Officers, to do their best so they, more importantly he, will return home.
You depend on them to make sure they look after themselves, in whatever situation they face, so that they come home.
Trust.
That is a big word trust.
Years ago when he took the oath, put on the uniform, the public trust in him as a member of the Police was established, but also his trust in those he protected, others who issued the orders, and the ones who make the laws…it’s a circle…of which he willingly became a member, a public servant.
I can not speak for everyone, I would never dream of it, everyone lives, performs their jobs and enjoys the world differently…this is just a small slice of…this one ant, in the throng of thousands…not to be confused with any other worker ant.
What people do not see, or think about, is the intense firm belief in public service that he feels. He is not alone, but everyone will have it in different hues. He did not leave the military to join the Police force to make money, or gain prestige, he wanted to make a difference and he saw this as the way he could.
Of course the reasons that people do things, vary from person to person, this is merely what is so, in this instance. Ahh you see, it has trickled in, the awareness of how someone reading this views the Police and what they might say….shoo that’s not wanted here. This is my post, my blog and I am allowed to say things that he can not.
He is a Police Officer, a LT no less, and unless he is on deaths door, or shot/stabbed/put in hospital, he goes to work.
He is very grounded, he does not take things personally that are said/done to him because he is a Police Officer, wearing the uniform. Sometimes the teflon slips and you see hurt but he shakes it off and continues his day.
He is a good person, he is not perfect, but he is good…he cares.
On the way home from work, stopping on the expressway to grab up a dog before it gets hit and taking it to it’s owner, a worried senior who feared her sole companion was gone forever.
Having neighbors rush out to him to get their dog from under the porch, because she is a senior citizen, she can’t and that dog is her life.
Calling the fire department before rushing into a neighbors house who has fallen asleep and set his chair on fire, getting both seniors out of the house and into his while the fire department sorts out the rest.
Going to work, as the higher ups cut back on staff and conditions deteriorate, meaning your Officers are at risk and some start getting hurt because someone higher up, does not know what they are doing.
During the heat wave, he goes out to do wellness checks, in winter it’s pulling people out of stuck cars during blizzards.
He goes to work when others are purposely staying off to protest the seriously unsafe conditions, not because he is not in agreement with his Officers but because he joined to be a Police Officer, and the public are his first concern.
He swore an oath.
He lost hours with his family to uphold it, which cost him in time with wife and kids, put a strain on relationships and yet he still puts that oath first.
Over 25 years on the job but he is going to lose his house because of the housing market dropping the value of the house to 1/3 of what it was when he bought it. No perks or extra benefits, he is actually considering what he will do after retirement because his pension is not going to be enough.
He has not taken a vacation in a coons age.
Recently there was a horrific crime committed, the person accused of doing it is awaiting trial, and he was going over the reports, records and he had to stop, because the horrors he was reading upset him. He has seen and been there enough, to be able to play the pleas for mercy over in his mind, and the sadness that children had to suffer, that the victims never had a chance to call for help…never had a chance at all really…brought tears to his eyes. No you don’t get to know that because he doesn’t show it to anyone.
25 years plus on the job.
People like to generalize, tar the whole with the sins of the few, unless there is a fad or risk of seeming prejudiced.
The Police do not make the laws, that is what Politicians do, and Judges rule on.
So these people that most of us trust to protect us, to be there in crisis, usually depending on the other half to look after the family until they can get home…to enforce laws they do not make as fairly as possible, they are discriminated against due to their uniforms and career choice.
It is okay to generalize when you speak of the Police, where usually people will accept that individuals in any walk of life can and do make mistakes and it does not besmirch the whole.
It is okay to say and do things to Officers, that they would arrest you for if you did them to another private citizen. That is finally changing however, in some instances turning the other cheek has been made redundant and unsafe by false public perception and over enthusiastic media wanting to push those headlines (unless they are about the media themselves all hinted wrongs by public servants are front page news).
All Police are not bad, the majority are good.
They step out their door knowing the uniform they are wearing immediately changes the perception of everyone they come in contact with.
Lately that perception has not been so favorable.
Lets try this for a second.
