iPads for PCs
by Max Wind-Cowie
A row has broken out in Staffordshire between the Labour and Conservative candidates to be the county's Police and Crime Commissioner. Thank goodness. After all, while the concept of elected representatives overseeing the local priorities and practices of our police forces is entirely sound, the reality has been - shall we say - a little lacklustre. A good old barney between candidates is exactly what is needed to start galvanising these elections and generating a bit of excitement among the electorate.
But leaving aside the importance of making this fight matter to the people who'll judge it - which of the candidates is actually right? Matthew Ellis, the Conservative candidate, wants to equip Staffordshire bobbies with iPads on their beat - to facilitate their access to data, make it easier to check whether folk are telling them the truth on the street and to avoid unnecessary paperwork. His opponent, Joy Garner has dismissed his plan as 'dangerously out of touch' and unaffordable.
In this row, and not for any particular partisan reason, I'm afraid I have to come down squarely in Mr. Ellis' corner. Demos' report The Data Dividend - which looked at how the public sector can make the most of big data - made the case for frontline public servants to be equipped with smart devices. Why? Because if we want to cut bureaucracy and paperwork in the long-term (without losing the benefits that greater recording and understanding of process can bring) we need the public sector to embrace the potential and the possibilities of new technology.
By using an iPad an officer can check whether individuals have any outstanding behaviour orders, past convictions or suspicions against their name without having to either use up the time of a colleague back at the station or - worse - take potentially innocent people off the streets to make sure.
iPads, connected to police databases and used well by the officers they're handed to, can slim down the time and the manpower involved in everyday policing whilst maintaining standards. Joy Garner is obviously right that, in the short-term, this would cost money. In the longer term, though, it has the potential to free up resources and personnel to do the job the public wants them to do. Technology isn't a pointless distraction from the vocations of public service - it's a vital tool in making those vocations work in the modern age.
Max Wind-Cowie
Thanks Boscorelli. No-one is arguing that iPads are a panacea for modern policing - merely that they may well help in an era where precisely the kind of back-office staffing you describe is being cut back. Of course in an emergency you will need to be able to deal with your station via a radio - but in more routine interactions, or in accessing intelligence on issues that are non-emergency - being able to access data in real-time for yourself could prove easier, cheaper and free up more resources to the frontline (potentially helping to reduce, by the way, the necessity for single-crew deployment). I take on board your concerns about the size of iPads - it may be that other smart devices are more appropriate - but the rejection of frontline tech is, in my view, a rejection of a potential means of squaring the circle between limited resources and better policing.
Boscorelli
As an officer with 22 years service of "front-line" experience I would argue that the issue of officer safety has been entirely overlooked in this article. I would not stand in front of an individual that I didn't know while conducting national database checks on them to see if they are wanted, have injunctions or other orders outstanding on them or have given me false identity information. If both my hands are occupied holding an iPad and I am single crewed (as is the government's preference for officer deployment) how am I going to tell if I am about to be stabbed and react quickly enough to that when I am on my own? I can't "detain" someone and place them in a secure police vehicle purely to conduct such checks. We have radios that are linked to control rooms where this information can be passed back and forth allowing an officer to concentrate on the person they are with and maintain the ability to react should they be attacked. How can an officer on foot patrol be expected to carry an expensive item of equipment and perform their duty without the equipment becoming damaged? iPad's are not pocket sized. Is the officer supposed to hand it to a member of the public for safe-keeping before they give chase to a suspect, climbing fences or walls, going through water and then fighting to restrain them for 10 minutes while they await the arrival of another single-crewed officer? If officer safety has no bearing on this ill-conceived idea consider the cost to replace these items as they will without doubt be damaged with alarming regularity. Technology isn't a pointless distraction - in fact it is very welcome but only when utilised appropriately with consideration to operational circumstances.
The implementation of this idea will put officers and the equipment at greater risk of harm.