1. The Future of ‘Policing’ Accountability & Engagement Martin Davis Chair London Communities Policing Partnership

2. © 2015 Overview The 2015 General Election Dynamics of budget reductions Market Forces: the Outsourcing of Safer Communities What may change?

3. © 2015 Key Topic Why Accountability & Engagement? Accountability Structures Accountability and Markets Accountable policing in a developing mixed delivery environment

4. © 2015 The Why and How of Accountability Historic/Traditional: Policing by consent – Peel Principles Diversity: Scarman, MacPherson/Lawrence etc Probity and Professional Standards: IPCC, Audit Panels, Police College, HMIC, professional standards etc. Developing statutory requirements: PCCs and CSPs ‘to engage with and take account of..’

5. © 2015 Developing Legal Duties for Local Community Accountability Section 96 of the Police Act 2006 (as amended by Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011), requires PCCs to make arrangements for: i) Obtaining the views of the community on policing of the area. ii) Gaining community co-operation with the police in preventing crime and anti social behaviour in that area. iii) Obtaining the views of victims of crime in that area about matters concerning the policing of the area. iv) Obtaining, before a police and crime plan is issued under section 5 or 6 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, the views of the people in that police area, and the views of the victims of crime in that area, on that plan. v) Those arrangements must include, in the case of a police area listed in Schedule 1, arrangements for obtaining, before the first precept for a financial year is issued by the police and crime commissioner under section 40 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, the views of — (a) the people in that police area, and (b) the relevant ratepayers' representatives, on the proposals of the PCC for expenditure (including capital expenditure) in that financial year.

6. © 2015 But Fragmentation of Policing and Safer Communities commissioning (PCCs and Chief Constables), CSPs and LAs - differential approach. Fragmentation of delivery between public service, third sector and commercial enterprise Slippage? Expediting policing, crime reduction and prevention with less resources: reductions, outsourcing, reprioritisation or resource sharing ‘New model’ policing (LPM); less police visibility (and community engagement). The politics of policing as a gatekeeper and rule maker.

7. © 2015 Accountability Bodies Police and Crime Commissioners Police and Crime Panel/Committee LCRB (private officer meeting in London) quarterly – London strategic partnership /oversight PCCs Audit Panels Local CD Scrutiny CSPs Safer Neighbourhood Boards and Ward Panels (accountable or consultation groups) or their non-London equivalents HMIC and National Policing College

8. © 2015 Unintended consequences Organisational barriers to engagement, consultation and accountability Reduction in community confidence (consensual policing) Reduction in partnership investment/work Reactive policing/fire brigade policing Introduction of commercial confidentiality and shareholders as stakeholders Stretching current mechanisms for accountability, engagement and scrutiny beyond their limits

9. © 2015 Holding “Policing” to Account: Without standards or expectations Current structures struggle to maintain scrutiny and accountability for public service policing – yet they need to be fit for their expanded purpose. Need to build structures for effective scrutiny and accountability in transformational period. Need a benchmark standard and agreed structure for Effective Scrutiny, Accountability & Engagement Being aware that the transformation introduces new actors into the scene - Shareholder/Stakeholder; Central Govt. Stakeholder. Developing and inclusive Partnership Policing Model, based upon agreed standards delivering accountable services.

10. © 2015 Some Questions What will be the impact of the National Police College and developing role of other related institutions over next 5 years? Where do outsourced or commercially provided services fit in to current accountability practice? How accessible is information related to outsourced work - for instance Action Fraud (the national cyber fraud reporting centre) and NFIB or the work of private providers to the CJS? What will be the impact of the new model of policing on community engagement and accountability? Is the Scarman local model of engagement and accountability any longer relevant/valid?

11. © 2015 Thanks for Listening martin.davis@community-safety.info