Public confidence in the police (part 12,329)

So, continuing the hopelessly un-timely nature of recent posts, we return to Theresa May's dismissal of the PSA23 confidence target (PDF).

As noted previously, very mixed feelings on this. There's no doubt that the specific question was a complete dog's dinner that not only shackled police performance to that of the local council in a way probably entirely foreign to most members of the public. It also included the startling methodological innovation of a quadrupled barrelled format (police and local council; crime and ASB). And those problems are essentially the hors d'oeuvre before the main course of whether a single-item measure of public opinion, no matter how valid and accurate, should be the over-arching performance measure for the police. Not because public opinion isn't important - it certainly is - but because the extent to which opinion is entirely, or even primarily, tied to things the police actually do remains rather unclear. Diffuse concerns about the nature and direction of social change might be just as important influences on people's opinions as what transpired the last time they had contact with a police officer, in the aggregate at least.

And yet, it is because what people think about the police is so important, in terms of cooperation, deference to officers at times of stress, for compliance with the law - in the final analysis, the entire practise of policing by consent - that we should be very concerned about recent developments. The emphasis on pubic confidence arose, remember, out of a general recognition that public opinion surrounding the police is problematic, in some communities and sections of society at least, and there exist pockets of real alienation from the uniformed police and the wider society they so often represent. Even among the safe, comfortable middle classes, who in general continue to profess great support for the police, it is possible to detect significant issues with trust and an undermining of the legitimacy of the law (witness the way almost no-one thinks traffic policing is sensibly conducted, that speed limits apply to everyone except oneself, etc. - see here for a proper discussion of this specific issue).

With the best will in the world, will increasingly cash strapped forces continue to emphasise public confidence in the same way as in recent years if there is no target involved? On first glance it seems unlikely. Furthermore, it remains unclear as to what the government will replace the current regime with, although presumably the elected commissioners will figure in a significant way.

We should not forget that all the current evidence suggests that the best tool police actually have at their disposal to enhance public confidence - the best thing they can actually do - is improve the way officers interact with individuals and the way local forces interact with communities. This was, potentially, a classic win-win situation. Those concerned with continued problems in the relationship between police and community saw a way to encourage the police to behave in more procedurally fair and respectful ways, and police managers got a relatively easy and extremely cheap way to address their targets (although, of course, the ridiculously short-time scales imposed by the previous Home Office regime mitigated against any real progress being visible within the time frame allowed).

But if the new regime reverts to a classically instrumental focus on crime reduction we could be faced with a lose-lose situation. Much police work is of necessity instrumental and short-term, in that it is directed at problems which need a rapid and effective proximal solution. But if the policy emphasis is directed too heavily in this direction, and switches away (arguable, even further away) from developing styles of policing which treat citizens and communities with dignity and respect, not only do we risk losing sight of ethically and normatively desirable styles of policing, but we also run the risk of (further) de-legitimising the police in the eyes of those they police and serve, with all the consequences this will have in terms of cooperation and compliance with the law.

Put simply unfair policing will likely generate, in the long run, more crime. Most police officers of course treat most people fairly and with respect most of the time. But a switch away from positioning public opinion at the centre of the debate runs the risk of not strengthening support via a focus in the core business of 'fighting crime' but undermining it by losing sight of what policing should be about - working with individuals and communities to build a stronger, safer and (dare I say it) perhaps fairer society.