Unfolding some rumours about the EQF…

So, I have finally – after vowing I wouldn’t – decided to come and discuss the Educational Qualification Framework (EQF) for Policing. Why should I come into the debate? Good question really. I guess first, I’m a cop, so it affects me, and it affects the people that I am working with. I have also just finished working on the Leadership Review, part of which included some research on whether education was an important part of future leadership. Indeed, I also did a lot of the comparative work on the EQF, looking at how other jobs structured their professions from start to finish. It totally opened my eyes.

The reason I’ve decided to blog, is that the info that is out there is sparse. I can’t comment on other’s communications, or indeed other people’s opinion, as it is theirs. I also don’t contend how people ‘feel’ about this. It is their prerogative and totally individual. I can shine a light on some of the research that I found and why a lot of the myths/concerns around at the minute don’t stack up. It may help paint some foreground and some background into the debate, and context is always so important.

Brace yourself, it’s a long one…

Current research evidence and making an evidence based decision

The current research around this in the UK is very, very sparse. There have not been many studies on whether being a graduate increases the quality of the officer. People have assumed that this is a major driver for its introduction, and this is just untrue. Cops up and down the country are making difficult decisions in complicated circumstances all the time, and doing so with great compassion and skill. Indeed, within environments where we work with partners, cops are often the only ones without a qualification, yet their performance still causes them to become leaders in those fields.

So, if there’s no evidence in the UK that suggests cops need to be graduates, why should we consider it?

Research elsewhere does indicate that certain things do happen. There’s good evidence from the US (in research terms) that puts together many studies, that shows that graduate officers use less force than non-graduate officers – and before you say that’s because they avoid confrontation, that was ‘controlled for’ in the studies, and there is no difference in arrest rates. There is also good evidence that graduate officers receive less public complaints.

There is weaker evidence across a number of studies that only hit low levels on the Maryland Scale of Evidence (this means that they aren’t as rigorous). These indicate higher levels of empathy/emotional intelligence and higher uses of alternate disposals. I would be loath to rely on these, but it is an interesting area for further research.

And on that note, some commentators have mentioned that there is a lack of an evidence base to make this decision in the UK to move to a graduate only profession and that there should be further research before doing it. I think this would be totally the right thing to do, but right now, the cops are on a burning platform, and we need to move quickly before things start collapsing. A systematic review would take many years, and right now we do not have anything like the time needed to conduct it. If austerity carries on at the same rate as it is forecast to; by 2021 the overall level of officers will fall by half what it was 5 years ago. Half the amount of officers…

What does this mean? Well you may have caught commentators from the NPCC talking about how this will affect their basic ability to answer 999 calls, and if we can’t answer 999 calls, how are we going to train our cops properly? This is a serious consideration… As training becomes more complex and specialist, how are we to deliver it? In many forces the L&D function will almost cease to exist entirely, with only space for mandatory training sessions based on legislative change. The cops are currently one of the only professions that pay their recruits a full wage to train, without – in turn – asking them to work. This is an amazing thing and something that has been of immense value in the past, but when we can’t answer 999 calls, can we ethically keep this function? Keeping people safe has to be our priority, and if that means taking our training out of that ‘fully paid’ role, that is what may have to happen. Am I happy about this? No. Would I like for this not to be the case? Yes. Is it something that I think should be preserved? In principle, yes, but if it means less cop cars or less frontline officers when things are stretched – I’m sorry, the public come first.

People have seen the ‘shifting the burden of paying onto the individual’ comment and assumed that this decision is about saving money, but it isn’t, it’s about preserving core function. We are a public service, and we need to conduct our core duties that allow us to remain viable – this may mean that a lot of things that we hold dear may disappear. It’s a travesty, but saying or feeling that it is a travesty doesn’t stop it from happening. As a side note, if we begin to fail at core function like 999 Response, this paves the way for privatisation at a frightening rate – please bear this in mind…

So, in summary, there is some evidence that being a graduate changes the behaviour of officers. Is it enough to conduct wholesale change? No. Have we got time to conduct a proper research review of graduate officers in comparison to non-graduate officers? No – austerity is forcing change at a far faster rate than would allow it. And the final chunk of ‘evidence,’ based on current profiles and projections, the cuts are at a level that would remove most – if not all – of the internal learning and development function, how would we train our officers?

