Cambridgeshire PEEL 2018

This question wasn’t subject to inspection in 2018/19, and our judgment from the 2017 legitimacy inspection has been carried over. However, we reviewed a representative sample of 100 stop-and-search records to assess the reasonableness of the recorded grounds. We found that 91 percent of those records contained reasonable grounds. Our assessment is based on the grounds recorded by the searching officer and not the grounds that existed at the time of the search.

In our 2017 legitimacy report, we recommended that all forces should:

• monitor and analyse comprehensive stop-and-search data to understand reasons for disparities;
• take action on those; and
• publish the analysis and the action by July 2018.

The force met the recommendations as they were set out in 2017, but improvements to effective practice means there is more it can do now. It should monitor the extent to which find rates differ between people from different ethnicities and across different types of searches (including separate identification of find rates for drug possession and supply-type offences). Additionally, it isn’t clear that it monitors enough data to establish the prevalence of possession-only drug searches or the extent to which these align with local or force-level priorities.

We reviewed the force’s website and found no obvious mention of analysis it had carried out to understand and explain reasons for disparities or any subsequent action taken.

Cambridgeshire Constabulary is good at behaving ethically and lawfully. The workforce is clear about the importance of ethical behaviour and the need to do the right thing. The Code of Ethics frames the force’s guidance to its workforce. Local policing commanders engage the workforce in practical conversations on ethics and fairness.

The force has a culture of learning. It takes a proportionate approach to establishing learning from misconduct cases or genuine mistakes. An independent scrutiny panel identifies opportunities to improve and examines a range of cases.

The force doesn’t yet fully comply with all elements of national vetting standards. But a recent restructure has created more efficient processes and capacity and it has already reduced its backlog.

The force is good at identifying and tackling corruption. It can identify those who are potentially at risk of being corrupted and is effective at taking early action to intervene. Its workforce demonstrates a good awareness of unconscious bias and most corruption issues. At the time of our inspection, all officers and staff had received corporate messages to raise awareness on the abuse of position for a sexual purpose. The senior lead in the professional standards department (PSD) has developed a credible plan across the force to use university interns to help supervisors deliver and evaluate further training to frontline officers on this important message.

The force routinely monitors officers and staff use of data for evidence of misuse. We viewed samples of corruption-related intelligence reports and investigations and, in all cases, the force had taken appropriate action. Officers and staff consider leaders to be positive role models and told us there was greater openness in decision making, such as in promotion processes.

This question was not subject to detailed inspection in 2018/19, and our judgment from the 2017 legitimacy inspection has been carried over.