Locally Identified Solutions &
Practices in Policing
Project Summary
As at Jul 2014
Tim Curtis
1
First engagement Nov 2012
• Discussing community profiling and rich picturing
as a community engagement technique
• NP see...
Methodology
Participatory Action
Research
• Rapid Appraisal
• Insights & themes
• Initial response
• Effectuate
• Review a...
Participatory Action Research
• acknowledge that the problem originates in the community itself
and is defined, analyzed, ...
Rapid Appraisal
• Interviews in St James/Dallington team
• Vertical sample through from Inspector
through PC to PCSO and t...
Insights and Themes
• Significant change in discourse about
communities between Police Officer and PCSO
• PCSO actively so...
Initial response
• PCSOs operating in complex (messy) social
environments
– Soft Systems Methodology specifically designed...
Unfreeze and Reframe
• Socially Entrepreneurial PCSO think piece Jan 2013
• PCSO needs to have autonomy and locus of contr...
First cohort
• Generic but open framework of
– Community profiling
– Rich picture dialoguing
– Issue prioritising
– Intrin...
Three ‘test-sites’
• Dallington/St James –wider issues around
Operation Isotope, gold burglaries amongst
Bangladeshi commu...
LISP Proforma
• Various re-ordering of toolkit- attempt to connect to
National Decision Model
• Better fit with SARA frame...
Second Cohort June/July 2013
• More focussed on LISP proforma
• Less academic
• Aide-memoire plus light touch how-to
• PCS...
PSCO responses
• Consistent language and process across county
• Open framework allows different responses
according to lo...
Risks going forward
• Short term targets lead to frustration with apparent
lack of progress
• PSCOs given ‘activity’ rathe...
Third cohort
• Remaining PCSOs trained in Nov/Dec 2013
• Version #6 of training slides and #12 of LISP
handbook
• Concentr...
Widening range of LISP projects
• PCSOs undertaking ‘practice’ LISPs
• Sgts clearer about selection criteria for LISPS
• B...
Widening scope
• Supt RJ shifted to new command Dec 2013
• Supt Dave Hill in Corporate Services picking up
and widening LI...
Going forward
Need to
• Reinforce training with PCSO fora
• Thorough case study on St Seps project as
demonstrator
• Laura...
2014
19
Shift from experiment to pilot
• 10th Jan Presentation to Chief Constable Mr Lee
• 6th of Feb Visit by Justice Minister Da...
Scope of Work Jul 14
• First 12 months, primary engagement with the field
• Secondary analysis of existing crime patterns ...
Paper to ASPIRE May 14
• Community Hub
• A body of people or services, that are accessible to all groups in the community
...
Co-Location
• Where two or more agencies or groups, come
together in an operating scenario to deliver
services in a sustai...
• The concept of community hubs is likely to be such that where one exists
we ought to aspire to ensure that it:
• ENGAGES...
Intensive Engagement PtII: Pilots
• Two locations, based on VLI screening, Kettering Priority
Area 6, and one in rural Eas...
Priority Area 6 data
26
Priority Area 6: Mapping Example – Kettering
Sector
•Also possible to filter hotspots down further by subgroup within the ...
A selection of LIPS data for Kettering, top priorities
28
People being drunk or rowdy
29
Geomapped Community Connects in Kettering
30
Field Trip GB
31
First round of Community Asset data
Collected July 2014
32
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Locally identified solutions & practices in policing project summary Jul 2014

201

Published on

A summary of the University of Northampton Participatory Action Research project, Locally Identified Solutions and Practices in intensive engagement in Policing, with Northamptonshire Police

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
201
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Locally identified solutions & practices in policing project summary Jul 2014

