Police Information

Tenure: Policy And Practice

Wed, September 19, 2001

Source: Gary Mundy

Tenure: Policy And Practice Policing & Reducing Crime Briefing Note

Background

Since 1993, forces have been advised by HMIC to adopt a tenure policy for all posts and functions other than uniformed patrol. Tenure represents a change from established managerial procedures and practices within forces. It has proved to be controversial. Officers of all ranks, across the full spectrum of posts, are divided on the impact, effectiveness and need for tenure. 

This report sought to identify the key variations in how tenure was being introduced, the main issues and problems encountered, and areas where improvements to its operation could be made. The findings presented in this report are based on a survey of all forces in England and Wales and in-depth fieldwork in six forces. The research took place between November 1997 and May 1998. 

Main findings

Variations in tenure policies 

36 of the 43 forces in England and Wales had a tenure policy in place. Implementation of tenure varies across forces, particularly in terms of: 

• Posts to which tenure is being applied;

 

• Categorising departments into ‘core’, ‘core specialist’, and ‘specialist’ policing departments, particularly for divisional CID and generalist traffic posts;

 

• Regulations around where officers can be transferred to when a period of tenure comes to an end;

 

• Extent to which tenure is applied retrospectively; and

 

• Tenure lengths attached to posts. 

In many cases, variations between forces are sensible and justifiable. Some forces reported that problems had occurred when they had taken key elements from other forces’ policies, which were later found to be inappropriate when applied in their own context. 

Reflecting these differences, the impact of tenure, and how officers receive it, also differs across forces.  

Officers’ perceptions of tenure 

Although views varied across all ranks and service lengths, officers with shorter lengths of service were generally the most supportive of tenure. Officers with longer service, particularly those in specialist departments, were more dismissive of tenure. 

Whilst officers identified the creation of opportunities, balancing of skills and prevention of ‘stagnation’ in specialist departments as being worthwhile aims, many disputed whether tenure was the most appropriate way to achieve these. 

Officers reported that the success of tenure in achieving the aims stated by HMIC were variable. It was generally felt that tenure had created more opportunities to work in specialist areas, but evidence to support progress in other areas was less clear. For example, whilst in theory tenure could help to ‘balance skills’ across the force, officers were not convinced that appropriate or effective use was made of these skills when officers moved back into core policing. Many of the potential benefits of tenure are difficult to evidence in the short-term and will require forces to monitor impact over longer time-spans. All forces, to varying degrees, reported problems with

the implementation of their tenure policy. 

Many of these problems were less to do with the ‘model’ of tenure chosen, than with more general issues of how the process was managed. Particular problems were: 

• The amount of notice given to officers of the date on which they would be subject to tenure;

• The amount of notice given to officers about the location of the post to which they were being transferred after their period of tenure in their current post had ended;

• The extent of re-training given to officers who are returning to core policing after some time in a specialist or a core specialist role; and

• Perceived inconsistency in applying tenure.

Forces face a particular problem with officers’ perceptions that tenure is not operating fairly or consistently. In all forces in the study, a significant number of officers reported that the policy was open to abuse. One relatively common complaint was that officers were using ‘secondments’ to specialist areas to avoid returning to core policing after completing a period of tenure, adding to the burden of uniformed shifts by reducing shift strength. Officers also reported that the policy was applied too rigidly and did not allow for changes in individual circumstances. There was little evidence, however, amongst forces with more flexible policies that its popularity was any greater. Indeed, an increase in flexibility correlated with an increase in the perception that the policy was not being applied consistently to all officers and that tenure was being used more as a threat to ‘problem’ officers than as a coherent management strategy. 

Over two thirds of officers interviewed felt that tenure would remain part of their force’s long-term policy. However, many of these officers felt that their force’s tenure policy needed to change if it was to remain credible. The main reasons for this perceived need for change were: 

• At a time when forces were having to work with tighter budgets and increased pressures to deliver best value, tenure in its current form would be too costly;

• The amount of resistance to the policy in its current form, from officers of all ranks; and

• Other career development policies such as new staff appraisal systems and personal development plans will, if successful, reduce the need for tenure. 

Points for action

• Effective, centrally controlled monitoring systems, when in place, had enabled problem areas to be quickly identified and resolved. Where this had not occurred, problems continued. This was particularly the case around issues of succession planning and ensuring that turnover was not excessive in those departments to which tenure applied.

• Where possible, linking the aims and objectives of the policy to specified and measurable ‘targets’ was shown to be effective in determining the impact of the policy. It is very difficult to evaluate how a policy is working if there are no pre-defined and measurable outcomes, e.g. levels of turnover, increased performance and so forth.

• There is room for improvement in how the details of the policy are communicated to officers. At present, many officers have only a partial awareness of how the policy operates. This can cause difficulties if these perceptions are inaccurate.

• Whilst a more even balancing of skills across policing functions is an outcome of many of the policies in place, there is some doubt as to the extent to which these are utilised effectively. Forces should decide how best to use specialist skills in core policing roles rather than merely assume that they will be of some use.

• In terms of the day-to-day management of the policy, many felt that insufficient notice was given of the specific date on which they would be subject to tenure. Also, a significant number of officers were concerned that the location of their next posting was not communicated to them with sufficient notice. 

The full report includes a checklist - in effect a guide for good practice - for forces to follow when reviewing tenure policy. It is specifically aimed at officers in personnel and career development departments.

To view the full paper click the URL below