The Knowledge Base

People will have heard these terms being thrown around over the last few years: ‘The Knowledge Base,’ ‘the Evidence Base,’ or the ‘Profession’s Body of Knowledge.’ They all mean the same thing, but let me run them through with you, so this next bit makes sense.

When training to be a doctor or a lawyer, students will look at the great body of knowledge that the profession has built up over many years. They will leaf through books, journals, magazines, commentaries, and lecture notes. They will read about the failures of the past, the successes, the near-misses, and more importantly, they will learn about how more knowledge is generated. In medicine it is research, in law it is statute and case law (in the main), and they know that they will need to stay up to date with this knowledge throughout their career.

Where is the Policing Knowledge base? Good question, I wasn’t taught any policing history during initial training, there was no identified body of knowledge, and mainly I spent 5 months learning various bits of legislation rote. In fact, most transactional training since has been very similar. Many will be saying: So What? Good question, well here is what happens when you don’t have a knowledge base:

The profession makes the same mistakes again and again as learning from past mistakes does not take place. As a physical example, it takes huge mistakes like those that happened at Soham for system change to take place, but personally, I haven’t seen anything about Soham or what it meant for policing (in other words, we change the system and not the people).

Many wheels are re-invented. This means that pilot after pilot in new technology/practice takes place all over the country, and that knowledge is not shared. I remember testing body worn cameras over ten years ago. Ten years! The profession is only just now conducting research into whether they offer benefit. Even if we decide that they are amazing, it will probably take another 5-10 years before we have a uniform system in place, and even then officers won’t be able to access the lessons learned, because the Knowledge Base is currently so sparse. This is being developed now by the College of Policing, but think of the waste that has taken place over the preceding ten years – just on bodycams… Establishing a Knowledge Base makes policing a whole lot less expensive to the tax payer, because it stops us repeating the same problems repeatedly.

Lack of consistency. People mix stuff up around this bit. This isn’t about training clones, or even about training everyone in the same way. Localism and individual preference is really important, and quashing that is bad for a healthy profession. This is about getting core understanding out there, in a way that allows for basic decisions to be made in the right way. An example: If you are burgled, research has shown that you are far more likely to be burgled again within the next few weeks/months. It also shows that your neighbours are at far higher risk. I have personally seen many officers advise the opposite. Why? Because there is a lack of structured continued learning in the cops, and the Knowledge that we have was never taught during training.

What does extending the training towards a degree actually do? Well it compliments the transactional training (statute and legal requirement), and the craft that is learned from peers in the workplace. Let’s face it, most useful learning is done ‘in the job’ almost via campfire stories or visibly seeing others do the job. This is great if you think that the job is totally the same as it was a hundred years ago, but it has carried on changing over that time and many things have strayed behind – technology being only one example. It’s about introducing the ‘science’ to the ‘art’ and the ‘craft.’ It is the main difference between a trade, and a profession.

If you don’t make the move to make this a requirement, what happens? Well, you have people making decisions using common sense, plus the science and enhanced understanding, and you have people making decisions using common sense. Advising your burglary victim that it is highly unlikely they will be targeted again – common sense. Advising them to strengthen their security and pulling in crime prevention and providing extra awareness – common sense and science with enhanced understanding. Which would you want as a victim?

I need to add as a caveat here, that it has nothing to do with the quality of the person in the above scenario, indeed there is nothing that says a graduate does the second better than the first. What it does say though, is that the Knowledge Base will not make an impact unless it goes out as widely as possible.

And again, I move to the So What? There is a growing Knowledge Base that has to go out as widely as possible. Why? Because it helps us make less victims, and it helps us make better decisions. Right now, taking on this extra knowledge is optional. Some forces don’t like it, other don’t subscribe to it, and others love it and are taking it on quickly. What does this look like to the public? It looks like a service that may criminalise in one area, whilst another will not, it looks like a service that may make less victims in one area, whilst another will not, and it looks like a service that gives better victim care in one area, whilst another will not.

