Leicestershire

ecial Constabulary Mentoring Trial Proposal

SPC 5103 Ollie Evans

Version 3: January 2012

Table of Contents
Terminology
Aims

2
2

Background Version History The Program

Who its aimed at 5

3 4 5

Advantages Possible problems Limitations of the program Practical Application Intervention Hierarchy 'Street Duty'Aims 'Street Duty' Boundaries
Other Aims

5 6 8 9
9 9 9
10

Measuring Success and Failure

Indicators
Methods

10
10
10

Selection & Training of Mentors Minimum Requirements for Mentors Training of mentors
Evaluation of training options Implementation timeline

12 12 12
13

14

Preparation Stage (Ends 31st January 2012)

14

Consultation stage (lsl February 2012 - 29th February 2012)

First Review and Authoring Stage (1st March 2012 - 31st April) Pilot stage (1st May 2012 - 31st August 2012)

14
14 14

Second Review stage (1st September 2012 - 30th September 2012)

Roll out stage (To Be Decided)
Conclusion

14
14
15

Terminology
Accredited Patrol Status (APS) -A benchmark at which officers are deemed to be fit for undergoing duty without direct supervision.

Subject Officer -The less experienced officer who is subject to the tutoring scheme. Formerly called Student Officer, amended to avoid confusion with those officers in
foundation training.

Mentor- The more experienced, independent, officer who is assigned to mentor and support a subject officer. Formerly called Tutor, but amended to avoid confusion with regular tutor constables. It is still to be established how similar this role will be to that of
regular tutor constable.

Supervising Officer- Either the Special Sergeant or Special Inspector that is responsible for quality controlling the administration of the scheme. Special's Senior Leadership Team - The team consisting of the Area S/C/lnsp and 3 S/lnspectors. It does not include the Special Sergeants.

Program Co-ordinator- Officer responsible for planning, implementation and

administration of the mentor scheme.

Special Constabulary Assessment Portfolio (SCAP) - A portfolio of evidence to track development, and support the awarding of Accredited Patrol Status.
Principle Beat Officer (PBO) - The PBO is a front line Police Constable whose remit is purely neighbourhood policing. They are assigned to a particular area, or beat, and do not

tend to perform an immediate response role. The PBO is the officer responsible for the
operational development of the subject officer, whereas the Mentor is focused on ensuring the subject officer is prepared and confident in working with their assigned PBO.

The purpose of this proposal is to improve both the attrition rate

and the number of Accredited Patrol Status officers.

Aims
Improve Leicestershire's special constabulary attrition rate and operational resilience through the use of a mentor program. Grow the confidence of pre-APS officers, with a view to developing them into well rounded qualified Leicestershire APS Special Constables.

Develop a mentor program of a quality sufficient to set a national benchmark.

Background
With the demand on the Special Constabulary destined to increase over the next few years, it's essential that we increase the number of Independent Patrol (IP) specials, and
reduce the attrition rate. The ratio of APS specials to non-APS specials is very high at the time of writing this proposal (see figure 1) which means we are not as flexible as we would like to be, and can sometimes present problems to our regular colleagues. We should be
seen as a solution to a problem, rather

than a complicating factor. We also are seeing a rise in the number of specials who resign (see figure 2). Reasons for this are complex, but anecdotally we
can conclude that in some of those

cases we are losing individuals who would, were we to treat them differently, remain in the organisation and become productive and active members of the Special Constabulary. To effectively provide support to our regular colleagues, in any meaningful manner, we need to be flexible in deployment, and able to deploy both with, and independently from, our

regular colleagues. An APS Special can be deployed with PCSOs, less experienced Regular officers, alone, or as a team with one or more less experienced special. A non APS special can only be deployed with a relatively experienced regular officer, or IP
special. The current system assigns each
new officer to a PBO on their LPU.

This presents some problems; most often with limited availability. It can be difficult to arrange shifts with a PBO. There can be limited variety and learning opportunities for the subject
officer. A PBO deals with more

complex neighbourhood issues and requires those officers involved to have knowledge and experience that the role of special does not always
allow for.

This proposed scheme aims to supplement the PBO's training role, not to replace it. The scheme is best used as a management intervention tool, allowing management to identify a subject officer who is not
advancing through their SCAP or not performing enough duties. It would offer an additional, special constabulary administered, mentor program to add more support to non-APS officers, and give the special constabulary leadership a closer contact with the day to day training and ongoing development of its officers. How this will happen is detailed later in the proposal.

