Overall summary
Our inspection assessed how good Staffordshire Police is in 11 areas of policing. We make graded judgments in 10 of these 11 as follows:
We also inspected how effective a service Staffordshire Police gives to victims of crime. We don’t make a graded judgment in this overall area.
We set out our detailed findings about things the force is doing well and where the force should improve in the rest of this report.
Important changes to PEEL
In 2014, we introduced our police effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy (PEEL) inspections, which assess the performance of all 43 police forces in England and Wales. Since then, we have been continuously adapting our approach and this year has seen the most significant changes yet.
We are moving to a more intelligence-led, continual assessment approach, rather than the annual PEEL inspections we used in previous years. For instance, we have integrated our rolling crime data integrity inspections into these PEEL assessments. Our PEEL victim service assessment will now include a crime data integrity element in at least every other assessment. We have also changed our approach to graded judgments. We now assess forces against the characteristics of good performance, set out in the PEEL Assessment Framework 2021/22, and we more clearly link our judgments to causes of concern and areas for improvement. We have also expanded our previous four-tier system of judgments to five tiers. As a result, we can state more precisely where we consider improvement is needed and highlight more effectively the best ways of doing things.
However, these changes mean that it isn’t possible to make direct comparisons between the grades awarded this year with those from previous PEEL inspections. A reduction in grade, particularly from good to adequate, doesn’t necessarily mean that there has been a reduction in performance, unless we say so in the report.
HM Inspector’s observations
I have concerns about the performance of Staffordshire Police in keeping people safe and reducing crime.
In particular, I have serious concerns about how the force is responding to the public, investigating crime and managing its offenders and suspects. In view of these findings, I have been in regular contact with the chief constable as I do not underestimate how much improvement is needed.
These are the findings I consider most important from our assessments of the force over the last year.
The force needs to improve how it identifies vulnerable victims at the first point of contact
Staffordshire Police is missing opportunities to safeguard vulnerable people. It needs to improve the way it assesses initial calls to the force so that vulnerable people and repeat callers are routinely identified. The force needs to improve how it provides advice about preventing crime and preserving evidence when taking calls from the public.
The force needs to make sure that it carries out effective investigations, giving victims the support they need
From the outset, the force needs to complete investigation plans. Through regular supervision, it needs to set lines of enquiry to be followed and review the progress of investigations. The force doesn’t always pursue evidence-led prosecutions where appropriate. It doesn’t always follow the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime (VCOP) nor does it support victims by accurately assessing their needs.
The force needs to improve how it manages offenders and outstanding suspects
Staffordshire Police needs to improve how it monitors known offenders and those who are outstanding suspects (suspects who are yet to be detained). The force isn’t always able to meet the demands of this work and oversight from supervisors needs to improve. The force also needs to introduce processes to help it review its intelligence assessments and to improve how it manages workloads in this area.
The force has recently introduced a new operating model. This model is designed to create a better understanding of the demand for its service and improve how it manages its resources.
My report sets out the more detailed findings of this inspection. I will continue to monitor the force’s progress in addressing these in the coming months.
Wendy Williams
HM Inspector of Constabulary
Providing a service to the victims of crime
Victim service assessment
This section describes our assessment of the service victims receive from Staffordshire Police, from the point of reporting a crime through to the end result. As part of this assessment, we reviewed 130 case files as well as 18 cautions, 20 community resolutions and 19 cases where a suspect was identified but the victim didn’t support, or withdrew support for, police action.
While this assessment is ungraded, it influences graded judgments in the other areas we have inspected.
The force needs to improve the time it takes to answer emergency and non‑emergency calls and the identification of repeat or vulnerable victims
When a victim contacts the police, it is important that their call is answered quickly and that the right information is recorded accurately on police systems. The caller should be spoken to in a professional manner. The information should be assessed, taking into consideration threat, harm, risk and vulnerability. And the victim should receive appropriate safeguarding advice.
The force needs to improve the time it takes to answer emergency calls as it isn’t meeting national standards. It also needs to improve its answering of non-emergency calls to prevent them from being abandoned by the caller. When the force answers calls, it is often failing to assess the victim’s vulnerability using a structured process. The force isn’t always identifying repeat victims, which means that their situations isn’t taken into account when considering the response the victim should receive. The force isn’t always giving advice how to prevent crime and preserve evidence.
