The need for the police service to deliver best value and efficiency
savings has prompted forces to examine how effectively they use existing
resources. In so doing, a number of forces have started to question how training
is provided and what impact it has on the availability of staff. Research has,
for example, identified that training is one of the main contributors to the
abstraction of staff from ordinary duty. However, training is fundamental to the
running of any organisation and the development of its staff, although it must
be balanced against financial and opportunity
costs.
This report, therefore, aims to catalogue force initiatives to reduce the
level of abstractions that have resulted from staff training. This ‘snapshot’ of
initiatives aims to draw general lessons rather than providing a formal
evaluation and is based on three main stages of
research:
- Face-to-face interviews with directors of training and their staff in a
sample of four forces;
- A postal survey of 57 UK forces; and
- Telephone interviews with a selection of
forces.
Summary of key
findings
Defining and monitoring abstractions
Most forces recognised the importance of examining and monitoring the
time devoted to training. However, the accuracy of the monitoring systems and
the definitions of ‘abstractions’ and ‘training’ can be questioned. For example,
only a minority of forces had personnel systems capable of providing information
about staff availability. This lack of information, therefore, prevented most
forces showing the effect of changes in training
provision.
Changes to training provision
Prioritised provision of training
Forces had started to introduce changes to target training according to
‘need not want’, namely:
- Training bodies -
ten forces had established strategic bodies (e.g. training consultancies,
consortia, panels, councils, and user groups) responsible for approving the
provision of training. Typically, they commissioned new courses of training,
prioritised the delivery of training within a set time period and scheduled
its delivery. To approve training, these bodies required clear statements of
the organisation’s training needs and an explanation of how these would be
met.
- Assessing
individual need - three forces required prospective trainees to demonstrate
their training needs and to explain how the requested course would address
them. Some forces also required individuals to link their personal training
needs with organisational goals under the scrutiny of their line manager
and/or the training provider. Some forces, for example, operated selective
intakes to target training more accurately.
- Removing automatic
‘triggers’ - in most forces, eligibility for courses had traditionally been
based on chronological progression (e.g. at career milestones or after certain
time periods). However, this created peaks and troughs in demand for training
which, at times, resulted in over-subscription and delays in access. As a
result, access in some forces was increasingly prioritised according to
individual need.
Setting limits
Limits had been placed on training or abstraction levels by 15
forces:
- Budgetary limits - internal training budgets were devolved to BCUs and
functional departments in four forces. As budgets were finite, abstraction
rates were limited, although short-term peaks could not be
prevented.
- Abstraction-based limits - several forces placed ceilings on
abstraction levels. Some forces, for example, calculated the impact of
expected training needs on abstraction levels to inform training priorities.
Although placing a theoretical limit on abstractions, some commented that
levels were higher than the ceiling at certain times and that there were no
sanctions for breaching prescribed limits.
Evaluating course content
Seven
forces carefully scrutinised courses before they were approved and run resulting
in a number of significant changes:
- Generic courses -
generic management skills courses had been developed to replace rank- or
role-specific courses. This aimed to reduce the duplication of training during
a person’s career, thereby reducing
abstractions.
- Probationer
training - in some forces, administration was completed before, not during,
the first module. The time saved was used to deliver additional training (e.g.
first aid, personal safety, systems and
procedures).
- Driving courses -
to maximise pass levels, some forces assessed the ability of prospective
trainees before accepting them on advanced and specialist courses. The content
and organisation of these courses were also revised against organizational
training needs.
‘Modularising’ courses
Nine
forces re-organised courses into linked modules which could be run individually
with the advantage that:
- Modules and
abstractions could be spread over longer
intervals;
- Trainees attended
modules which addressed specific training
needs;
- The order of
modules could be changed; and
- Different modules
could use different venues, trainers and delivery
mechanisms.
Using
different delivery mechanisms
Forces
have started to use different methods for training rather than using a
traditional classroom setting, including:
- Self-tuition -
forces were considering how best to facilitate and support self-tuition.
However, forces had developed different policies on when it could be
undertaken (e.g. on duty, off duty, or during
flexitime);
- Resource centres -
some forces planned to open ‘learning centres’ to support self-tuition and
open learning. These tended to include a range of resources (e.g. books,
videos and CD-ROMs) and relevant assistance;
- Distance-learning
- some forces were considering distance-learning packages requiring trainees
to work through study material away from the
classroom;
- Multi-media
training - forces developed training using computer, video and multi-media
based packages;
- ‘Cascade’ training
- six forces gave responsibility to trainees for passing training onto others
who, in turn, were responsible for ‘cascading’ it further. The success of this
approach depended on the complexity of the course and the ability of the
trainees to pass on their knowledge;
- Work-based
training - some forces delivered training as part of regular operational duty;
and
- Work shadowing -
one force required trainees to observe and work with practitioners to
supplement more traditional forms of
training.
Selected training venues
To
reduce the costs and time involved in training (e.g. expenses, accommodation and
travel), forces have started to use local training venues, such
as:
- Trainers travelling to trainees (e.g. drop-in advice centres for
IT);
- Designated local training officers;
- Overlapping shift patterns for refresher
training;
- Collaborative training - courses run with other agencies (e.g. CPS, and
Customs and Excise) to overcome the problem of small class
size;
- Increasing class sizes - to reduce the need to repeat
courses;
- Regional courses organised in co-operation with neighbouring forces;
and
- Non-police facilities (e.g. private or educational
venues).
Points for
action
Most
forces examined the time devoted to training. Some had also introduced, or
considered, changes to the provision of in-house training. It is, therefore,
recommended that forces planning to examine the provision of training should
consider:
- Developing formal
definitions of ‘abstraction’ and ‘training’;
- Establishing
monitoring systems capable of calculating the rate of
abstraction;
- Establishing
trainee registration systems capable of co-ordinating all
courses;
- Evaluating course
contents and clearly identifying the purpose of individual
sessions;
- Establishing
individuals’ training needs and matching them to appropriate
courses;
- Introducing
selective intakes to courses;
- The advantages of
modular courses;
- The possible
advantages of alternative venues and delivery
mechanisms;
- Establishing a
clear policy on the proportion of self-tuition to be undertaken;
and
- Introducing
routine and formalised evaluation of
training.
