Sussex PEEL 2016

Sussex Police has a robust and sophisticated operating model, supported by an understanding of demand. Collaborative arrangements are planned which will continue to direct resources towards reducing crime and developing a greater understanding of crime that is less likely to be reported.

The force has a detailed savings plan which predates the most recent spending review settlement. It still plans to make these savings, which are above those now required from 2016 to 2020. Although the level of savings may not change, the force still needs to revise the plan fully following the actual settlement. The force was able to demonstrate that it has some plans to invest these savings to improve its efficiency, but these had not yet been finalised at the time of inspection and will need significant further development over the next year.

HMIC’s PEEL inspection 2015 reported that Sussex had a current operating model that met the existing demands made of it, but that the force had embarked on an ambitious programme to reform how it would deliver local policing services. A fundamental aspect of this was the introduction of a ‘demand reduction’ programme and the roll-out of new mobile technology. The force recognised that future financial reductions would have an inevitable impact on workforce numbers. It carefully worked out numbers based on projected demand and using more efficient ways of working as part of the local policing programme.

Despite its detailed plans, the force has reduced the numbers of officers and PCSOs in its local policing programme over the last year to make savings. The inspection found evidence that the reduction of resources has had a negative effect on the service the force provides.

The effect of the reductions has been more severe than initial projections, as the force has high levels of vacancies compared with England and Wales averages. In addition, the force’s reduction in PCSOs (from 347 to 196 budgeted posts) led to more staff leaving the organisation on voluntary redundancy than was required and meant that the force now needs to recruit PCSOs to replace some of those who left. The force thus does not appear to have had sufficiently robust processes to control the level of resources in the local policing model or to enable it to understand fully the consequences of the changes to the local policing programme, in particular for effective crime prevention and problem-solving. The force has now realised that the resources for its local policing programme should be increased and is taking positive steps to do so.

The force has improved its understanding of internal inefficiencies and unnecessary demands on police time, such as officers responding to all calls for service when this was not necessary. This has led to the introduction of a resolution centre to reduce the times police officers are sent to incidents which do not require their attendance. The force has also introduced an investigation framework to ensure that decisions over whether investigations should continue or be concluded are consistent. The force has conducted initial surveys of members of the public who have had contact with the resolution centre and early indications are very positive.

The force has well-established arrangements to collaborate with other forces and agencies to maximise purchasing power, increase the ability to use each other’s technology and share systems and infrastructure.

Greater access to technology, including the use of online crime reporting, social media, track-my-crime, community messaging systems and police mobile devices, has increased efficiency, supported the force’s way of working and made improvements in the investigation of crime. The mobile devices currently used by frontline officers do not, however, have some functions, such as the ability to access all of the force’s investigative systems. This may be limiting increases in productivity.