PROJECT DELIVERY TEAM REFLECTIONS

The Project Delivery Team met regularly throughout the life of the CCAR Project to reflect on its progress and make adaptations to the engagement model wherever these were feasible. These reflective sessions built on the debriefs that took place with local policing teams at the conclusion of a community conversation, and took account of suggestions given by participants at events via anonymous feedback forms.

The following reflections, based on the experience of delivering the Project and trying to ‘do things with communities rather to communities’ within the existing resource envelope, have been captured to support organisational memory, and are summarised below:

Low confidence is linked to apathy

Low confidence in the police came across as being interrelated with low confidence in other public services and statutory agencies. Apathy and low confidence often go hand-in-hand with one another, and this can have the effect of dampening the enthusiasm and commitment required to secure participation in community improvement initiatives and be ‘part of the solution’. Some local partners had commented that the post-pandemic environment, combined with the ‘cost of living crisis’, was affecting the response and levels of participation in their own initiatives through a
depressive effect on people.

Community conversations

The Project Delivery Team noted how some people attended community conversations to discuss a specific individual matter with the attending police officers. It was as though some people perceived the community conversation to be a local policing surgery or forum, rather than a tool
being used to inform a research project.

Expectation management

A high level of expectation management was exercised at the first community conversation in each locality. The Project Delivery Team and attending local police officers were keen to emphasise that the tests of change were likely to be small-scale in nature and not result in a transformation of policing in the way that some people may have hoped. This could have led to some early participants losing interest in the Project.

Data handling and anonymity

The Scottish Police Authority handled all personal data in accordance with its Privacy Notice. Survey respondents did not have to supply their names and contact details unless they chose to. People signing up for community conversations did need to provide their contact details for registration purposes and to facilitate organisation of events (room size, catering requirements). The Scottish Police Authority members of the Project Delivery Team managed registration at events, so as not to reveal personal data to Police Scotland staff and officers, and in presentations to participants, the data handling policy for the Project was explained.

On reflection, the approach raises a quandary: by stressing that the Police would not see personal information, this may encourage greater participation for some people who take assurance from this confidentiality, but could also reinforce impressions that it would be unsafe if the Police were to see such information, and therefore add to any existing feelings of mistrust.

Staggering of the fieldwork

The Project Delivery Team phased the fieldwork across the four localities in a staggered way, to ensure that the Team had the capacity to carry out fieldwork. In practice this meant that as fieldwork in Locality 1 was approaching its closure (around Step 6), work in Locality 2 would start.

There was therefore some overlap between localities. However, due to reasons beyond the control of the Project Delivery Team (including holiday periods, school term times and operational policing commitments), the overlapping became considerable at one point (late 2023) where fieldwork was taking place simultaneously in all four localities.

The first locality should have been treated as a pathfinder Locality 1 (in this case Letham in Perth) should have been allowed to complete the engagement model fully, prior to any work starting in the other localities. This would have picked up on declining participation and interest, and allowed the Project Delivery Team to capture learning and tweak the engagement model before commencing work in the other localities. As it was, the planned engagement model was presented up front to localities 2, 3 and 4 before Step 6 had concluded in Locality 1.

The short, informal conversation at a reachable moment

In addition to using surveys and community conversation events, the Project Delivery Team felt that the fieldwork could have been supplemented by holding short, less formal conversations with people at reachable moments within their community. These conversations could have been very loosely structured and taken no more than a few minutes of a person’s time. In terms of resource management, they could have taken place on the margins of the other meetings and events, to avoid travelling to the locality for this purpose alone.

Online participation and more diverse timings of events

Early engagement with community groups referenced the benefit of in-person events and going to the community, rather than asking the community to come to the Project Delivery Team. This led to community venues being booked for events. However, this often meant, combined with travel and officer shift patterns, that events had to be held during the middle of the day on weekdays. This may have unintentionally excluded some people for participating, especially the first community conversation as it lasted for almost three hours.

Using a mix of in-person and online events could have improved inclusivity, with online events being more flexible regarding their timing.

Community outreach officers attached to Police Scotland’s Partnerships, Prevention and Community Wellbeing Division, were viewed very positively by communities

Allow more time to secure permissions to work with schools

The Project Delivery Team underestimated the amount of time that would be required to secure permission to reach children and young people via schools.

Securing support from senior teaching staff was a relatively quick process, but a period of time was then required before commencing with surveys, to allow for engagement with the relevant local authority teams, and allow schools to communicate with parents and guardians in advance of surveys taking place. Additionally, the timing of surveys in schools depended on school schedules (holiday periods and exam periods, for example). On this basis, it was not possible to conduct the surveys via schools in all four localities both at Step 2 and at Step 6 of the engagement model.

Candour and perseverance pays dividends

The Project Delivery Team felt that the candour exhibited by officers at community conversations was appreciated by people taking part, and helped to break down barriers and generate honest and meaningful conversations.

The relatively low sign-up rates for some of the community conversations, especially in the latter stages of the fieldwork, led to reflective debate within the Project Delivery Team about whether some events should be rescheduled. An agreement was reached to continue to hold advertised events, irrespective of anticipated low turn-out, to demonstrate the high level of commitment to community from both the Project and the local policing team, and respect for the relationships that had been developed up to that point with participants, some of whom had been part of the CCAR journey from the very beginning.