In writing about this topic, the obvious starting point is the Policing White Paper published towards the end of January. As we noted in our snap response blog, the breadth of structural changes announced was genuinely impressive. With a new National Police Service (which Leapwise are involved in working on) plus possible mergers into a more regionalised model, much is set to change.
But what is the rationale for these broad system reforms? Below we share a revised version of our submission to the Public Accounts Committee’s police productivity inquiry, in which we set out exactly why structural reforms are merited.
3 reasons why policing structures need to change
As we’ve argued before, current policing structures fail to balance local responsiveness and national productivity in the most effective way. Here are three more detailed reasons why structural change in policing is long overdue.
1. The localised policing model in England and Wales has clear strengths, but there are several areas of inefficiency
Leapwise has summarised key issues in the current policing model and structures in our joint publication with the Police Foundation, Fit for the future: the Case for a reformed national policing landscape.
The most relevant issues are the excessive decentralisation of work and approaches to police technology, procurement, HR (particularly in relation to recruitment, learning and development, and workforce planning) and operational support functions (e.g. forensics, air support). We are wary of an over-centralised approach that creates bureaucracy and stifles innovation. However, the inefficiency of 43 forces doing individual work to assess which critical systems they require, procure these systems from suppliers (sometimes with very underpowered commercial teams), and incentivise suppliers to continuously improve is clear. This is a major reason behind the current government’s proposed reforms.
2. National policing structures are excessively fragmented and underpowered
The fragmentation of national policing capabilities drives significant inefficiency – with somewhat overlapping remits still evident across the major national policing delivery bodies (Home Office, NPCC, College of Policing, Police Digital Service, BlueLight Commercial). Work is underway to establish the National Police Service to address this fragmentation (though the precise scope and nature of planned arrangements remains unclear at the time of writing).
As an example – a test perhaps of system governance and accountability – it would be interesting to try and identify who is responsible for improving police productivity at present and in future. We know that an important new function has been established within the College of Policing (Centre for Police Productivity) but its remit, funding and authority to drive required improvements is not immediately apparent. This is not to criticise any one individual or body, but to point out that the system structures don’t provide the clarity that would be needed in an ideal approach.
3. Wider structures may also be sub-optimal
There have been many high-profile calls to restructure policing and create a more ‘regionalised’ policing model through force mergers over the years. And now the Home Secretary has set that as her ideal direction of travel, with the Policing White Paper noting that a major review of mergers will be launched shortly to report within six months.
Leapwise has not conducted in-depth analysis of regionalisation, but we do believe that such work needs to be undertaken urgently. The choice about police structures cannot relate to on-paper efficiencies from ‘economies of scale’ alone. Ultimately, policing will only improve its productivity over the long-term with appropriate local and national democratic oversight – and this will likely best be achieved by building on existing mayoral governance models operating at city-regional level, rather than ‘invented’ structures.
What next?
The full implications of the Police White Paper – and resulting reforms being announced by the Home Secretary – are still to be determined. If you’re interested in this debate or finding it tough to navigate this complex environment, you can get in touch by clicking the link below.