Sussex PEEL 2018

This question was not subject to inspection in 2018/19, and our judgment from the 2017 legitimacy inspection has been carried over.

However, we reviewed a representative sample of 282 stop and search records to assess how reasonable the recorded grounds were. We found that 85 percent had reasonable grounds. Our assessment is based on the grounds recorded by the searching officer and not the grounds at the time of the search.

In our 2017 legitimacy report, we recommended that all forces should:

• monitor and analyse comprehensive stop and search data to understand reasons for disparities;
• take action on those; and
• publish the analysis and the action by July 2018.

The force has complied with some of this recommendation. But it doesn’t monitor how far find rates vary between people from different ethnicities and across different types of searches. This includes separate identification of find rates for drug possession and supply-type offences.

It isn’t clear that the force monitors enough data to identify how often possession-only drug searches happen, or how much these match local or force-level priorities.

We reviewed the force’s website and found no obvious mention of its analysis to understand and explain the reasons for inconsistencies, or any action taken.

Sussex Police has built an ethical culture. The force has clear and accessible policies around ethics. It also refers to the Code of Ethics in training and communication with its staff. However, there is limited evidence that supervisors pass on these messages to the workforce.

The force’s confidential reporting line is used a lot. This clearly demonstrates that staff are confident using the system. The PSD gives bi-annual updates through the internal force intranet on acceptable standards of behaviour. It also offers case studies to communicate the correct standards. 

Sussex Police is good at tackling potential corruption. It treats abuse of position for sexual purpose as serious corruption. Staff have had mandatory training on this. However, few people could remember what signs to look for, despite this being in the training.

The force now has ‘focused conversations’ rather than performance development reviews. There is no formal recording process. So the force can’t be confident that supervisors are reminding staff of duties such as notifiable associations or business interests (personal links that might influence their work). Because the conversations aren’t monitored and demand is high, some supervisors openly say that they have either not taken place or are not a priority.

The force has mixed results for fairness at work. It encourages suggestions to improve things that are important to staff. But staff say they don’t always get feedback on
their ideas.

Staff mainly trust grievance procedures. The force meets timescales, manages outcomes and captures any learning from grievances. This has helped make the promotion process fairer. People with caring responsibilities (for children or parents, for example) are now given priority in promotions.

Workload pressures have caused high levels of stress leading to sickness absence. Staff on investigation teams are often taken away from their work to support planned events, which adds to the stress.

Some staff were very positive about mentoring and development, and felt that selection processes were fair. Others were less aware of them. These included female staff despite the reach of the Evolve network (a networking group for female officers and staff). The force also seeks the views of candidates following each promotion process to get feedback on the process.

The force has wellbeing champions who work hard to support staff. For example, there are initiatives supporting people to successfully complete the fitness test. Sports and social opportunities for taster sessions in sports are also well received.