Allow me to put a dress code on you, give you a job to enforce rules I make. While I cut back on what you are paid, lessen the numbers of others who are performing that job with you, “trim” your support system and silence your ability to actually make anyone aware of how I am changing things so they are not safe for Officer or public alike.
Let people call you names, abuse you, threaten you, and yet require of you polite, courteous and diligent in service and response to the public.
I shall then say things that reflect negatively on the service in general, not because you have done a bad job, but because it suits whatever ends I have in affecting the viewpoint on the service.
You see I know that you can’t stand up and say, Hey folks…look at what is going on…and give examples.
Do you know what else I know?
That the character of the majority of the people in those uniforms is such, that they will continue to do their jobs, despite everything that says its going to crap and getting more dangerous, because they actually know what honor is.
They took an oath.
Their families did not, but they support them, because that is what families do.
Trust.
The Officers who take that oath, trust the public, the bosses, the politicians and the system because as they join it, support it, try to make it better, they are giving up more than just time to a career.
They are taking on what society needs them to, so the rest of us can sleep, eat, work and play in relative safety.
They do not cease to be human because they swear an oath but seeing how they are often treated, I start to wonder about that.
The public complain about the Police, but the PUBLIC are the only ones that can make the Politicians and bosses do what is necessary to allow the Officers to do their jobs to the public’s benefit.
However the public can’t make fully informed decisions because those in uniform are not encouraged to share what they know, see, and feel would make things better or complain about what is making things worse.
He is not complaining.
He knows better.
He considers it all, another day at work.
I am a member of the public, I am complaining, because if this was any other segment of the public, people would be openly discussing things from both sides, and the public would be able to be informed, and not have to trust that a politician or lackey is telling us the truth.
See I was raised to believe that they are “our” Police, and as they are responsible for our safety, we are responsible to ensure they as a part of the public, are treated fairly and are safe as well.
There is not much to be said for being in the minority, except that eventually what you ignore, like that leak in the ceiling, is going to become a bigger issue and cost you a lot more money.
And like the estimate for the roof or the medical opinion, things that matter, should not all come from one side, one evaluation or without the sharing of information.
The average Police Officer is not saying anything, for the most part they are required to be silent, or else.
Argumentum ad baculum.
When those who enforce my rights and freedoms when another is physically impeding either, or my safety for that matter, are not allowed the privilege of the rights to free speech and safe work environment…
…who do they have to go to but me, and the rest of us, to give voice where they have been silenced?
</div
by @Pulchritudynous
“We need to cut the bureaucracy and get back to fighting crime. So we’ve taken an axe to police red tape, saving up to 4.5 million police hours a year and getting the equivalent of an extra 2,100 officers back onto the streets. We need to give the police the freedom to use their judgement. So we’ve scrapped all police targets and given them a single objective – to cut crime “ Theresa May, Speech (9th October 2012)
The brave new world of Police and Crime Commissioners is finally upon us. As the honeymoon period of glossy “getting to know you” photographs and hand-shaking tours of outlying stations and towns comes to an end, these new political beasts are starting to publish their draft Police and Crime plans for the years ahead. For those of you not in the know, these documents set out the plans for the Police and Crime Commissioners, their strategies and visions, which will be translated by the Police into reality.
You will note from the Home Secretary, and latterly confirmed by the new policing minister, Mr Green MP, that the focus of the home office is to produce a Police that is focussed on cutting crime. To this end, they want the Police to be able to cut the bureaucracy that is in place. Much of this bureaucratic activity can trace its roots to the last administration, who had fallen in love with “performance targets”. The endless search for audit, and the associated micro-management that accompanies this style of management creates absurd behaviours. Often these behaviours are manifested in some sub-optimal outcomes for the public. In more drastic cases, they appear as corruption and criminality.
I bring this up, because in looking at some of the draft plans as they emerge blinking into the sunlight of public scrutiny, I see once again a couple of old themes re-emerging. One is the drive for detections, which has been widely commented on, but I will re-evaluate here – and the other is the wider bureaucracy of targets, and the perverse culture and behaviours that they encourage.
I, among many of my peers, can recall the dark days of “grip” in “performance management”. In my experience, it went something like this:
•
A target was set – in this case for detections – by the Chief Officer Group.