Version History
Version 1 was written in early 2010, based on my own experience and knowledge as a Special Constable in Thames Valley Police (TVP), as a skills Trainer in the private sector, and as leisure centre manager with portfolio for human resources and training. It was submitted to S/lnsp Ash Lodhia.
Version 2 was drafted as a result of discussions with S/lnsp Ash Lodhia who shared some

good practice he gathered from meeting with a senior special officer in TVP.
The current version, Version 3, is a much more detailed, and implementation focused,

proposal that has developed with input from the training department and S/C/lnsp Ken
McDonald. It is intended that this version will resolve a lot of issues in relation to

implementation, to the point at which the mentor program will be ready for pilot.

The Program
Who its aimed at

The mentoring scheme would be aimed at supporting the development of non APS
specials. In particular;

New Specials who need help bridging the gap between the SCAP and street duty Medium/Long service special with little street experience Medium/Long service special making no attempt at completing SCAP
It's not aimed at non-APS specials that are on target to get APS, and are able to demonstrate an understanding of, and progress in the SCAP.

There is scope for the program to also extend to any officer, of any rank, who is placed on
a development plan or action plan. Where this is the case, the scheme should be tailored to ensure that any mentor is of sufficient rank, experience and ability to ensure a productive working relationship between the mentor and the subject officer.

Advantages
Builds confidence from having the opportunity to work with an officer on a semiregular basis in a structured manner.
Builds relationships between special's LPU teams. PBOs can lack understanding of the SCAP, this offers a way for the specials senior leadership team to positively effect the progress of any non-APS officer that meets
the criteria.

Gives more structure to special supervisory contact. Reduces supervisory workload. Increases communication between special's supervisors and new officers.

Possible problems
Problem

Prooosed Solution

Over dependence on the mentor There is a risk that the subject officers will

The mentor should only be assigned to the

subject officer for the minimum amount of develop confidence while working with their time required to build street duty confidence. Once the subject officer has mentor which doesn't translate to duties
with other officers.

demonstrated increased confidence they

should be encouraged to duty with their

PBO or response teams.

Overworking of the mentor

This is an opportunity for an experienced (mentor) special to develop their own personal skills. It should be presented as something that benefits subject officer, the mentor and the force as a whole. It goes without saying that if the experienced (mentor) special does not want to become a
mentor, it would be counter productive to force them. The potential mentor should be made aware that becoming a mentor will increase their workload and that they will be expected to commit time to their subject officer. The mentor should be encouraged to reflect on their own workload, including policing, domestic and work commitments and only take on the role of mentor is capable of giving it the attention required. We should not assign any more than 2 subject officers to one mentor.

Personality clash between mentor and subject officer.

Lack of activity from the mentor

Dealt with by supervising officer if it starts to damage the development of the subject officer. Reassignment if appropriate.
Mentors will be supervised by the supervisory officer for their area. Where the supervisory officer sees a mentor is not fulfilling their commitment to their subject officer, they will be encouraged to take a problem solving approach. However, this shouldn't be done at the expense of the subject officer and a new mentor should be quickly assigned where appropriate.
This program is aimed at non APS specials

Lack of activity from the subject officer

who are under performing. It therefore goes without saying that when choosing the
subject officers we should not be afraid to

focus on those specials who have underperformed the most, and may have

become a lost cause'. It may be that, despite the assignment of a mentor, the

special continues to underperform. In these

circumstances, the supervisory officer
should assess the efforts of the mentor, and

decide if the subject officers should be

reassigned to another mentor, or if the subject officer should be dealt with under disciplinary policies. Should the latter be the
case, this scheme can be used as evidence

of supervisory efforts to raise activity.

Ineffective identification of underperforming officers, and/or slow or absent assignment
of mentor.

This problem can be solved by proper training and supervision of the mentor, subject officer, and the Supervising Officer. The program should encourage more regular informal evaluation of all officers with a view to identifying the following;

Any officer who may benefit from the

scheme

Any mentor who is failing to perform

effectively Any Supervising Officer who is failing to ensure the mentor/subject officer relationship is encouraging an
increase in confidence and standards.