  1. 1. Locally Identified Solutions & Practices in Policing Project Summary As at Jul 2014 Tim Curtis 1
  2. 2. First engagement Nov 2012 • Discussing community profiling and rich picturing as a community engagement technique • NP seeking better ‘data’ from LIPS – hard data, closed question set. • How to ‘use’ the JDI Vulnerable Localities Index • What is ‘intensive community engagement’ and how does it differ from: – Super cocooning: Inform – Reassure – Advise – SARA/NDM – Social media and community events 2
  3. 3. Methodology Participatory Action Research • Rapid Appraisal • Insights & themes • Initial response • Effectuate • Review and Amend PAR is collaborative, critical, participatory, and developmental. 3
  4. 4. Participatory Action Research • acknowledge that the problem originates in the community itself and is defined, analyzed, and solved by the community. • ultimate goal of PAR research is the radical transformation of social reality and improvement in the lives of the individuals involved; thus, community members are the primary beneficiaries of the research. • PAR involves the full and active participation of the community at all levels of the entire research process. • PAR encompasses a range of powerless groups of individuals: the exploited, the poor, the oppressed, and the marginalized. • the ability to create a greater awareness in individuals’ own resources that can mobilize them for self-reliant development 4
  5. 5. Rapid Appraisal • Interviews in St James/Dallington team • Vertical sample through from Inspector through PC to PCSO and to residents • Use of RP as exploratory tool • Engagements recorded film/audio • Seeking insights and themes • Verify insights through extending sample • Theoretical saturation 5
  6. 6. Insights and Themes • Significant change in discourse about communities between Police Officer and PCSO • PCSO actively solving problems • PSCO acting as a “boundary spanner” (Tushman 1977) • Intuitive rather than deliberate community engagement and problem solving • Frustrated by limited power and locus of control (being ‘abstracted’ to other tasks) Tushman, Michael L (1977). "Special Boundary Roles in the Innovation Process". Administrative Science Quarterly 22 (4): 587–605. 6
  7. 7. Initial response • PCSOs operating in complex (messy) social environments – Soft Systems Methodology specifically designed for this • Police being measured on performance where solutions owned by non-Police actors – Community organising to get other working to deliver Police outcomes • Long tradition of expecting Police to solve everything – Weekly ‘you said, we did’ closed loop cycle – Required developing ‘self-efficacy’ in neighbourhoods 7
  8. 8. Unfreeze and Reframe • Socially Entrepreneurial PCSO think piece Jan 2013 • PCSO needs to have autonomy and locus of control to act effectively • PCSOs will go about a consistent and repeatable set of information gathering and problem analysis/solving tasks • encouraging and training new ‘engaged citizen informants’ to become smart customers of the Police equipped to ask the right questions • PCSO’s remit should follow natural community ‘neighbourhoods’ rather than parish boundaries • Retain and motivate this talent for localities through long-term engagement • neighbourhood based Police & Community Foundations would operates companies, led by the Police but securing funds and incomes from a variety of contracts Prompted by Policing 2020: What kind of police service do we want in 2020?” 8
  9. 9. First cohort • Generic but open framework of – Community profiling – Rich picture dialoguing – Issue prioritising – Intrinsic Motivation theory • Too much detail/academic • Too open and generic • Needed case studies • Methods well tested but never done in Police before 9
  10. 10. Three ‘test-sites’ • Dallington/St James –wider issues around Operation Isotope, gold burglaries amongst Bangladeshi community, first cohort PCSOs • Sheep St- complex neighbourhood with street drinking/homelessness and sex trade. • Rockingham Rd- street drinking and ASB, Polish community • Training sites for subsequent cohorts 10
  11. 11. LISP Proforma • Various re-ordering of toolkit- attempt to connect to National Decision Model • Better fit with SARA framework- familiar to PCSOs, but with more indepth investigation • Refocus on ethos of engagement and community organising • Back burner for data, profiling, and issues ranking • Lower priority for rich picturing- requires community engagement first • LISP coined as a counterpoint to LIPS 11
  12. 12. Second Cohort June/July 2013 • More focussed on LISP proforma • Less academic • Aide-memoire plus light touch how-to • PCSOs still charged with reading all the background materials • Supported by regular PCSO usergroup • Challenges • Handling through A01 process • ECINS as collaboration tool • Exclusion (of residents) arising from ‘technological responses’ • Sgts and Inspectors –’reinterpreting’ PCSO expectations, tasking LISP as additional duties rather than 40% core business 12
  13. 13. PSCO responses • Consistent language and process across county • Open framework allows different responses according to local conditions • Written copy of work completed • Evidence of crimes prevented • Option to escalate to overcome blocks • Hold partners to account • ‘allows you to chip away at the [persistent] problem’ 13
  14. 14. Risks going forward • Short term targets lead to frustration with apparent lack of progress • PSCOs given ‘activity’ rather than ‘outcome’ targets • Confusion between SARA/NDM/AO1 and new imports like super-cocooning • PCSOs timid about addressing difficult challenges ‘being faced with an unresolvable issue’ • LISP proforma completion measured according to ‘numbers done’ rather than quality of outcomes • LISPs remain a predominantly Police-led activity- Police remain addicted to ‘being in charge’ 14
  15. 15. Third cohort • Remaining PCSOs trained in Nov/Dec 2013 • Version #6 of training slides and #12 of LISP handbook • Concentration on St Seps area as training location • Improvement in ‘assent’ from PCSOs and grasp of RP approach • Some PCs and Sgt involvement • Briefing of all Sgts ‘Managing a LISP’. 15
