Analysis of UK Riots

[petagny]

There have been some interesting findings coming out of research into the causes of August's riots in the UK. The results have been reported in various places but here's a summary by Mark Easton on the BBC website:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16035543

I find the references to the report by the National Policing Improvement Agency quite fascinating:

'There is a growing body of evidence that, if you want people to obey the law, then the police must treat communities with courtesy, friendliness and fairness. The National Policing Improvement Agency published a fascinating report, Fair Cop, a few months ago which identified "treating people with respect" as a fundamental part of reducing crime.

"Trust enhances police legitimacy which, in turn, encourages people to help the police and not break the law. In other words, by making fair decisions and treating people fairly, the police should have an impact on crime in the longer term. The implications of motivating greater social responsibility are significant."

The findings went further, however, suggesting that respect was actually more important than catching criminals in getting people to obey the law. (I wrote about this phenomenon a couple of weeks ago.)

"Fair and respectful treatment predicted whether the public viewed the police as legitimate (rather than police effectiveness at responding to, and dealing with, crime)," the report said. It added that - with the exception of traffic offences - "the perceived risk of being caught and punished showed no statistical association" with offending behaviour.'

The perceived legitimacy of the police force is seen as critical in maintaining law and order, rather than measures of effectiveness. Easton also points to the correlation between perceived lack of courtesy by police in implementing 'stop and search' and propensity to riot. (Remember the 'sus' law back in the 1980s?!)

Do these findings simply mean that we need to be cleverer in defining performance indicators (focusing on measures of public perceptions of police behaviour), or do they pose deeper questions about the causal links we normally associate with performance budgeting, i.e., inputs=>outputs=>impacts/outcomes? After all, the way the police behave now seems to be as important as the actual outputs they deliver and the impacts these have on the outcomes that interest society. The police are after all part of the patchwork that makes up society, not simply instruments of public policy. When they disappear off the streets to be replaced by CCTV and are rude when they do actually make an appearance, isn't society at large then changed?  What are the implications for results-based management and budgeting if the way outputs are delivered might actually be as important, as or more so, than their quantity? Is this just a question of properly defining the quality of outputs, or is it something bigger?

[STONE]

Where do you begin with this one?  It's a bit like the Defence question - absence of invasion as an outcome/goal.  It wasn't much easier when one referred to the MoD as the War Office - successfully prosecuted war as goal/outcome?

My first hunch is that the quality issue is in the output description "number of courteous riot calming police deployed within x minutes of serious public order breakdown" (as a start towards a description).  One might want to tie in some reference to meals and cups of tea spontaneously distributed to CRCP but that might be going into an outcome/impact measure.

Sorry to be flippant - the issue is a broader one of that difficult problem of appropriate police performance measures - I have never managed to get a clear view on what one should use to replace arrest rates.

[petagny]

Agreed! Criminality and policing is a difficult area.

I wonder if the questions I raise are just confined to this area though. Here's a systematic review looking at the impact of 'bedside manner' in the health sector.

http://ucc-ie.academia.edu/ZeldaDiBlasi/Papers/86170/Influence_of_context_effects_on_health_outcomes_a_systematic_review

Obviously nothing conclusive here, but I think there are some potentially interesting issues here.

[petagny]

Stone, the Now Show on Radio 4 also ridicules the analysis I mention (as well as ripping into the Guardian's 'holier-than-thou' attitude):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0184w5y

Interestingly, I heard Ian Blair interviewed yesterday. On the finding that 73% (? need to check statistic) of rioters had been stopped and searched prior to the riots, his interpretation was that this indicated that stop and search was obviously well targeted since the right people had been stopped and searched, i.e.,  people with a propensity for criminality.