In order for the scheme to achieve its goals, all those party to it must be committed to its success. Forging this commitment shall fall to the SMT and Program Co-ordinator, who are charged with communicating its

message and gaining support from all

involved.

Adds an additional complication to an already complex management structure.

A new special will be assigned a Special Sergeant, and a PBO. With the addition of a mentor it could become very complicated for that new special. To ensure simplicity 1 would expect that the PBO and the Special Sergeant take a step back for the short period that the subject officer is working with the Mentor. The Mentor, Special Sergeant, and the PBO should meet prior to the formal appointment to answer the question; How can we keep this simple for the subject
officer?

Limitations of the program

It does not replace disciplinary processes. It does not add any additional supervisors. Mentors work horizontally with the subject officer, not vertically. Does not replace PBO's. Mentors are there to address lack of activity or misunderstanding/lack of knowledge and to help build confidence so that subject officer can work more productively with their PBO and other officers.

Practical Application
Intervention Hierarchy
A structured mentor program should not add constraints on the subject officer. It's therefore important to start from a soft touch approach and build on that if required. These levels represent the level of contact between the mentor and subject officer. I have purposefully chosen the term level' as opposed to 'stage' to avoid any similarity with disciplinary processes. It is important that underperforming specials are identified early and assigned a mentor. There may be occasions where it is appropriate to skip a level, however this may suggest that the scheme has been considered too late. Assign mentors
earlier, rather than late.

Level 1 - Semi-regular meetings, to review SCAP progress and address concerns and worries. Resulting in the reporting of good practice and informal action plans. Level 2 - Street Duty: Taking the subject officer on a shift in order to jump start the SCAP
progress.

Level 3 - Street Duty: Taking the subject officer on a series of shifts in order to address problems such as gaps in the SCAP and inactivity.

'Street Duty'Aims Everyone has their own teaching style, so it would be wrong to try and force any mentor into teaching in a particularway. However, for this mentor program to be effective, it's important that any mentoring shifts are done in a directed way. This program is not about keeping individuals in their comfort zone, it's about getting them out of it in a safe
environment. I therefore propose that mentors work on the basis of the proven teaching
style of; Explanation
Demonstration
Imitation Practice

During a street duty the mentor must balance the safety of the individual, with providing
safe situations for the individual to expand beyond their comfort zone.
The importance of imitation

The mentor would not be doing their job if they allowed the subject officer to merely observe, without being encouraged to get involved and take the lead where appropriate. It should be the aim of the mentor to quickly move past the explanatory and demonstration stages, and to the imitation stage. The imitation stage is the bottom line of the whole mentoring program. Without imitation, the mentoring program adds no more than an administrative complication. It is therefore essential
that chosen mentors understand, and are onboard, with the imitation stage.

'Street Duty' Boundaries

In order to achieve the desired outcomes, it is important that the mentor focuses on

practical street duty. It is not the purpose ofthe scheme to teach the subject officer how to deal with the collateral paperwork associated with jobs, this will be the responsibility of the
officers' PBO. However, there will no doubt be lots of opportunities for the subject officer to

be exposed to the administrative side of policing, and this is encouraged, but not at the
expense of practical street duty.
Other Aims

Networking: When leaving foundation training officers go from being a big fish in a small pond, to a small fish in a big pond, and as a result it can be very easy for a new special to become isolated. To avoid this, the mentor should endeavour to
introduce the subject officer to as many colleagues as possible. Ideally a new special should have a good relationship with the following people;
o
o

PBO and Neighbourhood Sergeant

Mentor

o o o
o

Special Sergeant Special Inspector LPU Special/Regular Colleagues

LPU Admin Staff

Measuring Success and Failure

Indicators
How will we know if this scheme has succeeded?

We will know that this scheme has been a success if after 6-8 months we can see

that the ratio of APS to non-APS has improved in favour of APS officers.
How will we know if this scheme has failed?
Feedback from mentor officers.

Feedback from subject officers.

No change, or negative change, in ratio of APS to non-APS officers after 6 months.

If a subject officer, who has become APS, chooses not to work with anyone else other than: the mentor assigned under this scheme. This shows a failure of the
scheme to increase confidence.

Methods

Regular meetings between the mentor officer and the supervising officer.
Putting the SCAP online (eg, on Duty Sheet) so that the project manager, specials senior management team, and supervising officers can assess progress live' reducing the overall burden on everyone by reducing the number of hours spent in meetings.

