PCSOs - what do you think?

At the Southwark Crown Court last night I took part in a mock trial exercise for trainee policemen (you wouldn't want an officer to be giving evidence for the first time in a real case, any more than you want a surgeon's first incision to be on a real patient).  One of the officers with whom I spoke told me that 80% of her cohort of trainees were once PCSOs, and it was through their involvement in that role that they were recruited to the Force.

Not a bad bit of anecdotal support for PCSOs, is it?

I mean, people usually say that they'd rather have a "proper copper" - and that's fair enough; I think that -viewing the question in abstract - even most PCSOs would entirely agree.  But my experience last night suggests that, having had an involvement with the Force and a view of what the job entails, a significant number of PCSOs become "proper coppers".

When they were first introduced, I used to go in for the standard anti-PCSO line myself.  I had a glancing involvement a couple of years back with a case in which a PCSO performed a bona fide act of heroism in the course of his duties, which rather changed my mind.  But furthermore, I'm not convinced any longer that they're such a bad idea in more general terms.

People say that they're providing policing "on the cheap".  Well, they are - but isn't that a good thing?  I mean, I know that their powers are very limited etcetera - but they provide a visible and reassuring sign of the presence of law enforcement, which is exactly what most people say they want from policing.  As our police force finds itself so tied up with bureaucracy etcetera, playing more of a "station house" policing role in which they respond to pre-existing problems rather than providing a deterrent effect through patrols and visible presence, the PCSO fills the gap.  You can say, "fix the problem with the Force" which is of course fair enough, but whilst the problem exists the PCSO helps answer it.

Furthermore, they have to put themselves in exactly the kind of danger that Constables face on patrol - indeed, because they really only patrol, they're in more danger given the greater frequency of said patrols.  They expose themselves to that risk for much less pay, and whilst being subjected to frequent jeers and abuse from the public to whom they seek to provide a valuable service.

And, as I said at the outset, they are being recruited in greater numbers now into the Constabulary, providing a regular supply of recruits who have been tested through service in one way already, and who know what they're getting into. 

Being a police officer takes 30 weeks of training and 2 years of a probationary period, and that's after preliminary training and college etcetera.  That's not for everyone.  The PCSO role allows an avenue for service for people for whom that's not a suitable route.

And we have many more people out there on the streets looking out for law and order.  (Indeed, the "one PCSO, one PC" method of patrolling seems to have provided the best of both worlds.)  Weighing it all up, and I freely agree that I've not really provided the other side of the argument here (feel free to do so in the comments), I find that - against my initial inclinations - I'm in favour of the PCSO role.

What do you think?

Comments

[Chris]

I've recently warmed a bit to the PCSO program but I am still a long way from what you would call a supporter. The community meetings they hold are good as they enable people to feel that the police are interested in the minor disturbances going on in their lives.

Ultimately though I hold a great deal more respect for special constables who also provide an excellent pathway into the force. They have all of the powers of a "proper copper" but are volunteers who want to give something back to the community. Last week my house mate received his warrant card 8 months after being recruited after he made a citizens arrest (He received his training during weekends away). Following his degree he has now decided that he wants to join the regular force.

In Southampton local Conservatives are going to make special constables exempt from council tax in a bid to encourage more people to become part time police officers. PCSOs are semi-police on the cheap, this local policy is real police on the cheap...

[Neil Reddin]

In my own ward and borough, a good number of the PCSOs and Specials are effectively doing an apprenticeship while waiting for a place to open up at Hendon to enter the Job as a full PC.

I'm not so sure how well regarded PCSOs are among "proper" officers, though, and as for the public perception, it depends on the question asked:
(a) Would you rather have a PC or PCSO?
or
(b) Would you rather have a police uniform on the streets or nothing?

It's true that PCSOs were initially brought in as a cheaper way to provide "visible" policing, and had the liberal left not hamstrung the Police to the extent that they did, then PCSOs might never have come about.

Yet now I think the PCSO role is maturing, and in the command of a good skipper, they can do good work (those in my own ward certainly do.)

[John Ward]

The PCSOs are "better than nothing" (as nothing else was on offer, at least in my own area, when they were introduced) and they do have their uses as a uniformed presence that can communicate, witness and report.

However, they are still policing on the cheap, as the article mentions, and the ongoing rise in (especially) violent crime in the country suggests that too much was made of this initiative at the expense of other measures. That's how the public whom I meet tend to perceive it.

If the PCSO scheme has helped to encourage recruitment of full police officers, then that is a silver lining -- no more.

The biggest problem, though, is what the police are and are not allowed to do, combined with poor sentencing.

