Community Police Engagement Group performance management framework

Report: 5
Date: 5 December 2011
By: Chief Executive

Summary

The report details developments in relation to the Independent Custody Visiting Scheme (ICV) since the report delivered to CECF in April 2011.

 A. Recommendation

That Members note the report.

B. Supporting information

Context

1. This report aims to provide members with an update of developments in the ICV Scheme since April 2011, including scheme performance, issues and concerns and outcomes. The report will also include plans for the scheme in the next six month period and beyond.

2. Appendix 1 includes the current number of members and stations visited by each panel, along with a comparison of performance to the last report.

3. The transition from MPA to MOPC should have little impact on the function of custody visiting. What we ask our volunteers to do will not change. The impact on the ICV Team and how the service is supported is as yet unclear. The impact of the MPA restructure of 2009 continues as the team even now carries a vacant post which arose from ICV Team members moving to other units during that restructure. The restructure driven by the transition to MOPC will see the abolition of the existing team leader role and its replacement with a custody manager role reporting to the Head of the Borough Information and Engagement Unit. This restructure may see the team vacancy filled, or alternately may see team members apply for new vacancies in other units.

Panel performance and membership

4. The performance of seven panels was lower in the six month period from April to the end of September 2011 than that reported to the committee in April. Six panels saw no change in their performance, four of which completed 100% of scheduled visits. All other panels reported improved visit performance.

5. The very high benchmark of 90% of scheduled visits completed was missed by fifteen panels, but of those, six achieved over 80% of visits and only five delivered fewer than 75% of visits. Of those panels that reported a fall in performance only two, Newham and Tower Hamlets have caused concern.

6. At Newham a very poor level of engagement from the police is mirrored by a lack of motivation and commitment by some visitors. This is understandable. There has been no police presence at any of the Newham panel meetings this year and the visit report summaries are frequently distributed to panel members without any response from the custody manager to any issues raised on visits. Following a similar lack of response from the Chief Inspector the ICV Team Manager wrote to the Borough Commander to apprise him of the situation. In a response delivered within 24 hours the Borough Commander offered an unreserved apology to the panel and gave a guarantee that the police would be represented at the final panel meeting of the year and all of the 2012 meetings.

7. At the same time the team worked closely with the panel chair in identifying members whose performance consistently gave cause for concern. A number of letters were sent with the result of one resignation and the likely de-accreditation of another panel member. We are informed that the custody manager is no longer in post and a custody sergeant has recently provided prompt responses to any issues raised. We expect to see a much better delivery of the service by both police and panel in the coming months

8. A similar combination of unreliable members and poor police engagement affected the performance of the Tower Hamlets panel. The inspector responsible for custody was given a number of other responsibilities which resulted in the lack of a dedicated custody manager being in place. The issue was raised with the Chief Inspector and a new custody manager was recently appointed who will be attending panel meetings. A process of commitment and de-accreditation letters is currently in place alongside interviews for new applicants to replace those members whose performance has been consistently poor. Although the performance of the Tower Hamlets panel remains reasonable at 75%, we would expect the recruitment of new members and improved police engagement to deliver both an improved service and panel performance.

9. A number of the other falls in performance can be attributed to single missed visits or, in the case of Islington panel, a confusion over visiting schedules due to the introduction of visits to a new British Transport Police custody suite. We would expect to see no further performance issues in these panels.

10. Of the panels that delivered fewer than 75% of scheduled visits, three reported improved performance, suggesting that overall, the performance of the panels in delivering the scheme continues to move in the right direction. The most notable improvements were in Camden, Lewisham and Hounslow. Camden’s membership issues appear to be resolved and it is, once more, a panel with a high number of committed volunteers. Visiting at Lewisham has been assisted with the help of a number of volunteers from neighbouring panels while recruitment takes place, and the efforts of a number of pro-active members at Hounslow has driven the improved performance there.

11. Current membership of the ICV Scheme stands at just under 400 volunteers. This would appear to be a considerable reduction from the peak of 460 visitors just over a year ago, but this has been a managed reduction reflecting the changing custody landscape rather than a reflection of a reduced appeal of the scheme to volunteers. The closure of the Wimbledon custody suite as part of a shared services pilot means that there is no MPS custody provision in the borough of Merton. Each of the eight Merton ICV Panel members was offered the opportunity to work in another panel, primarily in Sutton where Merton detainees are now processed. Three Merton members joined the merged Sutton and Merton ICV panel, one is on the waiting list for another panel and four members decided to leave the scheme. Consolidation of the custody service will continue across London with the opening of large, purpose built suites and the refurbishment and development of a number of others (details of the proposed redevelopment of parts of the custody estate will be considered by the Finance and Resources Committee on December 15). The east London boroughs of Newham, Waltham Forest and Barking and Dagenham commenced a shared custody provision in November with a reduction of custody suites from five in 2010 to three. Panel membership in those boroughs will therefore be reduced through natural wastage (or, in the case of Newham by the de-accreditation of persistently unreliable members) to match the requisite numbers. In boroughs where custody provision is removed negating the need for a borough based panel, volunteers are assured that membership of neighbouring or area based panels will be open to them – no volunteers will be removed from the scheme because of changes to the custody service.