The force doesn’t always respond to calls for service in a timely way
A force should aim to respond to calls for service within its published time frames on the basis of the level of prioritisation given to the call. It should change call priority only if the original prioritisation is deemed inappropriate or if further information suggests a change is needed. The response should take into consideration risk and victim vulnerability, including information obtained after the call.
Often, police response times exceeded recognised target times. Sometimes, victims weren’t told of the delay, and therefore their expectations weren’t met. This may cause victims to lose confidence and disengage.
The force’s crime recording requires improvement to make sure victims receive an appropriate level of service
The force’s crime recording should be trustworthy. It should be effective at recording reported crime in line with national standards and have effective systems and processes, supported by the necessary leadership and culture.
The force needs to improve its crime recording processes to make sure crimes reported to the force are recorded correctly and without delay.
We set out more details about the force’s crime recording in the ‘crime data integrity’ section below.
The force isn’t always carrying out investigations in an effective or timely way or providing victims with the appropriate levels of advice and support for the crime
Police forces should investigate reported crimes quickly, proportionately and thoroughly. Victims should be kept updated about the investigation, and the force should have effective governance arrangements in place to make sure investigation standards are high.
In some cases, investigations weren’t carried out in a timely manner, and relevant and proportionate lines of enquiry weren’t always completed. Many investigations weren’t properly reviewed by supervisors and lacked investigation plans. Victims were sometimes not updated throughout investigations. Victims are more likely to have confidence in a police investigation when they are regularly updated. A thorough investigation increases the likelihood of perpetrators being identified and a positive outcome for the victim.
The force didn’t always take victim personal statements which can deprive victims of the opportunity to describe the effect that crime has had on their lives. When victims withdrew support for an investigation, the force didn’t always consider progressing the case without the victim’s support, which can be an important way of safeguarding the victim and preventing further offences. The force didn’t always consider the use of measures designed to protect victims, such as a domestic violence protection notice (DVPN) or domestic violence protection order (DVPO).
Under the VCOP, there is a requirement to conduct a needs assessment at an early stage to decide whether victims require additional support. The outcome of the assessment and the request for additional support should be recorded. The force often failed to complete a victim needs assessment, which can mean victims don’t get the appropriate level of service.
The force generally finalises reports of crimes appropriately but sometimes fails to consult victims for their views or to record them
The force should make sure it follows national guidance and rules for deciding the outcome of each report of crime. In deciding the outcome, the force should consider the nature of the crime, the offender and the victim. And the force should make sure that its leadership arrangements are robust and that its culture and values are well understood to make sure the use of outcomes is appropriate.
In appropriate cases, those offenders who are brought to justice can be dealt with by means of a caution or community resolution. To be correctly applied and recorded, it must be appropriate for the offender, and the views of the victim must be considered. In most of the cases reviewed, the offender met the national criteria for the use of these outcomes, but the force didn’t always seek and consider the victim’s views.
Where a suspect is identified but the victim doesn’t support, or withdraws support for, police action, the force should have an auditable record to confirm the victim’s decision so that it can close the investigation. In most cases reviewed, there was no evidence of the victim’s decision. This creates a risk that the victim’s wishes may not be fully represented and considered before the crime is finalised.
Crime data integrity
Staffordshire Police requires improvement at recording crime.
We estimate that Staffordshire Police is recording 88.4 percent (with a confidence interval of +/- 2.8 percent) of all reported crime (excluding fraud). This is broadly unchanged compared with the findings from our previous 2016 inspection, where we found it recorded 91.0 percent (with a confidence interval of +/- 1.8 percent) of all reported crime. We estimate that the force didn’t record more than 8,900 crimes during the year covered by our inspection.
We estimate that the force is recording 85.8 percent (with a confidence interval of +/- 4.5 percent) of violent offences. This is broadly unchanged compared with the findings of our previous 2016 inspection, where we found it recorded 89.9 percent (with a confidence interval of +/- 3.0 percent) of violent offences.
