Other publications
Police Community Support Officer Terms & Conditions Study
This report presents the findings of Accenture's review of terms and conditions for Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) in England and Wales. It looks at differences in pay, allowances, benefits, conditions of employment and pay progression and how these differ between forces. It also presents options for how these differences might be addressed. The study was commissioned by the Home Office Police Human Resources Unit with the aim of supporting decision making around the future terms and conditions of PCSOs. Note that PCSOs are also known as Community Support Officers.
Title: Police Community Support Officer Terms & Conditions Study
Authors: Accenture
Number of pages: 76
Date published: February 2006
Availability: Download full report PDF 822Kb
The study found a widespread recognition that the introduction of PCSOs has been a great success and on the whole they have been well received by forces, authorities and the communities they serve. The early successes of PCSOs have led the government to commit to roll out neighbourhood policing across England and Wales by 2008, and to increase PCSO numbers from c. 6,500 to 24,000. Against this background, the Home Office wishes to establish whether or not current terms and conditions – which, for the most part, have been set locally by forces and authorities and in line with those of police staff – are fit-for-purpose for such an expansion. The Home Office set two specific objectives for the study:
To build a clear picture of the current status of terms and conditions of PCSOs in England and Wales and to identify any associated issues, particularly with respect to variation.
To consider options for addressing any such issues, including the case for a national framework of terms of conditions.
What is the current situation?
Terms and conditions should be driven by the nature of the work an employee undertakes. The authors found that - within a shared vision from forces and authorities of PCSOs reassuring the public through visible patrol at the neighbourhood level - PCSO roles, powers and working structures are deployed in a wide variety of roles and with a wide variation in the number and nature of delegated powers across forces. However, this study shows that, for the most part, variation in terms and conditions are not driven by roles and powers.
Key components of terms and conditions for PCSOs assessed against the framework were: basic pay (including pay progression), allowances, benefits, conditions of employment and pay progression. In summary:
Basic pay.
The variation of salaries across the country is relatively wide, ranging from Lincolnshire's minimum salary of c. £13,000 to Hertfordshire's maximum of c. £24,500. Indeed, the gap between the highest and lowest minimum salary is c. £7,000, whilst c. £10,000 separates the highest and lowest maximum salary (a variation of 55% and 70% respectively). This variation is generated by a small number of forces, and the majority cluster around a narrow basic pay range. Around three quarters of forces' minimum and maximum salaries fall within 10% of the respective median. At the regional level, forces' salaries broadly conform to variations in regional pay levels, although neither this nor differences in role and powers fully explain the exceptions. Instead, this variation appears to be driven by specific local decisions about market competitiveness (e.g. to compete with salaries of neighbourhood wardens) and the speed with which some forces were asked to recruit PCSOs and the lack of accompanying central guidance on roles, competencies etc.Allowances.
The variation in payment of working hours allowances is higher than for pay, with less than one third of forces paying an allowance within 15% of the median. In many cases this variation is justifiable because PCSOs have different working patterns that the Police Staff Council (PSC) Handbook (which forms the basis of PCSO contracts in all but four forces) dictates be rewarded differently. In addition, some variation is also explained by the following:Some forces saw the PSC definition of 'unsocial' hours as less relevant for PCSOs, and actively sought to also recruit people for whom evening or weekend working was actually desirable, and thus agreed locally not to pay a premium.
There appear to be differences between forces applying the 2004 version of the PSC Handbook and those that based local contracts on the previous edition, which some forces found difficult to interpret.
Some forces pay allowances as a single lump sum, irrespective of actual hours worked, because they feel PCSOs can be deployed more flexibly this way.
These alternatives are arguably not a major problem when they have been agreed locally with staff and unions. Instead, perhaps the key issue found in this study in relation to allowances is that some forces are not deploying PCSOs in line with operational demand due to problems around the management and payment of allowances. One force we visited, for example, set the expectation that all staff would receive a certain percentage allowance – and has now tied itself to rostering PCSOs at times that ensure they earn this allowance, and not when operational requirements necessarily demand it. Another force does not deploy PCSOs at times when local managers would sometimes wish due to fears of incurring extra allowance payments. Many of these problems have resulted from poor management practices (sometimes understandable given the speed of implementation of the PCSO role) and, on occasions, misinterpretations of PSC/local rules on allowances.
Benefits.
The report found little variation between forces in the nature of pension, sickness, parental and other benefits. Only annual leave entitlement and the rate at which PCSOs accrue additional annual leave entitlement vary to any great degree, often a legacy of the local government terms and conditions inherited by police staff in many forces.Conditions of employment.
The vast majority of forces adopted recommendations from the PSC handbook for the conditions of their PCSOs, and, as such, the study identified little variation between forces. Instead, the main issues arise from the differences between PCSO conditions and those of police officers, and there was considerable support to bring PCSOs into line with officers with respect to vetting, registering of interests, codes of conduct, as well as standardising probationary periods. Some, although not all, forces also believed that the right to strike would not be sustainable as PCSO numbers increase and their contribution to resilience grows.Pay progression.