The whole of the country's legal system is heavily skewed now, and that needs to be corrected first and foremost, then augmented by police forces appropriate to the real needs of the job and of each area/region

That will undoubtedly include PCSOs, and there will be nothing wrong with that. They will (I suspect) then be just a relatively modest part of the equation, rather than the main thrust, as has been the case in recent years.

[Man in a Shed]

On balance I think they are a good thing. They replace the other layers of authority that have gone missing in our society - park keepers, bus conductors etc etc.

They are often seen in my neighbourhood walking - which I *never* see a police officer doing.

However they should not solely be a staged recruitment for police officers.

[Tony Makara]

The PCSO's are really fine people who want to serve the community but I don't think they have the training and in many cases the fitness level to deal with crime on the front line. It is bizarre that PCSO's are on the streets while our police are tied down with paperwork. Years back I did security work for the local MBC which often involved having to kick rowdy teenagers off public premises and I can tell you it was a very difficult job at times because we had no powers as such, much like the PCSO today. Most of the time we got away with bluff but that doesn't work if someone is drunk or has a mental health problem. The PCSO has to be given the power to do the job and his/her training has to make them fit enough to deal with physical confrontation. I've passed a number of PCSO's who look completely out of shape. They may be able to cover 100 yards in a set time or pass a test of strength but being fit enough to do front line police work requires considerably more than that. All front-line PCSO's should be required to take training in self-defence and/or be equipped with a taser gun after extensive training. Policing has to be about the ability to respond, that requires a level of fitness and the powers to act.

[James]

Can I start by saying that most PCSOs are dedicated and hard working and do a great job, within the constraints they have to work within.

That said, I have some serious reservations about the increased reliance on PCSOs, and a few of the points raised in the article above almost make those concerns worse.

1. '..it was through their involvement in that role that they were recruited to the Force....Not a bad bit of anecdotal support for PCSOs, is it?'

The 'PCSOs are a good recruiting pathway' argument is an interesting but distracting one. If we have the money for more real police officers then we can recruit them - the problem is not one of a lack of recruits but a lack of money. PCSOs are a very expensive recruiting tool!

2. '...a PCSO performed a bona fide act of heroism in the course of his duties, which rather changed my mind'

Sorry, but an individual act of bravery by a PCSO is irrelevant to the debate. No one doubts there are some real gems in the ranks of the PCSOs - that doesn't make the concept right any more than the isolated case of the PCSOs who wouldn't get their feet wet to rescue a drowning boy because of elf'n safety makes a counter argument for the concept.

3. 'As our police force finds itself so tied up with bureaucracy etcetera, playing more of a "station house" policing role in which they respond to pre-existing problems rather than providing a deterrent effect through patrols and visible presence, the PCSO fills the gap.'

No no no!! If we need to hire semi-trained police, let THEM sit and do the paperwork while the fully trained police are on the streets. This is a terrible argument, and a dangerous one. It sums up one of the main reasons people are opposed to PCSOs in the first place!

4. '...indeed, because they really only patrol, they're in more danger given the greater frequency of said patrols. They expose themselves to that risk for much less pay...'

This is another argument against PCSOs as a concept. It is wrong to put someone in a police uniform (and ther are in police uniforms - most members of the public get confused between PCs and PCSOs) and put them on the streets without the training, equipment, and statutory powers to protect themselves and do the job properly.

This is an extension of Labour's steady 'de-professionalising' of our professionals. It is happening in other areas too. Under Practice Based Commissioning, you are increasingly likely to see a GP who has done a short (few months) diploma in a specialist subject such as dermatology, rather than a consultant who has studied the subject for years. Frequently you will see a nurse where you once saw a doctor. You will see a 'health professional' where you once saw a nurse.

In policing, it is as likely to be a PCSO as a police officer.

All of these are examples of cheaper, less qualified people doing jobs that we once would have demanded a higly qualified professional to do. (Please don't take this as an attack on nurses etc, it isn't!).

Getting back to the police, I like the proposal that we should beef up the Specials - make them like the TA. At present Specials are unpaid, even when they turn up for work. TA soldiers are paid as full soldiers for every day and half day etc they work. The Specials should be in effect the TA of the police. paid for when they are on duty, and available to be called up and mobilised when necessary - ie in an emergency or a major situation. They could also volunteer to help with large crowd events such as major sport matches, easing the overstretch of the regular police.

That's enough for now - someone else's turn...

[Mike T]

I am not sure whether I agree with the idea that PCSOs have a taste of police work and then decide to join up as ‘proper coppers’.