•
The target was communicated to the Chief Superintendent, who got a cash bonus if the target was met.
•
The Chief Superintendent would have a stern word with the Ops Superintendent to ensure that the target was met.
•
The Superintendent would hold regular briefings with the Chief Inspector and ask for a daily update on how the detections were looking for that period. PDRs may have been mentioned.
•
The Chief Inspector would call the Inspectors on the hour, to make sure that the detections were looking on target for that day. Sanctions would be implied.
•
The Inspectors would call the Sergeants every half hour, and demand progress reports on the detections, and threaten sanctions.
•
Sergeants would call Constables frequently, and direct their activity on a micro-management basis.
Discretion was eroded. A generation of young people were criminalised. Absurd cases made the tabloids. Trust and confidence in the police was eroded on a case by case basis – even though the detections target was being met. While the detections target – presumably imposed to increase the amount of crimes brought to justice – was satisfied, the consequences were all to frequently unjust. For more details, see the Inspector Gadget blog.
But there’s more! The relentless drive for detections brings even worse perverse outcomes to the table. This target led culture inevitably leads to situations where behaviours are corrupted. There are some well documented cases to remind ourselves of here. One such example was PC Dominic DeSouza, who had “criminalised” innocent people and was guilty of a “pervasive abuse of power”. As a constable, he tricked innocent members of the public into accepting cautions which weren’t ethical. This was in the guise of increasing his “performance”. As the judge sagely commented, the supervisors hadn’t enjoyed their “finest hour”, and the whole case bought focus onto “exposing the shortcomings” of target-driven policing. He wasn’t the only cop to have done this. Where targets exist, “gaming”, or cheating, or fiddling the figures, or “good housekeeping” flourishes.
Well, of course this can’t happen in the wider Police. Can it? Of course it can. Couple the humble target with its closest living cousin, the League Table, and you’ve got a recipe for utter disaster. Now, as well as scrambling to reach an arbitrary figure devised to measure a specific, context absent output – which as we have discussed can be completely divorced from any notion of justice – we have added pressure of competing against other police forces. This lends itself to the adoption of shady practices, in order to keep up with the Jones next door. One of the more widely discussed, and researched examples comes from the practice of “Taking into Consideration”. In theory, this allows criminals the opportunity to admit to offences they have committed, and have them heard before a court, with little or no extra sentence. They can also have them admitted to while in prison, and have them “weighed off”, clearing up the crime detection statistics for the police, and having no consequence for the criminal. They may also get a day out of prison and a ride around the countryside with the officers while they admit to the many crimes they say they have committed.
Officers even take specific roles within teams specialising in producing these “taken into consideration” crimes. Divisions look forward to the “results” that these teams bring in for them, which inflates their “performance” and helps reach the intended target. That these TIC’s may often be suspect doesn’t seem to matter to the wider organisation or the senior ranks, as long as detections are being obtained, and “crimes being detected” can be reported as high. Never mind if this is what the victim wants, (and how many are told that their crimes are detected as TIC’s, and all that entails, I wonder?), or that significant amounts of experienced, skilled detectives are being diverted from investigating live, proveable crimes – or even, better yet, to managing prolific offenders and preventing crime in the first place – to satisfy this arbitrary target. The scope for corruption in this practice is vast. TIC’s may not be produced by the offer of an inducement, but virtually every detective in the land must be au-fait with the practices of taking prisoners from their prison, taking them on a nice ride around and buying them dinner, or cigarettes, or allowing strictly forbidden visits to friends and family while in the custody of the police.
Consider this: if you were a prolific and chaotic offender with a prodigious heroin habit, could you recall the last 150 shed burglaries that your committed with enough detail to satisfy a court if the case came to trial?
Information from Radio 4’s “Law in Action” program in 2010 showed that TIC’s related to 35% of all Burglary Detections. Is that giving the public a true reflection of the detections that police produce? These targets produce every day corruption within the police. Recent publicised events include the plying of a 17 year old with cider in order to produce TIC’s, or the arrest of several detectives from Kent suspected of irregularities when providing TIC’s. Make no mistake, TIC’s are trouble. The rub is that if every force does this, and we are compared in league tables, those that do not engage in this practice find their “performance” lower than their peers due to their more ethical practices.