A general convergence exists in relation to the progress that can be made through PCSO pay scales, although some notable exceptions ensure a wide spread (e.g. a range from two to eleven years to progress through the pay scale). Only two forces tied pay progression to performance in any way.
How should these issues be addressed?
This report presents a wide range of options for addressing the issues raised – some of which could, in theory at least, be part of a national framework. However, the decisions to be made are rather more complex than simply whether or not a national framework would be a good idea, and for a range of reasons. For example:
Elements of a national framework are already in place – The PSC agree a nationally negotiated pay spine and the PSC Handbook has been broadly adopted (with some local exceptions) in all but five forces and authorities, with a high level of commonality across a wide range of terms and conditions. Many of the variations we see in practice result from differences in local application of the pay spine and conditions and local management.
The extent and nature of issues varies between different components of terms and conditions – as a result, options for change arguably need to be considered in relation to each individual component initially.
A number of the issues identified in relation to PCSOs are already being addressed – the recent Taylor Report on discipline and conduct in the police service, the consultation paper on PCSO powers, the rollout of the national competencies framework and the development of national recruitment standards and standardisation of training are all likely to address many of the issues of consistency and integration.
Overall, the assessment of the current situation presents few clear justifications for changing the status quo in favour of a national framework. Some issues in relation to operational requirements, employee value and cost effectiveness, present difficulties but none is serious enough to address on anything other than a case-by-case basis – and many can be addressed by local management. The barriers to a national framework are currently considerable. The case for de-coupling PCSO terms and conditions from those of other police staff, for example, has some merits, namely
modernising the way in which the force expects and rewards flexibility in its operational staff
tackling disparities between police officers and PCSOs.
This case is weakened, however, by the likelihood of it taking a long time to agree (the unions would be likely to oppose this) and by the argument that creating a third set of terms and conditions and negotiating mechanism for police employees is a retrograde step given the workforce modernisation (WFM) vision of an, integrated framework. Instead, the most immediate challenge is around mediating the current separate frameworks for police officers and staff.
The whole landscape of policing is changing significantly. Numbers of PCSOs will nearly quadruple by 2008, the WFM agenda is likely to see police staff performing an increasingly diverse range of operational roles, and forces are likely to merge – all of which introduce a number of significant new risks for the service. In relation to many components of terms and conditions the key decisions to be made are about the scale of future risk, and the best ways of mitigating these risks. There are also a number of areas in which the Home Office and police service might wish to make the most of the forthcoming reform programme to seize an opportunity to change key elements of terms and conditions to ensure their ongoing fitness-for-purpose in the future (for example, around overtime rates and the right to strike of operational police staff as numbers grow). This document provides some initial steers, but consultation with stakeholders and other experts will be essential.
Overall, the extent of change and range of pressures on terms and conditions in policing is considerable (e.g. workforce modernisation, force restructuring, the Randall Review of negotiating mechanisms). The likely outcomes of many of these are still unclear. A move to fix pay and conditions at the national level in relation to PCSOs could risk jeopardising these wider programmes by introducing inflexibility at a time when too many issues are unresolved. Instead, any changes to PCSO terms and conditions should be made as part of a coherent programme of pay and conditions reform for all police employees. This programme should also align with the WFM vision, including the likely increase in diversity of roles to which operational police staff are deployed. The authors strongly recommend examining arrangements for police officers and staff together, since making changes to one set before the other risks building in inflexibility that could limit the wider WFM project. Ideally this should be reviewed in a way that can be implemented alongside force re-structuring
Nonetheless, there remain some key areas in which can be addressed in the short term. For example, the Home Office and key stakeholders should look to:
Standardise vetting procedures, registering of interests and codes of conduct for PCSOs nationally, bringing them into line with police officers and thus beginning to create an enabling framework for the police family as a whole.
Standardise the probationary period for PCSOs in line with planned standardisation of recruitment and training
Publish current rates of PCSO basic pay across forces.
Ensure that PCSO deployment is driven by demand and not by expectations of allowance payments or misconceptions about when staff can and cannot be deployed. This should be achieved through:
ensuring policies working hours allowances (including bank holiday / weekend work) are re-examined by forces and authorities in the context of what is now understood about the PCSO role prior to the April 2006 recruitment drive, and that they are at least aligned with PSC guidelines unless an alternative position is formally agreed locally
ensuring that agreed local policies are applied correctly such that working hours are driven by operational demand, and not the other way around
Finally, this study has confirmed the extent to which forces and authorities are still 'finding their way' in relation to PCSOs – not just in relation to terms and conditions, but to all aspects of their effective recruitment, retention, deployment and integration into the service. Areas both of excellent practice and poor practice were found in the case study forces – but what all forces and authorities have in common is a strong desire for additional national guidance that would enable them to learn from what is working elsewhere. Current ACPO guidance offers an excellent foundation for this, and, as an expanded, clear and easy-to-use manual – along the lines of the Police Standards Unit's Managing Police Performance: A Practical Guide to Performance Management, for example – could make a big difference to the effectiveness of PCSOs in the service, helping to drive greater consistency in some key areas through a 'light touch' approach, whilst celebrating and sharing some of the innovation and success already evident in forces.
Last update: Friday, September 29, 2006