We estimate that the force is recording 96.3 percent (with a confidence interval of +/- 3.2 percent) of sexual offences. This is broadly unchanged compared with the findings of our previous 2016 inspection, where we found it recorded 94.7 percent (with a confidence interval of +/- 2.4 percent) of sexual offences.
Main findings
In this section we set out our main findings that relate to how well the force records crime.
The force needs to improve the recording of rape crimes from reported incidents of rape
The force sometimes fails to record and classify crimes of rape correctly, often only recording them as reported incidents of rape (N100 – crimes of rape which haven’t yet been confirmed). It is important that reports of rape are recorded correctly so the force can clearly understand how many crimes are reported to them and victims can receive the service they expect and deserve.
The force should take more care when cancelling crimes of rape
The force should make sure there is enough information available which determines that no crime has been committed. There must be enough additional information to provide a satisfactory explanation that a crime hasn’t been committed, particularly when victims later retract a report of rape. If crime records are cancelled when they should have remained recorded, they won’t be investigated any further. This could result in victims being denied justice.
Recording data about crime
Staffordshire Police requires improvement at recording crime.
Accurate crime recording is vital to providing a good service to the victims of crime. We inspected crime recording in Staffordshire as part of our victim service assessments (VSAs). These track a victim’s journey from reporting a crime to the police, through to the outcome.
All forces are subject to a VSA within our PEEL inspection programme. In every other inspection forces will be assessed on their crime recording and given a separate grade.
You can see what we found in the ‘Providing a service to victims of crime’ section of this report.
Requires improvement
Engaging with and treating the public with fairness and respect
Staffordshire Police requires improvement at treating people fairly and with respect.
Main findings
In this section we set out our main findings that relate to treating people fairly and with respect.
The force is developing opportunities to get local people involved in policing, but it could advertise them more clearly
We found that Staffordshire Police is introducing new projects to encourage people to volunteer. Examples include community sporting events, community work with local mosques and a cadets’ programme. But these initiatives would benefit from better co-ordination and planning so they can be more effective. The force recognises that it needs to work more with young people, and it plans to introduce a youth IAG and a citizens’ academy to get more perspectives on areas of policing, including on violence against women and girls. As these projects haven’t been introduced yet, we can’t comment on how effective they are.
The force should make sure it scrutinises its own use of stop and search powers and use of force
The force has internal monitoring groups that consider how its officers are using its stop and search powers and the use of force. But at the time of our inspection, we found limited examples of the force showing how it had acted to improve policies and practices. For example, these internal monitoring groups didn’t scrutinise body‑worn video effectively to understand whether the use of stop and search powers or the use of force was fair and proportionate.
The force has re-introduced external scrutiny panels, but these are still under development
The force has introduced an independent panel, which has an independent chair, to help it improve officers’ use of stop and search powers and the use of force. We found that training packages had been developed for members. But the panel doesn’t reflect the composition of its local communities, and it struggles to involve younger people. This is a re-launched panel, so we haven’t been able to assess how effective it is.
Requires improvement
Preventing crime and anti-social behaviour
Staffordshire Police is adequate at prevention and deterrence.
Main findings
In this section we set out our main findings that relate to prevention and deterrence.
The force analyses its own and partnership data to establish where demands are highest and vulnerable people need help
Harm reduction hubs are situated in each area. They help neighbourhood teams understand current crime data and emerging patterns such as repeat locations, vulnerable people and specific crime types. The hubs produce daily intelligence packs that provide neighbourhood officers with information about priorities. We saw how this sort of analysis was used to prepare an effective response to anti-social behaviour in parks, called Operation Syncro.
The harm reduction hub contributes to well-established multi-agency risk assessment conference (MARAC) meetings that are attended by partner organisations. The force has invested in an early intervention and prevention unit (EIPU). Information from the MARAC is used by problem-solving specialists who give advice to local early intervention officers. They, in turn, identify vulnerable people and locations and work to reduce vulnerability and victimisation.
The force focuses on early intervention and is developing an evidence-based policing culture
We found that the force was addressing repetitive demand successfully, working with partner organisations to determine the root causes of problems and reach diverse and wider communities.
We saw some examples where the force was acting in accordance with local and national good practice. However, we found that the EIPU’s existence isn’t widely known throughout the force. Therefore, the force is missing opportunities to make best use of the team’s skills to drive down demand and to support officers in safeguarding vulnerable people.