There is a persuasive body of academic research that notes that “performance management” of targets, and particularly with “detections” targets produces perverse outcomes for the public.
I would urge PCC’s to do some background reading on this matter. In the first instance, the rather marvellous Systems Thinking advocate, Inspector Simon Guilfoyle, who says, rather tongue in cheek,
“The failure to understand that all public sector numerical targets are a) completely arbitrary and b) scientifically impossible to establish in the first place, is the first mistake of those who promote their application. You wouldn’t set a target for the amount of hours the sun shines in a day would you? Why not – what’s the difference? “
Other academics, such as DeBruujin, note that
“Performance measurement is aimed at making public organisations perform and account for their results. The result might be that the system forms a layer of rock in the organisation between management and professionals. It deprives directors of insight into the activities performed at the bottom level of the organisation. What is treacherous, however, is that the system suggests that they have a detailed insight into them. The
quality of managerial interventions suffers from it.” (2007)
You, therefore, as a newly appointed PCC, might conclude that you can alter the structure of your police force to make sure that this kind of blindness to the perverse behaviours your newly minted targets will conjure don’t occur. After all, it looks as if the top leaders of the organisation – those which you will naturally speak to most – have integrity and are merely frustrated by the disconnect which your performance measurement will bring them. However, ignorance isn’t a defence, and – in good conscience it’s my duty to tell you that the senior officers know exactly the kind of things that will be occurring in order to satisfy your targets. They know because they had to do it in order to get promoted in the first place.
I urge PCCs to read a thesis from Rodger Patrick, entitled “A study of changing police behaviour in England and Wales during the era of New Public Management.”. It is a very handy catch all for discussing all the issues of detections targets, but this section in particular may cause them some discomfort. It explains that while the perverse outcomes are happening, their senior managers are going to know what’s going on.
“The complaints from the junior ranks, subsequently championed by the Police Federation, indicated that a significant number were uncomfortable with ‘gaming’ behaviour and this was leading to ‘whistle-blowing’. This is hardly the actions of officers willingly engaging in ‘gaming’ behaviour and again supported (the) conclusion that the pressures were ‘top down’, i.e. senior officers ‘playing performance games to mislead the public into thinking that the crime problem was being addressed successfully’ “(2009)
The targets are going to lead to cheating and gaming in order to massage the figures. They will have the perverse outcome of alienating the public, hindering innovation, frustrating justice and further demoralising the police officers which the PCC now lead. Want another academic to back me up?
“Managing people’s activity (by way of targets and micro-management) is an incredible waste of management resource; worse, this style of management demoralises workers. Workers are taught their goodness or badness will be judged by whether they meet their activity statistics; they usually learn how to cheat their numbers to avoid attention (driving further waste into the system). The workers’ focus is survival not contribution and improvement; their ingenuity is driven by the system to work against its purpose”. (Seddon, O’Donnovan and Zokaei, 2009)
I know that PCCs want to make a difference. I believe them when they say that they want to produce good value for their citizens. I realise that they want to catch more bad guys, and stop horrible things happening to good people. The fact remains: if you set “tough targets”, the following things will happen:
•
Good people will do bad things to achieve your targets
•
Your citizens will get a poor service
•
Managers will strive to achieve your mandated outputs, at the expense of appropriate outcomes
•
When bad things happen, a sacrificial lamb will be selected and punished. You and I will now know that your senior managers knew this was happening.
•
When bad things happen, you will know why: after all, you set the tough target that gave birth to the tough regime that ensured compliance at all costs.
You may be wondering how I know this will happen. I know because it happens all over the world, whenever similar regimes are brought into service. I know because I saw it happen the last time we had a detections push; the arrested 10 year olds, the cautions with inducements, the reclassification of drunk and disorderly to public order act offences. I saw the Chief Inspectors stalking the constables and pushing them for detections, no matter how perverse their outcomes.
However tempting it may be to court popular public opinion by quick and easy use of setting tough or challenging targets, or using intrusive or probing questions of your senior managers to achieve arbitrary performance targets, they will be of scant comfort when your stewardship comes under question when the unethical practices they promote are exposed.