If you set targets, you help rapists. Discuss.

[legalbeagle]

In the light of this report about police tactics in Southwark, the setting of targets should be immediately abolished? Or do they have a role in improving crime detection?

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/damning-report-says-met-pressured-rape-victims-into-withdrawing-complaints-to-improve-crime-figures-8511357.html

[Otta]

Everyone knows that targets are a load of bollocks, and have just made services suffer in health, education, social services... Why should the police be any different?

That story is very bad, but I can't help thinking they've taken one particularly bad case, and used it to sensationalise the whole thing.

[RosieH]

For detection rates to triple on the back of it, it suggests considerably more than the odd incident, sensationalised by a high-profile case.

Sadly, it's not particularly surprising, targets or no.

[Otta]

I agree, I wasn't trying to say it's just one case and they're blowing it out of proportion, it's clear that that particular unit was shit. I was just talking about that particular article.

One just has to hope that they've sorted it out since then...

I think the whole way rape cases are dealt with from start to finish needs an overhaul. Didn't they recently change the anonymity rules for the defendants? Something I'm not sure I feel comfortable with to be honest.

[Otta]

But back to LB's question.

No, setting targets doesn't help rapists. The way this unit chose to manage it's performance helped rapists.

I hate targets, and believe that they hinder professionals. However, we all have a duty of care in whatever job we're in, and if you see something bad happening, you sort it out. If someone actively made the decision to fiddle the figures by effectively sweeping rape allegations under the carpet, then that person should be sacked.

[RosieH]

Hmm, I'm not so sure, Otta.

I think if you set targets and the person who has to meet those targets feels their livelihood is in danger if they fail, then those targets are failing people. And when the people they fail are victims of crime, leading to criminals going unpunished, then I'd say that means they're helping the criminals (whatever the crime).

[Otta]

In that case, the targets in hospitals that the doctors struggle to meet, which involve more time doing admin, and less admin support, could be responsible for a patient's death.

Not saying that's not the case, it's just a pretty damning way to look at it.

I wish they would get rid of targets, they've certainly made my life more difficult!

[LondonMix]

Wow that's terrible. Do you really think it was only about the targets though? Clearly it creates an additional incentive but if you aren't motivated by the desire the protect the public I imagine under all circumstances you are probably going to be a pretty lousy officer.

For instance, their stats improved by encouraging victims to retract statement. However, if all those statements weren't retracted (because there were no targets) would those crimes have been properly investigated and solved or would the detection rate still have been 10%? I suspect lazy corrupt officers are lazy corrupt officers and this is just a case of them trying to cover their tracks once any kind of accountability comes into place.

The terrible thing is the breach of trust with the victims. What happened is the worst possible response a victim of sexual crime can get from law enforcement.

[DaveR]

In answer to the question posted in the subject line (kind of), if you don't understand the possible unintended consequences of setting targets, then setting them is unlikely to improve performance, and may well make things much worse. Simple 'number' targets may work well for predictable, mechanical processes, but they almost certainly won't for complex, judgmental processes - like rape investigations.

[Marmora Man]

Otta - getting rid of targets is impossible. We all work to targets. I plan to get home tonight in time to cook dinner, that's a target. My company would like me to make a a certain % profit margin on operations, that's a target. HospItals want the ratio of qualified nurses to patients to be appropriate, that's a target. Targets per se are not a bad thing. Bad targets, poorly thought out targets, improperly implemented targets are a bad thing. Targets are just another word for objectives.

I'd acknowledge that under the previous administration, and regrettably not rescinded by this one, there were way too many government targets for the public sector. Nevertheless, well set and thought out targets can bring clarity and a sense of purpose, and achievement, to any task. Don't knock the measure - knock poor management.

[DJKillaQueen]

Also target setting has become the norm for measuring performance, but doesn't take into account the complexity of the things it's often measuring. So easy solutions (or quick fixes) take priority over more complex ones. It's as true for the Police as it is for the Health Service as it is for back to work agencies for the long term unemployed. Resources will be concentrated on the quick turnaround to get the figures up.....at the expense often of those who need most help.

Asking vivtims of any crime to retract statements is just plain wrong.

[Otta]

MM, I should have been clearer. I know what a target is, and agree that we all have them in work and in life.

What I dislike is when a load of performance indicators get set, but it costs a fortune and a load of adminh time to actually monitor and record the progress. That to me is a waste of time which could be used more wisely elsewhere.

[Marmora Man]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> MM, I should have been clearer. I know what a

> target is, and agree that we all have them in work

> and in life.

>

> What I dislike is when a load of performance

> indicators get set, but it costs a fortune and a

> load of adminh time to actually monitor and record

> the progress. That to me is a waste of time which

> could be used more wisely elsewhere.

An accountant that helps me came up with a great quote "you can't fatten a pig by weighing it" - which sums up what is often bad about today's performance management culture - too much time weighing and not enough time feeding.

[Otta]

Good quote, and yes, sums it up nicely for me.

