This site uses cookies

We use necessary cookies to make our site work, and we'd like to use analytics cookies to keep improving our website. Using this tool will set a cookie on your device to remember your preferences. For more information please see our Cookies Page.

Necessary Cookies

Necessary cookies enable core functionality. You may disable these by changing your browser settings, but this may affect how the website functions.

Google Analytics

We use cookies to compile aggregate data about site traffic and site interactions in order to offer better site experiences and tools in the future.

Skip to main content

HMICFRS’s 2020/21 policing inspection programme and framework: revised consultation (July 2020)

Response from: Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner, Hampshire

Shape and scope of the programme for the rest of 2020/21

  1. Does the revised programme seem reasonable and right?

Yes, we agree the revised programme seems reasonable and right.


PEEL inspection programme

  1. What do you think of the proposed approach to assessing police forces in PEEL 2020/21? How could this be improved?

Focus on the three principal areas; operational, organisational and service user assessment appear to represent key areas for inspection. The proposed components to each assessment area include the traditional PEEL elements, while also responding the needs of the public.


Here in Hampshire we see a disconnect between perception and fear of crime versus actual crime. The majority of our residents are not victims of crime, however crimes such as anti- social behaviour are often high on the public’s agenda. Addressing this concept of actual crime and perception of crime to better align public understanding and expectations of our police forces is essential.


3.       Does the draft inspection methodology include the right inspection areas to gather evidence for a rounded assessment of police forces? How could this be improved?

Yes, all areas covered help generate a picture of delivery of police forces. By including a stronger focus on force context will support the appreciation each force is experiencing in relation to key factors such as rurality of the force and the balance between the income from central government and the council tax precept.


4.       Do you agree with the proposal to make judgments based on the characteristics of ‘Good’, causes of concern and areas for improvement?

We agree with the proposal and recognise that while initially comparisons against previous years will not be straightforward, the outline of areas for improvement should be more comparable. Initially a note against new grading to identify the change in grading system.


5.       Do you agree with the proposal to provide judgments at the core question level only?

We agree providing judgements at the core question level provide specificity to the judgements.


6.       Which of our proposals, four or five tiers of judgments, do you think will most promote improvements in policing?

We believe the five tier judgement would best promote policing improvements, mimicking a Likert scale to show progression and more achievable development across the judgement scale.


7.       Do you have any comments on our proposed approach to inspecting partnership and collaboration arrangements?

We welcome this approach to recognise the partnership and collaborative nature of forces, not only to identify areas for improvement but to share areas of learning and good practice to adopt networks in this area.