Lincolnshire Police: move to enhanced phase of monitoring

The force needs to attend calls for service in line with its published target attendance times

This was an area we identified in our 2021/22 police effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy (PEEL) inspection as requiring improvement. But in this inspection, we found the force’s performance has deteriorated further.

The force has a graded response policy, which is clearly defined. But in our victim service assessment, we found that the force attended calls within the required time in only 49 out of 93 cases. This means it had met its graded response targets in only 52.6 percent of these cases.

We found that the force wasn’t managing its response deployment well enough. In our victim service assessment, we found effective and appropriate supervision for response deployment in only 14 out of 52 cases.

The force isn’t updating callers about delays in the police attending. In our victim service assessment, we found that callers were updated about delays in only 29 of 48 cases. Not attending calls promptly increases the likelihood of evidence being lost, which can have a negative effect on victims and reduce confidence in the police.

In June 2024, the force identified it had response time problems and set up a strategic management group to address them. This group focused on changes to the force graded response policy. Non-priority calls are now dealt with by an incident resolution team in the force control room, instead of being allocated to response patrols. The force also introduced Operation Resource over the summer months, using overtime so that additional officers could work on reducing the backlog of calls requiring police attendance.

Although the force has introduced strategies to resolve these issues, they haven’t led to improvements. Attendance times for emergency and priority incidents are still outside target times.

The force uses an IT system called Guardian in its control room to manage calls and dispatch police resources. This system identifies which police patrols are available to attend incidents. But we found dispatch personnel weren’t always using this information to assign patrols to incidents and were making general requests by radio for any free patrols to volunteer to attend incidents. Although managers told us this practice had stopped, during our fieldwork we found that it was continuing.

The force needs to improve how it allocates, supervises and carries out investigations to make sure victims get the support they need

We found that the force hadn’t made enough progress in improving the standard of investigations since our 2021/22 PEEL inspection. As a result, not enough offenders are being brought to justice.

Although the force does have governance arrangements and processes in place, we found crime investigations weren’t managed as effectively as they could be. We found that some processes were missing or ineffective or weren’t clearly defined.

We found that the force wasn’t always applying its crime allocation policy consistently. This means that some investigations are being allocated to officers who don’t have the appropriate level of training and accreditation for investigating more serious and complex crimes.

We acknowledge that the force does a good job of investigating many of the most serious crimes. But in our victim service assessment, we found only 69 out of 101 cases were effective investigations. We also found only 40 out of 61 cases had an investigation plan. Investigation plans, outlined in the College of Policing’s authorised professional practice, support investigators to make sure they make the most of all available opportunities to gather evidence.

We found cases that had significant failings and in which victims had been let down. In our victim service assessment, we found effective supervision in only 45 out of 83 cases. During our inspection, supervisors told us they didn’t have time to complete all the supervisory tasks that they should. As a result, the force isn’t always achieving acceptable outcomes for victims of crime. The number of crimes that the force solves following investigations is low.

In our victim service assessment, we found force had only applied the correct outcome in 56 out of 80 cases and supervision of the outcome took place in 62 out of 79 cases. We found supervisors sometimes applied incorrect outcome codes for crimes, applying outcome 15 (evidential difficulties) instead of outcome 16 (victim doesn’t support a prosecution). Supervisors considered the force’s crime management bureau criteria for an outcome 16 too rigid and difficult to meet and instead selected an easier but unsuitable outcome when finalising crimes. The force has the highest rate for outcome 15 of all forces in England and Wales. Senior leaders in the force acknowledge that this is likely to be a result of the difficulties recording outcome 16.

Lincolnshire Police is also failing to support victims. Under the revised Code of Practice for Victims of Crime, all victims are entitled to a needs assessment. The police should carry out an assessment early in a case to establish whether victims need any extra support during the investigation or later in court. Of the 69 relevant cases we reviewed, only 5 had clearly recorded needs assessments. For victims entitled to an enhanced level of service because of their age or vulnerability, only 7 out of 42 relevant cases had needs assessments recorded.

The force needs to make sure that it has the capacity and capability to manage the risks posed to the public by registered sex offenders

All police, probation and prison services use the Violent and Sex Offender Register (ViSOR) database to manage the risk posed to the public by convicted sexual and violent offenders. The police create a record on the active risk management system (ARMS) that sets out the potential risk that an offender poses. This should be followed by a risk management plan (RMP) detailing how the risk will be actively managed by the police and partner agencies, such as the Probation Service.

At the time of our inspection, we found that personnel in the force’s management of sexual and violent offenders (MOSOVO) team didn’t have capacity to manage and reduce the backlog of ARMS and RMPs. This had resulted in an overdue workload backlog that the force had been unable to reduce over a four-month period. We found that there weren’t enough offender managers and supervisors to address the backlog and that they had already raised these resourcing gaps with senior leaders.