The force is undertaking several research projects with academics and partners to support its approach to early intervention. This includes a pilot scheme of using SmartWater forensic products to tackle domestic abuse and stalking. The force works with a range of organisations, using an evidence-based policing panel to review the results of research. However, the force recognises that it needs to improve overall how these sorts of initiatives are communicated across the force so that they can be put into practice.
Adequate
Responding to the public
Staffordshire Police is inadequate at responding to the public.
Main findings
In this section we set out our main findings that relate to how well the force responds to the public.
The force has several ways for the public to make calls for service
The force has a dedicated digital 101 desk that processes web chat interactions with the public. The digital desk staff are dedicated to web chat for their shift, and it operates seven days a week. They don’t take 999 or 101 calls unless there is excessive demand on these lines.
In addition, the force uses an IT platform called ‘Single Online Home’. This allows members of the public to report a full range of crimes and incidents online. The force has also introduced direct contact through social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. The force has found that they receive more contact through these channels, receiving on average 102 contacts a day, of which 30 percent result in a recorded incident. These channels have matured sufficiently, allowing the public to make digital contact through their mobile device or computer while also maintaining more traditional contact methods of 999 and non-emergency 101.
The force assesses vulnerability and completes risk assessments at initial response
When Staffordshire Police officers attend incidents, they look for signs of vulnerability and carry out risk assessments, such as public protection notifications (a summary record made of the vulnerabilities of victims). Inspection activity identified that officers were recently trained in the voice of the child and, therefore, had a greater understanding of the importance of recording their observations about children who were present, including their living conditions.
We found that officers were confident about the processes once any vulnerability had been identified. And they were aware of their local harm reduction hubs and the relevant partner organisations from which to seek advice. We found that officers are clear on their responsibilities to safeguard vulnerable people.
Supervisors are not always able to provide visible leadership due to demand
We found that due to high demands coming from office and IT-based work, supervisors were unable to attend many incidents in person to support their staff and aid their learning in the role where necessary.
We found that supervisors attempt to attend major or more serious incidents or where there is a need to attend in person to provide direction. However, if there is no essential operational or tactical requirement to attend, then supervisors will often use remote radio contact with the officers in attendance to receive updates, provide direction and give officers reassurance. This can restrict the benefits of direct coaching, learning and development for officers who are inexperienced in the role.
We found that some response teams didn’t always receive a briefing directly from their supervisors and that officers briefed themselves before going on duty. These teams are therefore unable to share information or intelligence, and supervisors are unable to provide direction or monitor team wellbeing.
Workloads in the control room and for response officers are not always manageable, and wellbeing support is inconsistent
Staffordshire Police officers are carrying high investigative workloads while attempting to manage response demand. We found that the force has been unable to manage demand effectively. And due to the lack of a formal check-in process being in place, we found that on occasions officers haven’t been supported after attending traumatic incidents. As a result, some officers and staff feel that morale is low and that the organisation doesn’t show an understanding of their wellbeing needs.
Inadequate
Investigating crime
Staffordshire Police is inadequate at investigating crime.
Main findings
In this section we set out our main findings that relate to how well the force investigates crime.
The force should make sure it offers victim personal statements when appropriate and that it records them
We identified that victim personal statements weren’t taken, and opportunities to progress or try to progress the case without the support of the victim weren’t always taken when they should have been. This means the force may be missing opportunities to pursue offenders when victims disengage or don’t support prosecutions.
The force has focused on its governance arrangements to improve investigative performance
The force has developed the way it scrutinises investigations to improve results for victims through its SEG.
While there is a governance structure in place, our inspection found some gaps in how the force manages performance. This means that some aspects of the investigation process aren’t being reviewed effectively. The force should make sure the entire process of an investigation is monitored at a strategic level to help improve its overall performance.
Inadequate
Protecting vulnerable people
Staffordshire Police requires improvement at protecting vulnerable people.
Main findings
In this section we set out our main findings that relate to how well the force protects vulnerable people.
