Contracting out police services poses difficult questions and a variety of risks. We need a serious debate if public confidence in policing is to be maintained
The current debate about the appropriateness of outsourcing elements of the police service raises some broader and important questions.
These questions need to be addressed urgently given the government’s stated direction of travel in its Open public services White Paper and the earlier article by Prime Minister David Cameron in which he asserted that there should be no presumption that most public services would be delivered within the public sector.
It is worth drawing a distinction between ‘privatisation’ and ‘outsourcing’. The former is about the public sector selling its assets and service to a business sector body and relinquishing control other than perhaps through regulation. Outsourcing, which is what some police services have in mind, is about contracting – the budget and other controls remain with the public body. When considering whether to outsource, it is vital that political and executive leaders ask themselves some fundamental questions.
First, what are the objectives for the proposed or possible outsourcing and how do these contribute to the organisation’s wider values, mission, ethos and strategic objectives?
Second, what are the drivers for considering outsourcing? Is it to reduce costs, to secure additional capacity and resilience, to achieve a change that it is felt could not be secured internally or is it for policy reasons such as a desire to reduce the public sector head count?
Third, what is to be in scope and what is not? The Surrey and West Midlands invitation to tenders seem to be very broad and consequently may have created more concern than might otherwise have been the case and may, potentially, go beyond the capability or interest of most suppliers too.
Fourth, if the services are to be outsourced, what might the contractual relationship look like? How will the provider be held to account, incentivised to perform and how will provider-gaming and potential unintended perverse incentives be avoided?
Fifth, how will the public body remain accountable to the public for its performance of the service and the behaviour of the outsourcer? This accountability cannot be transferred or off-loaded.
Sixth, what are the risks associated with the proposed outsourcing and how will these be managed? All too often the public sector has assumed that it can transfer more risk to the provider than is actually possible, especially in politically and operationally sensitive areas such as policing.
I could list many more questions but in the case of sensitive and critical services such as the police, it will also be necessary to consider public opinion – is there the public appetite for outsourcing and do political leaders have the will to explain and defend such a decision against public opposition? It will also be important, as in any major change programme, to ensure that staff are either supportive or at least understanding to the point that they will not resist the proposed changes.
Much of the recent debate (focused primarily on Surrey and West Midlands Police Services) has also implied, as did the original European Journal Notices, that most police activities could be in scope. This has understandably raised concerns. If it was always intended that the scope would be narrower, then it was clearly a mistake to raise the prospect of some elements of frontline policing being undertaken by employees of businesses rather than police officers. Clear communication and clarity of intention are essential for any effective outsourcing.
Of course, outsourcing of limited elements of police services is nothing new. Indeed, a number of police forces already outsource ‘back-office’ support services, IT, transport management, some forensic services and custody suite management (although in the case of the latter, the responsibility for key decisions remains with warranted police officers).
In some parts of the US there is more experience of frontline policing being provided by business contractors, but I am not convinced that many UK forces would wish to follow such US models without some real analysis of the wider social, political and operational impact of this experience.
It might also be worth reflecting on some related areas of public service. A few decades ago, no one would have expected the presence in the prison service of business sector providers or that a government would consider engaging business and social sector providers to manage aspects of the probation service.
The truth is that the role and boundary between business, social and public sector providers has moved and will continue to move in many directions. However, returning to the police service specifically, the use of business and social sector employees to undertake core policing does raise some major questions such as: accountability; public authorisation (especially where the liberty and protection of citizens is at stake); and risk management.
I am not convinced that understandably the public is ready or willing to see many, if not all, of the duties assigned to warranted police officers being undertaken by others. And I do wonder if in the current political climate, the response of the business sector may be diminished and the enthusiasm of politicians dampened for major police outsourcing.
That said, there is without question a debate to be had about the provision of some support services, transport and indeed some specialist frontline services which might be better delivered by innovative providers.
So let’s have that debate, in the context of a wider consideration about the nature and role of policing, its public authorisation, accountability and relationship to communities, as well as its operational performance. Such a debate needs to reach consensus on the boundary for business sector involvement in policing and related services.
The bottom line is that the public expects to have confidence in their police, and the police require the consent and confidence of the public to perform their essential duty on behalf of the public. ‘Simplistic’ outsourcing could do much to undermine both that confidence and consent and in a democratic society that will be highly detrimental.