Core consistency is very, very important – and right now we don’t have the resources or the structure to make it happen.

Diversity

This is the rebuff that has been the most quoted. Let me ask something. There is no other public service that currently has the openness of the police. We ask for hardly any entry requirements (some forces do but they are the exception and not the rule), we train everyone and pay them whilst they train, we are currently actively seeking diversity and offer pro-active support to minorities, and we pay the same rate as other graduate professions. Right now, we are immensely attractive when you look at our barriers to entry.

And our current levels of diversity are awful. Let’s be honest, every other profession has higher levels of diversity, and they have far more barriers.

Here’s the question… Is it possible, that actually, our lack of barriers affects our status as a profession?

From personal experience, I know officers who are from a minority background who have received derision for their choice to join the police as their community holds the job in poor regard. Why? Because it isn’t a profession, and the level of structural learning is low-non-existent, and the culture is often perceived to be racist. I would hazard a guess, that tackling this status should be a priority if we are to recruit from diverse backgrounds. 23% of current under-graduates studying come from a diverse background, and they make up far less of the population as a proportion. Graduate entry could be attractive and actually help with recruitment.

Aside from that, the evidence in the EU and the US of bringing in graduate entry into policing affecting diversity indicates a slight rise in diversity following its introduction – as long as positive action and other entry schemes such as apprenticeships remain in place (which they will). Police Now (Graduate scheme) has also recruited (in its first intake) far higher levels of diversity than standard recruitment across the country…

Summary: Suggesting that it will affect diversity recruitment is an interesting suggestion, as our diversity recruitment is poor now and we are one of the most open public services. Using the available evidence, we can gain an indication that this issue won’t raise its head, in fact it may even go in the opposite direction. The truth will out in the future, if it happens, and we shall see. If it does, then it will need addressing.

Transferability

This is the one that I will likely receive most abuse for (yes, abuse, as I have seen pretty awful abuse directed at graduates across the service since this discussion started). The current structure of our job does amazing things for people. It provides security, it provides structure, and it provides stability. There are very few jobs that allow tenure, and yes we have paid for it by withdrawing our industrial rights. In the past, when the pensions were excellent, finding another job was almost seen as a compliment to your life following retirement. With the pension re-structure, and the tenure extensions, the chances of staying in the job for life are limited. I have spoken with many officers who say that they will likely move as they can’t foresee themselves on the frontline working 24 hour shifts at age 60 (and who could blame them?).

This is where the change in the ability to transfer out of the job kicks in. Because the service is well paid, and because most similar jobs (in terms of pay) are at graduate level, our cops may face a significant pay cut and cut in their quality of life when they leave. How is this fair? Cops are functioning at graduate level now. They make fast paced, high risk, complex decisions every day, in an environment filled with graduates from other services. That is one of the reasons why accredited prior learning is being introduced, to allow serving officers the option of accrediting their experience, so that they do not get trapped in a job that they would like to leave, without significantly affecting their quality of life.

Staying in a job that is affecting your health, with few alternatives available, without the option of pursuing higher level learning (such as Masters etc.) could be pretty toxic to the future workforce. And yes, this means that policing may become a 10 year profession for some,(or even shorter) but the changes from a 30 year profession to a much longer one was not of the police’s making. Ensuring that the service supports the new environment is pretty darn important for wellbeing, and for culture, and for putting our current awesome staff to the same level in the external environment that they are performing at internally.

To reiterate, this is optional. Do you want to stay the whole 38+ years and don’t want to accredit your learning? No problem. Totally your choice as a cop.

Finally

I have talked extensively about the risks above. What happens if we don’t do this? Here’s a pretty big one… The future of policing does not look like the policing of ten years ago. It will be fast, highly scrutinised, highly visible, and decision making will be far more complex. Making a decision to arrest a DV offender won’t be as simple as ‘positive action,’ it will require knowledge of the accepted professional practice, exposure to the changing Knowledge Base, common sense, and the ability to communicate.

Example: When you go to a doctor, they will know the drugs that they can prescribe through their exposure to the medical Knowledge Base, they will know their current area policy for prescription, and they will need common sense and communication to make that person comfortable and understand what is happening.