We found that offender managers in the MOSOVO team had high caseloads, with a ratio of 1 offender manager to 65 offenders in the community. These managers also had a further caseload of offenders in custody or living abroad, which increased the ratio to 1 manager to 86 offenders. Nationally, forces are working towards a ratio of 1 manager to 50 offenders in the community.

During our inspection, we found that not all personnel in the MOSOVO team had the appropriate level of training and accreditation to carry out their roles. They should be accredited under the College of Policing professionalising investigations programme level 1, which covers priority and volume crime investigations. At the time of our inspection, the force accepted this gap around capability but had no definite timescales in place to provide the necessary training.

The national guideline on target completion rates for ARMS and RMPs is 95 percent. We found that the force completion rate was below this level, at 88.9 percent for ARMS and 93 percent for RMPs. However, to achieve this level the force suspended some visits on Probation-led nominals. Again, this indicates a lack of capacity in the MOSOVO team.

During our inspection, we found a large backlog of over 3,000 supervisory reviews on the ViSOR database. After we told the force about this, it made significant efforts to reduce the backlog. But it still had 843 overdue reviews after a three-month period. Supervisors need a manageable number of reviews so that they can provide meaningful reviews and oversight of ongoing offender management. It is vital that the force has the capacity and capability to manage the ViSOR database so it can understand the threat, harm and risk posed by offenders who are in the community.

Offender managers and supervisors told us backlogs meant visits to offenders involving the Probation Service as the lead agency had been suspended. We were told that this would be a temporary measure until backlogs were reduced and that some degree of risk assessment would be carried out to determine which offenders would only receive phone calls rather than personal visits.

The police must visit all offenders regardless of whether the force is the lead agency. The police have the powers to enter homes and carry out checks in accordance with court orders that restrict an offender’s activity, such as Sexual Harm Prevention Orders. So, by not visiting offenders, the force could potentially miss an escalation or concern and put the public at risk.

The force needs to improve its understanding of demand

This was an area for improvement we identified in our 2021/22 PEEL inspection. But it has not improved, so it is now a cause of concern.

The force doesn’t have enough capacity in the right places, which is affecting force performance. For example, it isn’t meeting response time frames, there are delays in investigations and some specialist services lack capacity.

During our inspection, we also found that the force was extensively using overtime to meet demand. The force told us the overtime budget was nearly exhausted mid-year. This isn’t a sustainable approach to meeting demand in key areas such as response and crime investigations. It also places more financial pressure on the force and additional pressure on those officers and staff who are working extra hours.

The force should continue to review its operating model and implement any changes efficiently. It should make sure it has effective governance processes and enough resources to oversee its change programme. If the force has the right people in the right places, it will help it to make sustainable and cost-effective improvements in performance. The failure to plan effectively could prevent the force from providing its community, including its most vulnerable people, with the expected standard of service.

The force doesn’t have adequate strategic plans in place

Senior leaders in the force haven’t had enough control over strategic planning and oversight since our 2021/22 inspection. The lack of effective governance and management of force performance has negatively affected almost all areas of the force.

Although the force has a strategic savings and efficiency plan, we have limited confidence that the plan will lead to an efficient and effective service. We found that the force had been frequently using its reserves to support its expenditure for some time, which isn’t sustainable. This lack of effective planning is reflected in its operating costs. In the year ending 31 March 2024, the force spent £74,000 per member of the workforce, which is higher than most other police forces.

Despite the financial pressures we found several areas of inefficiency, including the force’s vehicle fleet and estates strategy. The force told us it had closed 17 of its underused buildings to save costs, but it hasn’t sold any of these buildings. Some of the remaining 37 operational buildings are underused and have few people working from them. The police and crime commissioner is responsible for the estate, but senior leaders are responsible for operational efficiency and value for money. The force should review how it uses its estate and its management strategy so that it can better meet current and future needs.

Senior leaders in the force lack oversight of some areas of expenditure, such as the vehicle fleet. The arrangements, at the time of our inspection, for managing fleet size and allocation were ineffective. At the time of our inspection, the force had 462 vehicles, but these were only used 5.7 percent of the time on average. The force should review its fleet management plans to make sure its investments provide value for money and the workforce has what it needs to be efficient and productive.

Lincolnshire Police receives one of the lowest levels of funding per 1,000 population compared to most other forces in England and Wales. But its financial plans aren’t aligned with other corporate plans such as workforce, IT, fleet and estates strategies. It isn’t clear how the force can continue to provide the current level of policing within its anticipated budgets. And it also it doesn’t fully understand its demand and operating costs. This means that the force can’t be sure that its current operating model will help it to meet future demand. The failure to plan effectively means the force isn’t helping to provide its community, including its most vulnerable members, with the expected standard of service.