The force works proactively with other organisations to reduce vulnerability and repeat victimisation but lacks capacity to do this in some areas
MARACs are well established throughout the force and its local authority areas. The frequency of the meetings is dependent on each district and the referral rate for that area. At the conferences we observed, we found good attendance and participation from statutory and non-statutory bodies, including social services, children’s services, housing and health organisations and independent advisers on domestic and sexual violence. The conferences demonstrated proactive information sharing and activities to support the safeguarding of victims and families. The organisations we spoke to that had attended MARACs were positive about the meetings and the plans produced to secure the safety of those victims discussed.
The force has multi-agency safeguarding hubs (MASHs) that manage all medium and high-risk referrals for domestic abuse cases. The hubs assess the level of risk of harm involved and refer onto other agencies – such as mental health organisations and social care services – which provide continuing and appropriate support.
However, we found that while the MASHs sometimes check standard risk referrals, this isn’t an established or properly resourced process. Instead, this takes place when staff have the capacity to do so. This could mean that these types of records may not be adequately assessed or scrutinised, and the force may miss opportunities to identify vulnerable people.
The force should make sure that DVPN/Os are considered in all appropriate cases
To support the safeguarding of victims, investigators can use ancillary orders to protect victims and keep perpetrators from contacting them.
We found that officers understood how they can use DVPN/Os to safeguard a victim. However, we found little evidence of how the force assesses whether these measures are being used effectively and appropriately. Our victim service assessment identified that the force is often failing to consider using DVPN/Os in appropriate cases. This means that opportunities to safeguard some victims may not always be taken.
The force provides continuing safeguarding support for vulnerable people
We found that officers are aware of the processes to complete public protection notices (PPNs) for incidents involving vulnerable people.
A PPN is a summary record made of the vulnerabilities of victims. PPNs are automatically directed to the police team within the MASH where they are reviewed by specialist staff before sharing police information with other organisations such as children’s social care services and New Era, a service offering help for all those affected by domestic violence in Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent.
Staff generally understand the need to look for signs of hidden harm. For example, there was a clear understanding of the Herbert protocols. This is a scheme adopted by several police forces in England and Wales in partnership with local authorities and other organisations. It is a simple risk reduction tool to be used if an adult with care and support needs is reported missing. Officers were applying these protocols when interacting with people living with dementia. The force has also developed the way it shares information about vulnerable children with schools (Operation Encompass). This is operating in all schools, and schools are notified when police are called to domestic abuse incidents or crimes taking place in a house where a child lives or is identified.
Requires improvement
Managing offenders and suspects
Staffordshire Police is inadequate at managing offenders and suspects.
Main findings
In this section we set out our main findings that relate to how well the force manages offenders and suspects.
The force has an effective integrated offender management programme
The force has an integrated offender management (IOM) programme for offenders who pose the greatest threat, risk and harm. We found a clear focus and good partnership working towards the rehabilitation of offenders. We also found that there was a clear understanding throughout the force of who its repeat offenders are and therefore who should be considered for inclusion in the programme.
The force uses a scoring tool to assess information and intelligence relating to offender activity. It also reviews data from other organisations to decide whether offenders are to be managed under the IOM programme. We found that referrals can be made by officers from the IOM team and neighbourhood officers. There are monitoring processes in place to score and manage offenders while they are on the programme. Intelligence is used to support decisions on what measures to reduce crime and offending should be used for each offender – for example, focusing on substance misuse issues or lack of accommodation, which may lead to further offending.
The IOM unit shares details of its identified individuals with community policing teams via the force briefing system for information and awareness. This encourages intelligence gathering and submission of relevant information.
The force manages the risk that RSOs pose but should ensure that officers complete an active risk management systems assessment when they take over responsibility from probation. The force should ensure that there is a system in place to remind officers when these assessments are due
The force uses recognised assessment tools for measuring the risk posed by RSOs. Risk management plans and active risk management systems (ARMS) assessments are well structured and provide a good level of detail to allow the identification of risk factors so that action can be taken to address them.
The force places flags for RSOs on both its crime recording system and its command and control system. This ensures that any incident reported to the force that is linked to an RSO is flagged to attending officers and the SOMU team for action to be taken where necessary to deal with any apparent risks.
As a result of the most recent NCPI inspection, we found that the force is now adhering to Authorised Professional Practice (APP) criteria to allow offenders to be placed into reactive management when the risk they pose is low enough.
The multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA) is a process through which organisations such as the police, prison service and probation work together to protect the public by managing the risks posed by violent and sexual offenders living in the community. We found in some cases MAPPA guidance was not adhered to in terms of the expected timeframes for police to complete an ARMS assessment when probation involvement ended.
The force uses sexual harm prevention orders but can improve its monitoring and enforcement of them
A sexual harm prevention order (SHPO) is an order imposed by magistrates or a crown court on an individual who is considered to pose a risk of sexual harm to either the general public or a certain group of people or individuals. SHPOs can be imposed in court at the point of conviction or at a later date upon an application by the police. Restrictions and prohibitions can be tailored to the SHPO as considered necessary for the purposes of either protecting the public from sexual harm or protecting children or vulnerable adults generally.
We found that the Safenet team seeks SHPOs in all eligible cases and SOMU is consulted where necessary in relation to securing these orders and ensuring conditions are suitable. However, the force doesn’t have access to on-scene device triaging tools nor does it have monitoring software which allows continual monitoring of devices used by RSOs. Both of these tools would assist in the early identification of potential further offending or breaches of orders. The lack of digital capability means that there is unnecessary demand, whereby devices are referred for review by the force’s digital investigation team that may otherwise have been discounted at an early stage.
The force is improving its use of bail and released under investigation, but improved governance and performance management is needed
The force has increased its use of bail, and to ensure its use is appropriate, bail is quality assured by a superintendent who reviews and authorises bail applications. Custody inspectors authorise and monitor bail conditions to assess safeguarding opportunities.
There is a risk that, due to high demands and a delay in receiving the results from forensic submissions, officers may choose to release under investigation (RUI) to avoid the re-bail process. However, the force has effective supervision of the use of RUI, and a quality assurance process ensures that RUI has been used appropriately and safeguarding opportunities have been considered in all domestic abuse cases.
However, force-level oversight of the use of bail and RUI could be improved to better understand performance and good practice. Bail and RUI are discussed at weekly custody performance meetings. But it is unclear how the force is using or collating its force-wide data on the use of bail and RUI to inform its practices or make improvements.
Inadequate
Disrupting serious organised crime
Staffordshire Police requires improvement at disrupting serious organised crime.
Read the report for Staffordshire Police: An inspection of the West Midlands regional response to serious and organised crime – May 2024
Background
We now inspect serious and organised crime (SOC) on a regional basis, rather than inspecting each force individually in this area. This is so we can be more effective and efficient in how we inspect the whole SOC system, as set out in HM Government’s SOC strategy.
SOC is tackled by each force working with regional organised crime units (ROCUs). These units lead the regional response to SOC by providing access to specialist resources and assets to disrupt organised crime groups that pose the highest harm.
Through our new inspections we seek to understand how well forces and ROCUs work in partnership. As a result, we now inspect ROCUs and their forces together and report on regional performance. Forces and ROCUs are now graded and reported on in regional SOC reports.
Requires improvement
Building, supporting and protecting the workforce
Staffordshire Police requires improvement at building and developing its workforce.
Main findings
In this section we set out our main findings that relate to how well the force builds and develops its workforce.
Ethical standards are clearly promoted throughout the force
Chief officers are working to promote an ethical culture and environment where the workforce understands what is expected of it.
Ethical behaviour is part of staff training and there is a strong focus on the ‘Know the Line’ campaign, which examines the use of social media and its link to sexual harassment in the workplace and beyond. We found that officers understood the standards of behaviour expected. And they felt confident to report any incidents to their supervisor or professional standards department or through the ‘Bad Apple’ report system.
We found that the professional standards department promotes standards of ethical behaviours through a variety of means including communal television screens that display key messages about conduct and the force’s expectations. The department also circulates an internal bulletin each month which includes a section discussing ethical dilemmas. This shows that the force is developing a learning culture that is supported by the professional standards department.
The force has recently introduced an ethics committee, and the chair is independent of the force. This is a positive step; however, we are unable to make comment on the effectiveness of this group as it is newly formed.