If those doctors were just using their common sense and their communication, and had no knowledge of the available research and made the wrong decision, there would be some pretty tough questions to be answered. And they aren’t under the microscope all the time, and verbally challenged constantly, and dealing with highly drunk/drugged people (in most cases), and probably being recorded via mobile phone.

The cop environment is tough now. As the research grows around What Works, officers and constabularies will have to keep up to speed with it. I’m not talking about reading academic journals, I’m talking about continuing professional development. We can’t train in two years, and then do defensive tactics/fitness test/public order until we retire. The world is changing faster than that, and as such so will our accountability.

If you know more, you are accountable for more, and having just seen millions of pounds go into developing the Knowledge Base, I would say that getting our future cops up to speed with it isn’t optional, because it protects them as much as possible.

There’s a perfect storm coming if we don’t get ahead of it, and protecting our cops in the midst of it requires the introduction of science/research understanding. This isn’t a slight on any serving cops, it’s not a barrier designed to keep people out, and it’s certainly not an attack on the level of service we provide now (which is exceptional in most cases). It’s about improving the levels of learning, whilst having no money to do so, and protecting the wellbeing of our cops with regards to future scrutiny and visibility, and their desire to leave the cops should they so wish (there are other reasons that I won’t touch as this is too long already).

As a final note, the slating of graduates as police officers has just been shocking. I have met some cops who have been poor who have been graduates, I’ve also met some cops who weren’t graduates, who were also poor. That is a recruitment/development issue and not an educational one. Tarring educated cops as ‘bag carriers’ is nothing but anti-intellectualism and serves no other purpose than to divide. Gone are the days when graduates entering the profession was rare, it’s just a pity that the same attitudes have stuck around despite the world moving on. This is a debate that we need to have, at least keep it civil and respectful – as befits the service which we represent.

Climbing (and falling from) the greasy pole…

How do we measure a good leader?

This must have been debated at every level of the service at length. I have been party to some interesting conversation on garage forecourts at 4am around who has been promoted and who hasn’t, as many cops probably have. Everyone has an opinion, but the consensus often falls onto a ‘good/bad’ footing at some point. The promotion system is often discussed in a very derogatory way by officers at the sharp end. Many have little faith in it and will almost always state that it is one of the reasons they will never try for a leadership position.

So what do good and bad look like? What does a competent leader look like? Well this is a tough question and one that is very open to subjectivity. There are some really contemporary thoughts on this in current literature, looking at concepts like ‘Stewardship’ and ‘Followership,’ with older theories espousing various forms of Heroic Leadership and grip/control. Theory aside, many will state, ‘I know a leader when I see one,’ and perhaps this is the best way to define it, as a good leader is often defined by how those they are leading see them. This -of course- means that there will be many different kinds of leaders in many different walks of life.

The below is a very quick image from Kotter (who is a pretty well known guy in mgmt theory).

IMG_0105

It may not be a surprise to think that most of the supervision that cops experience fall on the Mgmt side. There are other graphics that exchange the words ‘Mgmt.’ for ‘Boss.’ Either way, if you think that the biggest influence on Police Leadership has been New Public ‘Management‘ for the last 15-20 years, it stands to reason that Mgmt. as a leadership style has won out. This does not mean that there are not charismatic managers and managers that inspire and support their staff. I know of several who do and are excellent from an anecdotal perspective. It does however indicate that a strong weighting may be present due to the 30 year police employment tenure. If all you have known is Mgmt., and all the bosses want from prospective leaders is to display ‘strong’ Mgmt., then all you will end up with is more managers. This presents an interesting conundrum, and one that I discussed in my last blog around a reactive policing style favouring a command style of leadership. Does a heavy Mgmt. structure favour only managers? What if you are a great leader? You certainly represent more risk than usual.

This can be referred to as Prototype Leadership, or a situation within an organisation where those higher in the hierarchy will select those that they feel most affinity with. In short, bosses will promote bosses who look and act like them. This ensures safety, consistency of delivery, and absolutely no rocking of the proverbial boat. It is by no means particular to policing and happens in many careers on a regular basis.