In addition to regular, ongoing, review of the scheme by the supervising officers, having a formal review of all subject officers on a quarterly basis to ascertain;
o Progress.

Selection & Training of Mentors

We have briefly touched on our expectations of mentors, but to ensure the best quality mentoring it may be necessary to have formal training, ongoing competency assessment, and minimum requirements. Below are my suggested standards, with options where
appropriate.

Minimum Requirements for Mentors

Accredited Patrol Status, held for minimum of 1 year -Any officer in a training or

personnel development role must be held to the highest standards in terms of operational competency. Were we to compromise on operational competence this
could have a trickle-down effect of bad practice and therefore defeat the aim of the
scheme.

Supervisor's recommendation - It is important that appointment to mentor is

done in conjunction with the relevant supervisor to ensure that the potential mentor is both operationally competent, and has interests, skills and personality relevant to
the role.

Interest and willingness to engage with subject officers - This goes without saying, a potential mentor must be excited about taking on the role. In the event that we cannot appoint someone with the appropriate enthusiasm (and other requirements) for the role we should not appoint By appointing mentors that do not have the requisite enthusiasm we are setting ourselves up to fail.

Training of mentors
The training of our mentors is essential to the success of the program. Training should be
divided into two parts. The first part shall be aimed at introducing potential mentors to the scheme itself, getting them on board with the Imitation approach', and making sure they understand that the program is aimed at remedying performance issues in the least invasive way possible. The second part of the training will consist of mentoring skills.
Pro's Con's
*Lack of control over standards.
'Lack of control over

Option 1 No Training

'Allows for quick deployment of

mentors.

'Reduces project preparation time.

project outcomes.
'Mentors will be unaware of

expectations. 'Unlikely that the project will be taken seriously. 'Limited prospect of achieving any credibility in force or nationally.
Option 2

Bespoke in house package

'Flexibility (Time): It can be designed in such a way as to

'Creating a bespoke
course is time

consuming and

Implementation timeline
Initial research, brainstorm and management consultation stages have already been completed and the results of those stages are clear in the proposal document.

Preparation Stage (Ends 31st January 2012)

This stage takes the projectfrom inception to the first point at which official consultation is sought. Unofficial consultation will be sought throughout this stage in order to ensure the project is taken seriously at consultation stage. Where such consultation has been taken it
will be made clear in this proposal.

Consultation stage (1st February 2012 - 29th February 2012)

The aim of this stage is to consult with significant stakeholders in order to identify possible future problems in implementation. Done with a problem solving approach, we are trying to find ways of making the program work, not excuses why it won't. We need to avoid a 'more
the merrier' approach to consultation, each consultation will be done with a specific objective
in mind. Questions to be answered

Training of tutors. Which option suits this program best?

o Insp Alcott & selected trainers

Can we put the SCAP online sothat progress can be more closely monitored?
o SPOC Duty Sheet

Does this scheme fit in with the strategic outlook for the BCU and force?
o City LPU Commander & Specials SLT

How can we ensure the scheme is supported by the special sergeants? o All City Special Sergeants

How can we ensure the scheme is attractive on the national stage without being distracted from the scheme at force level? - Phil llley and Simon Worthington

First Review and Authoring Stage (1st March 2012 - 31st April)
Having gathered information from the consultation stage we should now take time to reflect
on what has been said and propose modifications as appropriate. Any supporting materials will be selected or written during this stage. The planning for the pilot stage will begin in this
stage.

Pilot stage (1st May 2012 - 31st August 2012)

Practicalities of the Pilot stage will be planned during First review and authoring stage.

Second Review stage (1st September 2012 - 30th September 2012)

This stage will be based on analysis of the pilot stage.

Roll out stage (To Be Decided)

Roll out stage subject to successful pilot.

Conclusion

The aim of this proposal is to improve the quality of our officers, and subsequently the diversity of roles we can undertake in the future. This proposal is just one possible way of
trying to achieve that.

A Chief Inspector once said; "No longer is the Special Constabulary the icing on the cake, you are now essential and without you we could not provide the level of service we do to
the public".

Schemes like this strengthen the Special Constabulary as a team and can make us more
of an asset to our colleagues.

Written by
SC 5103 Ollie Evans

for Leicestershire Constabulary Specials