From experience it is much more of a backdoor to MET recruitment. The MET have been massively over subscribed for Police Officer training for the last 5 or 6 years, to the extent that they haven’t been allowing open applications.

As a result individuals are signing up as PCSOs in the hope that they can get themselves preferential treatment to get into the recruitment stream for Hendon along with the large number of transferees from other forces.

Now you can obviously argue the relative merits of giving someone experience in a law enforcement / community support role prior to allowing them to full police recruitment.

I am yet to be convinced that the savings made by employing a certain number of PCSOs could not be more effectively spent on an extra compliment of full time Police Officers.

Fear of crime is obviously important, but detections and convictions are the core of police work and should be the main focus for actual crime reduction.

[Chris Palmer]

PSCOs are indeed 'policing on the cheap' as Alex Deane acknowledges. Furthermore, in Avon and Somerset, for example, I think I am right in believing that PSCOs have been told by their superiors not to make arrests in case they are sued. This therefore means that PSCOs have less power than a normal person who is capable of making a citizens arrest.

So really, what is the point of them, apart to perhaps make a few people feel safer, but not actually make them safer?

PSCOs typify the conversion of the Police from a 'Force' to a weak and bureaucratic 'service'. PSCOs though are but one example of our increasingly pathetic policing and criminal justice system. It needs to be entirely reformed - but I can't see that happening for some time yet.

[Ken Stevens]

PCSOs are to Police Officers what hygienists are to dentists - very useful in handling support duties, but no substitute in dire need!

[Adam-]

The PCSOs are much closer to the Police originally envisaged by Sir Robert Peel than the modern Police Force. I would trust a PCSO before I trust a "real" Officer. The connection to the Constabulary is much looser, allowing them to exercise common sense, perhaps in defiance of force policy or guidance. They already have power of arrest (the same as all British citizens), and they don't need any of the Stasi powers the "real" Officers use to oppress us.

[Angelo Basu]

PCSOs may be policing on the cheap but they do provide a very visible part of policing. From family and friends my experience too is that many people become PCSOs as a first step towards joining the Police or as an alternative career path focusing on community policing, detection and deterrence rather than the full process of investigating crimes all the way through to trial.

On this basis, I think that there may be an argument for integrating PCSOs with the mainstream of the Police force so that PCSOs are formally part of the career progression path for the Police. This could involve increasing the level of training and powers for PCSOs so that they have the same powers and relevant training for community/beat policing that PCs currently have, having a clear career progression from PCSO to PC and reducing the external direct intake of PCs to compensate. This would be little different to the big jumps in training and expertise needed by PCs to pass the exams to make Sergeant and then Inspector - just as PCs don't need the same detailed knowledge of custody powers as a Sgt, PCSOs in this model would need a subset of the legal knowledge of PCs.

This would open up recruitment further to those who are potentially interested in the police as a career but who for personal reasons are unable initially to manage the long residential training requirements for becoming a PC or to commit to the full shift patterns of "commissioned" police officers. It would also allow for upgrading of the role of PCs and a longer career path for those interested in community aspects of policing.

Just as there are DCs, DSs, DIs etc, there could be Community Constables, Community Sergeants etc as a possible promotion path for those entering as PCSOs or horizontal moves for existing officers. This could be attractive to existing officers who may be both ambitious for promotion and most interested in community policing who currently have little status and tend to stay at PC level because of the limited attraction and relevance of the standard promotion path to them.

Special constables have their place, but in front line community policing, experience and continuity are important, and going on duty for a few shifts each month is probably not enough.

[J. Trudgill]

The one of two with whom I've had contact have not been over-impressive. One of the problems, I think is that they have relatively few powers.

Certainly people in my neighbourhood regard them as poor substitutes for actual police, even if we see more of them out and about than we see of members of the force.

I still think that it's policing on the cheap.

[Matthew Sinclair]

The PCSOs are the perfect programme for people, like the current Government, who think:

"Beat policing is rubbish but the public can't be convinced its a bad idea."

If you think that the kind of deterrent policing that worked so well in New York is the way forward they're not good enough.

A high "graduation rate" to full police officer status isn't evidence that the programme works. Surely many of these people might be able to go straight into jobs as proper police officers if we didn't have the PCSO programme?

[George Hinton]

PCSO's are the inevitable result of too much PC and box ticking.
Superintendents should be allowed to deploy officers to meet local needs, the mania with box ticking/targets means that central interference precludes the right local approach. This is also affected by the stupid approach of HSE rules, and the effects of PC which forces officers to spend so much time on form filling.
If these NuLab imposed hindrances where removed then we perhaps might see more police on the streets, serving as a visible deterrent.
PCSO's might then become an auxillary force to deal with admin and run of the mill enforcement.
Like many others who have posted here i have regarded PCSO's as ersatz, but if many are using the job as a springboard to becoming proper officers, then it has served a useful purpose.