Now where people stumble, is that criticism of such a process often relies on an assumption that the bosses do this consciously. ‘They only choose people that are like them.’ Although this may actually be true in terms of outcome, in that self-selection does occur, it is often completely unconscious and very difficult to ‘self check.’ Those funny generalisations start to come out to explain it when discussing promotion, like, ‘I think they are ready,’ or ‘I feel safe with him/her in charge.’ It is those generalisations that begin to hint at unconscious bias, and not being aware of it can be hazardous to the future of the organisation, because self selection drastically limits the propensity to change…

I don’t want to drag this part of the conversation out, but research of candidates during promotion processes showed that those candidates who displayed creativity in problem solving were AUTOMATICALLY thought of by selectors as having less leadership potential. What is happening here? The selectors are selecting ‘safe.’ What are the long term implications of this? Well, unless this particular unconscious bias is addressed, creativity is filtered out of candidates or the creative candidates are filtered out themselves.

What are the implications for the future of any organisation who has large amounts of prototype leadership? If you were in private industry the market would overtake the business and it would die. In the public sector? Stability and consistency, whilst the world accelerates on passed it. It could be said that attempts to address the changing profile of crime (i.e. huge increase in use of technology) have fallen victim to ‘safe hands’ management, augmented by archaic procurement bureaucracy and an unwillingness to utilise external skills. This is however complete speculation…

How do we address this problem? It’s unconscious, it results in stability, it’s consistent for the public… Should we change it? Is it a bad thing for a public service? The answer again lies in diversity. The same research as discussed above, showed that activating the ‘Creative Leader’ prototype addressed the problem. This basically means saying, ‘Hey, selector people, creative candidates can make really good leaders, can we have some of them too?’ This means that the current Leaders asking for creative candidates from selectors may actually result in a large shift in the kind of leaders selected.

It’s kind of like giving permission or empowering selectors to look for difference in candidates…

This is where the benefits start to kick in, balancing risk taking leaders who inspire, with managers who help keep them grounded and ensure that checks and balances are in place, sounds like a good combination for the public doesn’t it? So change is there, but it isn’t too crazy…

Putting people in the boardroom who aren’t always ‘safe’ is a good way to grow, not just in the organisation, but personally too. Difference in our leader profiles is therefore necessary for healthy challenge and change. All that is left then, is to organise/develop a system of selection that allows flexibility, where individuals are selected for role, and not for rank. This in turn, may make that pole a little – just a little – less greasy.

That however, is a whole new blog.

The Paul McKeever Scholarship and Diversity…

Having spent the last few blogs talking about how research may be used in the day to day business of policing, I thought I would digress slightly and discuss  the Paul McKeever Scholarship and provide some detail of the subjects being studied by the successful students. I myself will be studying the sleeping giant that is diversity, so I would like to have a walk through the issues there and impart to you some of my thoughts. As usual, I would welcome any comment or feedback.

This is the inaugural year of the Paul McKeever Scholarship, and one which will hopefully set some precedent for the coming years. There are 7 students on the scholarship, which is organised and run by Canterbury Christ Church University (CCCU). CCCU has a long history of collaboration with the Police both in relation to teaching and research. CCCU were recently successful in gaining funding from the College of Policing to research crime analysis and the links with academia, they are currently involved in the evaluation of predictive policing options being trialled in the MPS and have also been a key player for many years in the police and HE (Higher Education) forum, which has strong links with the College of Policing. The University also offers a BSc Policing programme (in service for anyone interested) specifically aimed at serving officers and members of police staff. It is because of all this work in the Policing realm, that the Metropolitan Police Federation decided to develop the Paul McKeever scholarship to fund relevant research projects. The findings of these projects will hopefully assist them in providing an evidence base on issues affecting their members.

The subjects that the students are studying are:

Training within the Police – specifically the efficacy/value of NCALT.

Diversity – With reference to the use of quotas to solve the ‘problem’ of representation.