  16. 16. Widening range of LISP projects • PCSOs undertaking ‘practice’ LISPs • Sgts clearer about selection criteria for LISPS • Better justification for LISP areas, RD working with stats team to create better crime rates data in standard set • Evidence of more intensive engagement in some LISPs • Reluctance to engage with RP as a planning technique • Still tendency to ‘own’ the process and create unsustainable ‘projects’ • Discussion about measuring cohesion. • Success measures are still Police-led. 16
  17. 17. Widening scope • Supt RJ shifted to new command Dec 2013 • Supt Dave Hill in Corporate Services picking up and widening LISP and IE to new Target Operating Model • Consider involving Special Constables and volunteers in LISPing • LISP project to be incorporated into Police and Community institute at University • E-learning module to be created in Jan 2014 17
  18. 18. Going forward Need to • Reinforce training with PCSO fora • Thorough case study on St Seps project as demonstrator • Laura Brodrick for better RP • Briefing of Inspectors and PCC. • Complete review of LISPs under progress- full analysis of patterns and issues 18
  19. 19. 2014 19
  20. 20. Shift from experiment to pilot • 10th Jan Presentation to Chief Constable Mr Lee • 6th of Feb Visit by Justice Minister Damian Green MP • 14th Feb, further PCSO training commences • 14th May, Intensive Engagement Part II commences • 23rd May, first phase of PCSOs present on LISP progress: Changemakers • 30th May CommunityHubs emerges in ASPIRE: involve • 16th June CommunityHubs Chief Supt Paul Fell and Insp. Dennis Murray • 12th July Police Cadets in Kettering collecting LISP data with Victoria Boulton 20
  21. 21. Scope of Work Jul 14 • First 12 months, primary engagement with the field • Secondary analysis of existing crime patterns and intelligence pertaining to the two pilot areas prior to LISP activity to identify hotspot patterns of actual crimes in Kettering and ‘fear of crime data’ in rural east northants (will require bespoke collation of data, driven by Vulnerable Localities Index patterns of vulnerability or bespoke fear of crime telephone survey separately commissioned), to identify ‘epicentres’ for initial LISP street work • Direct engagement with two pilot locations with Police cadets, PCSOs, Special Constables and officers to collect street level specific data to verify and supplement existing secondary data: – Physical assets (FieldTrip GB app) geolocated inventory of existing community assets, mapped. Systematic mapping of every street in vicinity of identified epicentres – Assist Identification and recruitment of community stakeholders identified from data trawl, working with PCSOs and specials to contact all identified stakeholders and collect contact details. Anonymised mapping of geolocation of stakeholder density in LISP areas. – Assist convening of working groups from stakeholder list and attending/observing meetings to develop rich pictures of local solutions and practices – Assisting in developing LISP proforma documentation to capture the LISP intensive engagement processes – Assisting to develop LISP/CommunityHub success factors from different stakeholders • After 12 months, evaluation stage • Evaluation of the LISP intensive engagement process and the development of solutions and practices, using a modified PAR evaluation tool called Attribution/Contribution, at the two pilot sites • Repeating the same evaluation at two/three other LISP intensive engagement activities that didn’t receive direct support • Map individual LISP project success factors against Police crime/performance data to identify impact on force demand. 21
  22. 22. Paper to ASPIRE May 14 • Community Hub • A body of people or services, that are accessible to all groups in the community that they serve. It will provide a range of high quality services, appropriate to that local community, that are flexible, in order to meet changing needs and demand. • PLUS • A community hub can or could: • Allow community access to assets • AND • Provide a self service functionality to local people • A community hub could be PERMANENT, PERIODIC or TEMPORARY. • In essence a Community hub relates to services, service provision and service access rather than simply buildings Chief Superintendent Paul Fell 22
  23. 23. Co-Location • Where two or more agencies or groups, come together in an operating scenario to deliver services in a sustainable/cost effective manner to a community. • Co-Location is always likely to be permanent. • In essence a co-location is more likely to relate to bases and buildings than necessarily service. 23
  24. 24. • The concept of community hubs is likely to be such that where one exists we ought to aspire to ensure that it: • ENGAGES - communities, partners, groups, individuals, volunteers. • INSPIRES – new approaches, different thinking, involvement. • MOTIVATES - constant improvement, involvement of local people to get involved, staff to deliver the best that they can. • EQUIPS – communities to help themselves, staff to support communities, local people and groups to actively participate. • SUPPORTS – growth and sustainability of communities and service provision, delivery of a range of agencies core principles and objectives, 24
  25. 25. Intensive Engagement PtII: Pilots • Two locations, based on VLI screening, Kettering Priority Area 6, and one in rural East Northants • Screening steps: • JDI Vulnerable Localities Index • Long term crime data from Priority Area analysis • Perception of crime data (rurality) • Locations of specials and volunteers, cadets • (criminal damage and road data from blue light partners) • Field work with cadets and PCSOs to collect assets inventory 25
  26. 26. Priority Area 6 data 26
  27. 27. Priority Area 6: Mapping Example – Kettering Sector •Also possible to filter hotspots down further by subgroup within the overall definitions E.g. Kettering -> Hard Crime -> Violence -> 15:00 to 17:00 •Hotspots spread out across the sector, with ‘hotter’ areas located near schools and leisure facilities •Decision to be made on whether to focus on overall definition (Hard or Soft) or specific crime times within these when developing patrols 5 Years 2013/14 https://www.dropbox.com/s/uiexnitb6ypyfrh/County%20Hotspot%20Presentation%20%282%29%20%282%29.pptx 27
  28. 28. A selection of LIPS data for Kettering, top priorities 28
  29. 29. People being drunk or rowdy 29
  30. 30. Geomapped Community Connects in Kettering 30
  31. 31. Field Trip GB 31
  32. 32. First round of Community Asset data Collected July 2014 32
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×