SINGLE CREWING


DETRIMENTAL IMPACT OF SINGLE CREWING


Sophie Garrod speaks to the Federation’s operational policing lead Nick Mosey who wants ofcer welfare to be prioritised.


T


he Federation is pressing for forces to overhaul their decision-making process when it comes to single


crewing so the welfare and needs of officers are put first. Concerns have been raised over the


detrimental impact single crewing is having on the wellbeing and safety of officers as well as the effect it can have on professional development. A large majority of officers said they


were always or frequently single-crewed (75 per cent) and reported having significantly lower job satisfaction, higher workloads and increased levels of job- related stress than their colleagues who were not – results from our 2018 demand, capacity and welfare survey revealed. Compelling research by the College


of Policing also highlighted the odds of assault and injury were greater as were the rates of officers drawing and physically using equipment compared to officers who were crewed with another officer. The dossier of strong evidence, pulled


together by the Police Federation of England and Wales (PFEW) research and policy department, helps form a new strategy which will be presented to key decision-makers. PFEW will also help construct a


suitable risk assessment process which not only puts officer welfare first, but also asks that frontline managers are given more freedom to make deployment decisions for their team as they are best placed to understand their needs. PFEW operational policing lead Nick


Mosey commented: “The default position of single crewing officers in the name of visibility and public perception is having a detrimental effect on the wellbeing and welfare of our colleagues. “Policing is unpredictable and not


every job is linear such as filing a crime report. There will be many difficult, complex situations officers have to respond to where a second opinion from a crewmate would be invaluable - especially when fatigued and stressed because they are going from job to job without a break.” Results from PFEW’s 2020 demand,


capacity and welfare survey also showed 75 per cent of respondents, who reported that single crewing was applicable to their role, want more access to double crewing than they have currently. “There are large disparities between


what officers want and what officers are getting. It is a big statement from our membership to say they want to be double crewed more often and their views should be considered and taken seriously,” Nick added.


“Policing is unpredictable and not every job is linear such as filing a crime report.”


Frequent single crewing could also


be a contributing factor when it comes to retention issues with officers feeling isolated. Lone working has an impact on their mental health, this combined with the sheer fatigue of the role is undoubtedly a contributing factor with officers leaving the service. Nick explained: “The majority of our


frontline is made up of officers who have less than three years’ service. “It is so important officers have the


opportunity to work alongside others in certain situations so they can develop and, in turn, forces get the most out of their workforce to provide the best possible service to the public. “Ultimately, this isn’t just a safety issue - it impacts on so many other aspects which not only affect officers, but the whole organisation and the public. “Moving forward, we would like to


work closely with chief officers and other key stakeholders to help develop a new risk assessment process which puts the needs of officers first and places the decision-making process on crewing in the hands of frontline managers.”


09 I POLICE I OCTOBER 2021


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52