Evidence Based Policing

Retention

Morale

The impact of cuts on specialist roles within policing

Fairness (gender issues)

The research will be used to assist and inform decision making in the MPS and additionally it is hoped that the research will also facilitate discussion at a national level both around issues impacting policing and more generally across the country.

With regards to my subject of diversity, the specific area being explored concerns whether recruitment quotas of BAME (Black, Asian, MInority, Ethnic) candidates actually help to solve the problems of representation within the Police. The default position always is – and has been for some time – that higher numbers of BAME candidates will assist with a cultural change within the organisation and lead to greater trust in the BAME communities. I will be investigating this presumed link, as there are some serious questions around the assumption that higher numbers of BAME candidates will go some way to help solve the larger problem of trust within communities.

On the face of the numbers, the current statistics from the last census indicate that approximately 80% of the UK population is classed as ‘White British’ (link here),whilst 95% of the UK Police force is ‘White British.’ (link here) This 15% gap is the focus of the use of recruitment quotas (read ‘targets’), with a discerned move towards removing it. It has been presumed that closing this gap will solve the problem of ‘representation.’

There are cultural questions around this assumption that can be very painful to ask. Diversity has always been a ‘touchy’ subject around rank and file, and the use of quotas can be discussed with absolute derision. The usual comments revolve around recruiting the ‘best candidates’ regardless of sex/age/ethnicity/religion/sexuality etc. apply. Many will say that this is fair comment, but the issue is far more complicated than any numbers can illustrate. This may also be a symptom of the problem. If the majority of successful candidates originate from one dominant demographic, then there has to be some reason for that.

One of my supervisors was having a discussion with a HR professional from IBM around the issue of representation. The discussion was interesting, as they stated that representation was not an issue for them as a company as they had a very diverse workforce by default. Their working baseline was to always take the best candidates as discussed above. The best candidates were diverse anyway, so positive action was not necessary. The default position in the Police is however, very different. The amount of applications from BAME candidates is low by comparison, and for whatever reason, the eventual recruitment of BAME candidates is also relatively low following the recruitment process.

This throws up many questions around the attractiveness of the Police as a profession, the reasons around this attractiveness, the suitability of the Police selection process, and the cultural inhibitors that may pre-exist any application to join the Police. These however, are all part of a wider picture around representation. What does that look like to communities? Is it desirable? If so, why? How does a diverse force act and how does it behave? Are the larger questions about openness to difference, rather than around ethnic background?

These questions are very large and they don’t preclude the fact that quotas may in fact be a great way of addressing the problem within our communities. The problem is – as I have mentioned in previous blogs – we actually don’t know. We don’t know enough about what ‘representation’ looks like to design solutions that go some way to actually achieve it.

The current method of using recruitment quotas could actually be viewed as a certified effort of Ready – Fire – Aim.

On a larger scale, this could all be part of a bigger picture of a binary way of viewing issues in the Police. There are many binary relationships in the Police, including guilty/innocent, red/green, detected/undetected, convicted/no-trace, goody/baddy, legal/illegal, and the biggy – problem solved/problem fixed. These relationships all form part of the social norms that create a copper’s daily business, so they can’t help but form the way that problems are solved. Simple and quick solutions have an extraordinary attraction in a busy environment, yet fixing a problem – read sticky plaster, is no way to solve an arterial bleed. That requires intricate and complex surgery that is based on years of evidence based medicine. Sociological problems cannot be examined in a binary way; they exist in kaleidoscope containing an impressive array of shades of grey.

It is my aim as a student on the scholarship, to go out into the communities that the Police Force serve and ask these questions, with a view to collating themes and experiences. These will form the basis for a qualitative study into how the Police can better service the problem of representation and ultimately, help with justifying – or indeed the opposite – the use of recruitment quotas as a means to improve. I would also like to explore other research methods and ally the real experiences of people that I speak with, with the quantitative data that the Police use every day. Do they match up? Or is there a gap between what the numbers look like, and what they actually say?

I would really like your views on this, as it can only help for me to canvas feelings on what can be quite a sensitive subject. Comment here, or drop me an email on garethlstubbs@gmail.com if you would like to discuss it without the full weight of the internet watching.

I shall – of course – be keeping you updated as the research kicks in!