[Martin Johnson]

Petagny ... you always seem to get the ball rolling on apparently straightforward but actually quite interesting and challenging issues. Never was the saying 'show me how I am measured and I'll show you how I will perform' more true than in delivery of policing services. This is also clearly illustrated by the way that traffic policing has been measured, managed and delivered over the last several years in the UK. Whilst it is certainly true that the liberal issuing of speeding tickets has changed behaviour among most people (other than those that persuade or pay others to 'accept' speeding tickets on their behalf ... on which note I was informed last week that the typical cost of avoiding justice in this way in a certain town in the North East of England is currently £50 - certainly much less expensive than the false economy of persuading one's wife to take the hit on one's behalf ... but I digress) and, thereby, achieved a policy objective (adherence to speed limits among a larger proportion of motorists) and contributed to a long-term policy goal (less deaths and serious injuries on the roads), the complete absence of discretion and judgement along with the public perception of institutional rent-seeking resulting from the target-driven nature of this policy has undoubtedly lost a good portion of respect that the police had previously enjoyed from Daily Mail-reading supporters (among others) in the same way that absence of courtesy appears to have dented respect and confidence in the police among potential rioters. Here in North Wales we have had a recent change of Chief Constable and, as new brooms are apt to sweep clean, he has apparently abolished the strict target driven nature of traffic policing whilst simultaneously overseeing an almost doubling of the spooky Arrive Alive vans (which, for those who are unaware, are the marked police vans that park up at different points in a given area for several hours at a time with a dedicated radar trap for speeding motorists). At my monthly curry and pint meeting with like minded sub-continent cuisine favouring folk I was told an interesting tale of a traffic policeman stopping the driver of a speeding tractor unit (i.e. the front bit of an articulated lorry) of all things. To cut a long story short, the circumstances were not dangerous and there was a compelling reason for driver choosing that speed. I heard a story of judgement and discretion being applied in this instance - something that would have been unheard of if the policing had remained strictly target-driven. Most everyone has their own tale of deteriorating trust in the police resulting from poor use of targets in addition to the long journey the force has gone on in ditching various institutionalised prejudices (the recent semi-closing of the shameful Stephen Lawrence episode being a major landmark in the latter).

[Martin Johnson]

Interesting comment from Ian Blair too that was picked up from Petagny .... perhaps there was 'good targeting' from the police in having pre-identified people prone to criminality ... or perhaps the poor 'bedside manner' of the police was the catalyst that contributed to triggering of their latent criminality .... perhaps this is a case of 'once I have performed you can decide how I am going to be measured'! Tricky thing this business of performance measurement, particularly when one strays into politically charged areas

[Martin Johnson]

A further thought, this time on 'bedside manner'. It is interesting that the study Petagny refers too finds 'bedside manner' important in influencing the extent to which outputs (consultations, interventions, etc.) contribute to the achievement of policy objectives (e.g. improved health outcomes for patients). The importance of 'bedside manner' was recognised at least as far back as Samuel Pepys in the 17th century - and no doubt much further back in the annuls of time too. Pepys had surgery for the removal of a gallstone in 1658. The account of this is fascinating (not least the concept of major surgery in the absence of anesthesia). Perhaps the most interesting part of the account is the emphasis at that time on the surgeon spending time getting to know the patient and the patient, in turn, getting to know and (crucially) to completely trust the surgeon in question ... ' .. the sick person was advised to cultivate a calm frame of mind and to avoid anger or sadness; he should feel confidence in the surgeon, even affection ...' (a quote from Claire Tomalin in her account of Pepys life where she refers to what contemporary medical manuals had to say about these things). Fortunately for Pepys, his surgeon was 'at the hight of his powers', operating successfully on thirty patients in that year. His first four patients of the following year all died, however, probably as a result of some contamination of his instruments. So, much to learn from the 17th century about not only the role of 'bedside manner' in properly specifying outputs and objectives but also about the importance of specifying standards for cleanliness, sterilisation and contamination.

But how on earth would one specify 'bedside manner' in a practical and applicable manner, and in particular, in such a way that it would not result in unintended consequences and/or perverse incentives?

[petagny]

I think my point is that by trying to specify and contractualise 'bedside manner' we might actually destroy it.

[Martin Johnson]

I think you are right. I think it would be guaranteed to destroy it.