[legalbeagle]

I think what makes me sad (though not I suppose surprised) is that a target should bring out the worst in human behaviour. I haven't got much experience with working to this kind of target, so can't speak personally about the pressure they might put people under. I'm not sure about their validity - is it possible to just reduce or increase something because we wish it would reduce or increase without dealing with the reason it exists in the first place? But that aside, why would (some) human beings immediately cheat, even when that means putting (in this case) victims of crime through absolute hell, rather than argue that targets are not valid?

They had to sit in a room with those women and discourage them. Not follow protocols. Ignore their fear and horror and distress, to meet a target.

Did the target do that? Or are they awful people?

[Otta]

I think pretty shit people.

Targets are shit, but you just don't go down that road if you have any kind of decency.

[LondonMix]

Agree

[uncleglen]

In order to maximise A-C grades in core subjects some schools concentrated on students that were borderline C/D grades and put them into smaller classes. The weakest students were in large classes and the most able were in large classes. The more/most able can work well in large classes but the weaker students deteriorated- and coupled with behavioural problems and being unable to access the work without proper levels of support- the weaker students floundered- where are they now?

[Michael Palaeologus]

It isnt just the targets. Bad targets, unrealistic, politically driven targets set by people who are not going to ask questions about how the are achieved is part of the problem.

Targets are simply a means to an end. The provision of an effective service at an acceptable cost, as defined by certain metrics. The real problem is that government starts to see the metrics as defining the effectiveness of the service. They dont, the effectiveness of the service is defined by individual outcomes. These are often subjective eg how did I feel about my treatment at hospital X? Treasury doesnt like subjective measures.

The bigger problem is culture. When a culture deems that the rape victim is of less importance than the statistics, there is a significant cultural problem.

[Top Banana]

Some counter points.

When Boris came in he inherited 31,398 warranted officers in the Met. Livingstone had budgeted for extra numbers and they reached 33,404 in 2009. Latest numbers are 31,163 officers serving, so London has lost 2,241 officers, whilst the population has increased 12% from 2001 to 8.2 million. The Met also now has a ?232m hole to fill to balance the books by 2014/15.

Confidence in the Senior Management in near invisible. Recruitment is now almost solely from internal sources - i.e. Specials and PCSO's. I hear now that latest internal proposals state met officers will only investigate 40% of crimes reported and screened in. How many man-hours were lost on the hacking, expenses and plebgate investigations? Considering the lack of decent results - far, far too many. Man-hours that could of been deployed elsewhere...

Targets were introduced for fuzziness and deception. Is crime falling, as Damion Green so confidently states? Walby & Allen 2004:24 estimates some 720,000 sexual assaults on over 400,000 female victims in the 12 months leading up to the 2001 British Crime Survey which is horrifying. But the survey also adopts the standard criminal justice definition of rape and sexual assault that makes the principle of consent of the victim, or the lack thereof, a key consideration. This is the grey area, and is the main reason convictions of this type are so low. Whether the Southwark Officers on Sapphire were "leant on" for targets remains unclear.

However, there is no way those 720,000 sexual crimes could of been investigated if reported - there just isn't the manpower.

Edit - Met Staff survey shows 61% do not have confidence in the Met leadership.

Edit # 2 - Just remembered something. When I got smacked in the face a few years ago, it wasn't assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty - it was resisting arrest as it was over the "target" for assaults.

[Otta]

Michael Palaeologus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It isnt just the targets. Bad targets,

> unrealistic, politically driven targets set by

> people who are not going to ask questions about

> how the are achieved is part of the problem.

>

> Targets are simply a means to an end. The

> provision of an effective service at an acceptable

> cost, as defined by certain metrics. The real

> problem is that government starts to see the

> metrics as defining the effectiveness of the

> service. They dont, the effectiveness of the

> service is defined by individual outcomes. These

> are often subjective eg how did I feel about my

> treatment at hospital X? Treasury doesnt like

> subjective measures.

>

> The bigger problem is culture. When a culture

> deems that the rape victim is of less importance

> than the statistics, there is a significant

> cultural problem.

Spot on.

[legalbeagle]

It happens in schools too, I'm told. My sister teaches the first year at senior school. She tells me that because Junior school are supposed to have achieved certain levels/improvements for each child by the time they leave the school, the Junior school marks they enter her school with are (sometimes) inflated considerably. She then either has to continue the fictional achievements of the school, or mark them honestly, which then reflects badly on her school, as though the child as either got worse or gone backwards.

In a different, perhaps less immediately offensive way to the rape example, this is equally worrying.

No one along the way has thought about what the child is actually learning or achieving (except my sis who marks honestly and takes the rap.......)

It seems that vast numbers of us will just attempt to meet the target, regardless of the effect on the underlying people who need help.

Does anyone have examples of where this is NOT how humans react?

[StraferJack]

But don't most people then scan the school league-tables when published? Our obsession with numbers and league tables isn't just a management-led thing. "Consumers" react to them too

[legalbeagle]

Absolutely. (Which also drives sis bonkers.) It seems to be an absurd circle that we all agree is absurd but that is perpetuated anyway. I honestly have no idea why - no better way of measuring performance? (Can that be true?)

[Top Banana]

To quote Field Marshall Lord Slim -:

"Managers are necessary; leaders are essential."

It seems across all senior aspects of the Public Sector, we have a great deal of the former, and are sadly lacking the latter.