[Robert Langley]

I am sure that we all have different experiences of the effectiveness and value of PCSO's. However I have a number of concerns over the politics of PCSO's in relation to the Conservative party.

In my area we have differing councils, almost exclusively Tory, taking totally opposite lines. These can be neighbouring, town councils, or districts - or a different strategy between say tier 3 and tier 2. Often councillors are dual hatted and their party is taking a 180 degree opposing view at different levels of local govt.

The issues are of funding and control.

The well trodden argument held by some of double taxation is well made, and in areas such as mine, where the central govt grant is not sufficient for local govt to meet the massive growth agenda - finding additional resources to fund policing from local revenue is very hard.
The second is control. If local councils are funding PCSO's how much say should the elected bodies have to their deployment. It seems Chief Constables want the cash, but they also want control - so its cash with strings. This is especially the case where typically rural communities wish to fund, but actually have low crime, and the resource is needed in neighbouring urban areas.

Without commenting on my own personal view - what has really annoyed me is the total lack of leadership from the party as to our position in regard to PCSO's. We have got into some local difficulty and been opened to ridicule because we are left arguing ourselves on points of principle over PCSO's. We should have a clear line on this.

I have exactly the same beef over our total silence over the lack of future infrastucture funding for the growth areas. Forget the uproar over eco towns, of 5000, we have been told for the last 5 years that our county must grow by 50% over a generation. The building has started and we have nowhere near the required infrastructure funds. What would an incoming Conservative government do for our area ?- Answers on a post card please.

Localism should be at the heart of what we are about and we should start to lead from the top on local govt issues.

[Chris]

I'm sorry to rain on this parade, but everything I've seen of them and about them has confirmed me solidly in the opinion that they're a useless bunch of second rate jobsworths who are no use whatsoever to anyone. I believe one of Robert Peel's original principles in setting up the police force was that it would concentrate on doing the job rather than creating the appearance of doing the job. PCSO's were only ever intended as window dressing. They were never meant to be any use and they're not.

[Tom Shinner]

I think some of these comments rather miss the point of PCSOs. A signficant proportion of a typical police shift can be taken up not with 'patrolling', (for which it would be great if we had more fully sworn, highly-trained Officers), but with extremely mundane activities, such as guarding a crime scene. These types of roles essentially only require a security guard, and are a waste of trained officers. Putting PCSOs on these jobs frees PCs for more response work, where their training can be best applied.

That said, on the other side of the argument, it is actually not true that PCSOs are "significantly cheaper" than PCs. In the Met, at least, PCSOs are paid almost as much as new entry PCs - the reason being that whilst the Met is bound by national pay agreements for PCs, they can pay their PCSOs what they want, so have steadily ramped up the starting salary to try to get people in through the door. One of the major sources of resentment in the Met right now is that PCSOs get paid so well for doing so much less (no overtime liability, paperwork, etc.)

[James, Swadlincote]

I have never liked PSCO’s. Ever. They’ve always struck me as plastic police and of little use, especially when all they do is patrol the centre of my town where the only crime that does take place is less than 2 incidents a month, or takes place in the dead of night.

When they’ve already gone home.

What annoys me more about the PSCO’s is the way in which recently they redid their uniforms so they go:

POLICE
Then in miniscule writing underneath it has:
Community Support Officer.

I don’t want to go running over to what I think are Policemen, only to find out they’re PSCOs who have very limited powers.

The fact is they’re largely civilians. They should be back in the station typing out on computers and filling in the forms, allowing some real policemen to do their patrols again, something that has dropped completely off since the PSCO’s introduction to my town.

To me it’s just another silly acronym to fill in an increasingly bloated state that has tried to use strange tactics, names and in some cases fear and petty jobsworths to eek itself into our lives under the auspices of authority even though such perceptions of safety have collapsed.

PSCOs and now “Civil Enforcement Officers” too - which everybody still calls “Traffic Wardens” last time I checked.

[spagbob]

I think they're great. In my area of Brixham in Torbay, they have really made a difference to the community, are getting involved with helping turn young people around and are a reassuring presence on the streets. It's good to see the government finally do something right.

[Alex Deane]

One's views may need revising on this point in light of this...

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2008/06/handing-out-bib.html?cid=117237282#comment-117237282