This week saw the last episode of the Channel 4 programme “To Catch a Copper”. It’s been described by many as ground-breaking. It certainly has a catchy title.
I don’t agree that it’s ground-breaking. Whilst it has shone a light on poor police behaviour it really hasn’t explored issues fully nor has it offered solutions to issues. It may be the case that it’s not the role of programme directors to offer solutions, but I do feel it needed to look behind some of the behaviours that were seen.
Having watched the series I feel policing itself needs to look beyond the behaviours and work better to make use of ‘what works’ to reduce harm.
Now in no way am I excusing behaviours more I’m trying to understand both the behaviours and provide ways to either reduce harm or stop it entirely. In my world harm isn’t inevitable, its preventable.
Allowing cameras access to police misconduct investigations was a brave one. Shining a light on behaviours of UK police officers that fall below what is expected is always going to cause public outrage. Policing requires the trust and confidence of those it serves. Policing takes place with the consent of those it protects and serves. Without this, the whole concept of UK policing collapses.
All episodes of the C4 programme provide numerous examples of behaviours that are harmful, and abusive. In some cases, whilst not excusable they are explainable. I would also say the presence of multiple officers tells me they were also totally preventable.
Research confirms that in cases of individual or group violence and harm that without inhibiting forces, once the violence or harm begins individuals and groups change and there is an evolution of increasing harm doing. In simple no intervention or doing nothing increases harm doing. By contrast when groups or individuals intervene there is often a positive impact. Even the actions of just one person helps. It also increases the likelihood that a second person will help also.
Witnessing the behaviours of officers in the programme was sickening. Many in policing will agree that these behaviours were wrong. Police officers work with some of society’s most vulnerable people. When officers behave abusively, such individuals are let down, the wider public are let down, the profession of policing is impacted, and police officers fail themselves.
Past evidence from the Centre for Disease Control (CDC) in the United States suggests that in around two thirds of violent and harmful incidents 3rd parties witness such behaviours. This was a driving reason why I introduced the concept of the bystander approach when working with the Scottish Violence Reduction Unit in my last years in policing.
Active bystandership is the ‘art and science’ of reducing harm and is an approach that is supported by over five decades of research. I firmly believe the science of bystandership requires to form an embedded and essential element of police training for all officers and staff including members of the Senior Leadership Team (SLT).
I’m often asked why active bystandership within a peer-to-peer context is needed. My response “for many reasons we can’t see our own behaviour”. Having peers on the’ look out’ for issues is key and will help likes of policing to reduce many of the incidents we saw in the C4 programme.
As I said above there is no excusing poor behaviour. Accountability is vital. The public deserve nothing less, but I also feel that the stresses and trauma that officers are exposed to need to be considered better by those within the organisation. Daily, officers are exposed to traumatic incidents that eat away at them. Compassion fatigue is a real and a result of constant exposure to primary and secondary trauma incidents. Those who experience this begin to lose feeling, empathy, and compassion for those they are tasked to protect. Of course, policing attracts a minority of individuals who simply like to cause harm. For them the ability to inflict harm on others, including colleagues is part of their personality. The reality is that far more officers behave in ways that are at complete odds with their value system.
The programme has seen careers ended due to behaviours. Yes, some officers who I identify as ‘actively toxic’ simply need to go. Most in policing will agree with that. An officer is the face of the service. In my opinion this is not the case for all officers and an intervention early in an incident by a colleague can stop that officer from continuing down a path that will see harm and a career ended.
I saw reflective practice being used in the C4 programme. Such reflection can explore all events that happened during an incident. It also helps officers reflect on their practice as well as their own well-being. For me such practice done properly will help policing organisations show a commitment both to their communities and to their officers and staff. Healthier staff make fewer mistakes.
To be clear intervening on a colleague is rarely easy but it can be made easier. First, the earlier we act, the more options we have. The longer we wait these options narrow. Earliest options are ones that occur before anything harmful happens.
Personal behaviour is shaped both by people and the situation. When we learn to notice behaviours in others and the impact on ourselves, we are more likely to notice situations that require action. When we make better use of our own values and experiences, we help motivate ourselves to act. When policing instils this responsibility in their staff to act, the evidence says we motivate colleagues to act when they witness harm. The best officer to intervene therefor is one with the support of their whole organisation and one with the skills and strategies to intervene.
Currently policing is placing a reliance on a code of ethics to encourage (force) officers to intervene. Such an approach isn’t new and as we have seen over the years hasn’t really worked. We need a new approach. Also many policing organisations are simply using online training to address behavioural issues. Again this will have little or no effect. It may save some money but in the long run the savings will be eaten up by compensations payments to members of the public and to officers themsevles.
The science of active bystandership has helped likes of aviation and parts of emergency medicine to reduce harm in high-risk situations. The approach is currently being scaled up across police departments in the United States. Evidence suggests it is making a positive contribution to reducing police misconduct and is building trust and confidence in the profession.
So, what’s better, to catch a copper? or to stop a copper? That was the question posed in my title. We can keep playing a whack a mole and catch officers whose behaviour falls below what is expected or does the profession of policing equip its officers and staff to reduce the moles through peer intervention.
Trust in policing continues to fall. The C4 programme in my opinion is further contributing to this fall. Police forces would benefit from embedding a comprehensive and evidence informed active bystander and peer intervention curriculum that supports their staff to intervene early when they witness harm. Ask yourself “Who is harmed when we fail to intervene?”
Reducing or stopping harm surely is the best outcome.
grahamgoulden.com 