The force promotes a positive and inclusive culture for its workforce but must do more to encourage wider staff feedback
We found that the force has several staff networks that work with the diversity and inclusion board to ensure that the workforce has a sense of belonging and feels included within the organisation. For example, the board has worked with the force’s neurodiversity steering group to better understand this area and how it can support any staff who require reasonable adjustments. As a result, the force now has trained dyslexia assessors who can support colleagues who are neurodivergent.
While the force is investing in building an inclusive culture, we found that the force‑wide people survey, known as HIVE, doesn’t have a good response rate. The force told us that only 16 percent of its workforce responded to this form of feedback; therefore, the force will need to improve how it gains feedback from its workforce. This will help the force understand the needs of its workforce so that it can introduce preventative measures and ongoing wellbeing support.
The force is taking effective action to build a workforce that better reflects its communities
We found that the force’s equality, diversity and inclusion unit has created a pre‑recruitment positive action project called Step In, which supports under‑represented groups through each stage of the recruitment process. The force holds workshop sessions during the advertising of a role, aiming to engage with applicants who are from under-represented groups, including ethnic minorities, women, people with a disability and LGBT+. As a result of the Step In process, the force has experienced a high success rate for women wanting to join Staffordshire Police.
The force also holds a similar programme, called Step Up, for its current officers who are seeking promotion but are from an under-represented group. Step Up runs positive action workshops, designed to encourage applicants to apply. This work helps the force understand where barriers exist within its promotion processes and gains feedback from candidates to help inform future support for staff seeking promotion.
Vetting and counter corruption
We now inspect how forces deal with vetting and counter corruption differently. This is so we can be more effective and efficient in how we inspect this high-risk area of police business.
Corruption in forces is tackled by specialist units, designed to proactively target corruption threats. Police corruption is corrosive and poses a significant risk to public trust and confidence. There is a national expectation of standards and how they should use specialist resources and assets to target and arrest those that pose the highest threat.
Through our new inspections, we seek to understand how well forces apply these standards. As a result, we now inspect forces and report on national risks and performance in this area. We now grade and report on forces’ performance separately.
Staffordshire Police’s vetting and counter corruption inspection hasn’t yet been completed. We will update our website with our findings and the separate report once the inspection is complete.
Requires improvement
Strategic planning, organisational management and value for money
Staffordshire Police requires improvement at operating efficiently.
Main findings
In this section we set out our main findings that relate to how well the force operates efficiently.
The force cannot show that its investment in technology is improving productivity
The force doesn’t have sufficiently reliable data to understand if its services are providing value for money or are effective. There are many different plans throughout the force designed to improve performance. Despite this, its systems aren’t yet mature enough to ensure that the force is making the best use of its resources.
We were told that implementation hasn’t always gone smoothly because operational users haven’t been fully involved. For example, the implementation of the force’s record management system lacked user engagement, and delays in implementation caused challenges for front-end users. This has now been rectified by the force, but a legacy of data issues must now be resolved. The force should make sure that the delivery of its ICT programmes considers the users more effectively and that feedback is sought out and acted upon.
There have been significant investments in digital technology to improve productivity. The force has a technology board that is driving improved performance with good programme delivery and sound operational cases being developed, such as the delivery of the National Enabling Programmes and a network upgrade. The force has recently invested in laptops for all frontline officers and police staff. This is positive; however, the force should make sure that it is able to realise the benefits of this investment.
The force has an effective long-term planning and performance framework and makes sure that it tackles what is important locally and nationally
Recognising the need for an improvement in performance, the chief constable commissioned a review and the development of an operating model, which began to be implemented in June 2022. The plan outlines a new force structure that intends to improve local policing and local response and has a strong focus on making officers visible to the public. It is based on the police and crime plan presented by the police and crime commissioner (PCC) and shows that the force has determined the need to improve performance and public service.
However, we found that the force still has several challenges to consider and not all areas have yet been worked through. The focus on response policing means that other areas such as investigations and the vulnerability of victims are still to be developed. There isn’t enough detail to show that the force understands how this will work under the new model. The force’s clear direction and long-term plan will take time to develop and bring about the improvements needed, and this has been identified by the chief constable.
The force’s financial plans are affordable and will support it to continue to meet future demands
The new PCC has supported a full £10 increase in precept which has allowed the force to present a balanced medium term financial plan (MTFP) over the next four year period. The MTFP clearly links into the force’s plans and priorities and shows that reserves are sustainable. There is good financial management at a strategic level, and the force is in a good financial position.
The force states that it needs to do more to drive savings through efficiency. Investment has been made to improve efficiency and achieve savings through technology, but more understanding is required to allow the force to realise a return on this investment. There has been a history of achieving savings through budget management. The force recognises this, and it is envisaged that the new operating model will allow it to seek efficiencies through improved processes.
It is important that the force understands this in more detail; if savings aren’t delivered through efficiency, reserves will be used. The combination of investment and development in technology needs to be supported by an efficiency plan.
The force is working effectively with partner organisations, demonstrably leading to better value for money
The force has an effective collaboration processes in place with Staffordshire Fire & Rescue Service for shared services. These services include finance, HR, procurement, estates, vehicles and occupational health. This provides resilience for both emergency services and, we were informed, has achieved savings of £1m over the last three years. The force is looking at how this collaboration can be expanded to manage wider demand such as demand from health organisations.
It is evident that the force is starting to re-establish opportunities for further collaboration. However, the force has several challenges internally which it is working through in relation to ICT and performance. And it recognises that while this work is happening, it may not be able to make progress with wider collaboration opportunities.
Requires improvement
About the data
Data in this report is from a range of sources, including:
- Home Office;
- Office for National Statistics (ONS);
- our inspection fieldwork; and
- data we collected directly from all 43 police forces in England and Wales.
When we collected data directly from police forces, we took reasonable steps to agree the design of the data collection with forces and with other interested parties such as the Home Office. We gave forces several opportunities to quality assure and validate the data they gave us, to make sure it was accurate. We shared the submitted data with forces, so they could review their own and other forces’ data. This allowed them to analyse where data was notably different from other forces or internally inconsistent.
We set out the source of this report’s data below.
Methodology
Data in the report
British Transport Police was outside the scope of inspection. Any aggregated totals for England and Wales exclude British Transport Police data, so will differ from those published by the Home Office.
When other forces were unable to supply data, we mention this under the relevant sections below.
Outlier Lines
The dotted lines on the Bar Charts show one Standard Deviation (sd) above and below the unweighted mean across all forces. Where the distribution of the scores appears normally distributed, the sd is calculated in the normal way. If the forces are not normally distributed, the scores are transformed by taking logs and a Shapiro Wilks test performed to see if this creates a more normal distribution. If it does, the logged values are used to estimate the sd. If not, the sd is calculated using the normal values. Forces with scores more than 1 sd units from the mean (i.e. with Z-scores greater than 1, or less than -1) are considered as showing performance well above, or well below, average. These forces will be outside the dotted lines on the Bar Chart. Typically, 32% of forces will be above or below these lines for any given measure.
Population
For all uses of population as a denominator in our calculations, unless otherwise noted, we use ONS mid-2020 population estimates.
Survey of police workforce
We surveyed the police workforce across England and Wales, to understand their views on workloads, redeployment and how suitable their assigned tasks were. This survey was a non-statistical, voluntary sample so the results may not be representative of the workforce population. The number of responses per force varied. So we treated results with caution and didn’t use them to assess individual force performance. Instead, we identified themes that we could explore further during fieldwork.
Victim Service Assessment
Our victim service assessments (VSAs) will track a victim’s journey from reporting a crime to the police, through to outcome stage. All forces will be subjected to a VSA within our PEEL inspection programme. Some forces will be selected to additionally be tested on crime recording, in a way that ensures every force is assessed on its crime recording practices at least every three years.
Details of the technical methodology for the Victim Service Assessment.
Data sources
Workforce figures
This data was obtained from the Home Office annual data return 502. The data is available from the Home Office’s published police workforce England and Wales statistics or the police workforce open data tables. The Home Office may have updated these figures since we obtained them for this report.
The data gives the full-time equivalent workforce figures as at 31 March 2021. The figures include section 38-designated investigation, detention or escort officers, but not section 39-designated detention or escort staff. They include officers on career breaks and other types of long-term absence but exclude those seconded to other forces.
Use of force
We took this data from the December 2021 release of the Home Office Police use of force statistics. The Home Office may have updated these figures since we obtained them for this report.