Developments

12. The magnificent response of the ICV volunteers to the August disturbances and the successful London ICV Conference were reported in the October Members Briefing.

13. Between April and November the ICV Team has delivered three initial training sessions and three diversity training sessions. By commissioning the diversity training provider to provide all four sessions (the first session was delivered in March) the team and training provider have been able to develop the content of the sessions based on the feedback from attendees. This is a relationship that will continue in 2012. The diversity training sessions continue to be oversubscribed. The team is in discussion with two training providers with the aim of developing a chairs training module that can be delivered twice in 2012. Experienced and new ICV chairs are being canvassed on what they see as their training needs. A review of the refresher training modules delivered at panel meetings is complete and each of the team members is tasked with amending specific modules or developing new ones.

14. A pool of 32 ICVs willing to assist panels who may struggle to complete their visit rotas is now established. The ICV Team is now canvassing those who expressed their interest to establish their availability and preferences. This information will be stored with the team and a guidance note issued to ICVs informing them how the pool will operate. The purpose of the pool is to assist in the event of planned or long term panel shortages. The responsibility to ensure cover is provided for visits at short notice will remain with each individual panel. The system is already working with great effect in Lewisham where members from Greenwich, Bexley and Bromley are conducting visits.

15. Prior to the establishment of a centralised London ICV Scheme in 2007 panels with British Transport Police (BTP) custody facilities in their boroughs visited these suites through local agreements. This arrangement was formalised in 2007 with an agreement for the BTP Authority to pay a set fee to the MPA for a system of scheduled visits to their custody suites. In April 2009 this agreement was replaced by an ongoing contract whereby the ICV Scheme charges the BTPA for visits conducted to its five custody suites on a per unit cost basis. The charge to BTPA for visits in the first financial quarter of 2011/2012 was £5305. As this was based on a visit schedule and level of performance that is being maintained, this presents a potential return of over £22,000 which will help support the continued development of the scheme in the face of inevitable (though so far modest) budget savings.

16. MPS hosted a custody seminar in November and has commenced a pilot in two boroughs in the use of a new risk assessment form designed to identify and assist vulnerable detainees. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) Inspection Lead Sean Sullivan delivered a presentation at the seminar which was very similar to that delivered at the London ICV Conference. He opined that the seminar was an indication of the keenness of the MPS and its custody team leaders to deliver as safe and effective a service as possible. The seminar was attended by Borough Commanders and Custody Managers.

Issues

17. Hammersmith and Fulham (H&F) custody facilities were recently the subject of an HMIC/HMIP inspection and the early release of the report indicates a number of causes for concern. This is disappointing as the concerns appear to repeat those highlighted in a supportive Custody Directorate inspection last year. As the H&F panel doesn’t meet until January the Custody Manager has agreed to meet the ICV panel chair, vice-chair and the ICV Coordinator and will discuss how the custody team will respond and how the volunteers may be able to monitor adherence to any action plans.

18. The majority of concerns observed and reported by ICVs continue to be minor requests, almost universally accommodated promptly when raised with custody staff, and environmental issues linked to the custody estate. The availability of towels in custody suites continues to be an issue, along with staff resources, which can influence the chances of a shower being facilitated for detainees in custody for more than 24 hours. Custody Directorate is attempting to identify funds to establish a system of purchase and laundry and will report its progress at the next scheduled meeting with the ICV Scheme Manager in December.

19. Hackney panel recently raised a concern following a visit to a female detainee who had been transferred from custody to hospital on the day before the ICV visit, where it was confirmed that she had suffered a miscarriage. An FME visit earlier that day had established that she was two months pregnant. The detainee was returned to custody later the same day (the discharge decision being the responsibility of the hospital medical staff), and detained overnight to appear in court the following day. The panel raised concerns both over the conduct of the FME, who the detainee alleges was abusive, and the conduct of the custody staff who, it is alleged, left the detainee without basic female hygiene products on her return to custody. The Custody Manager has since met the chair and vice-chair of the panel to discuss the concerns, but as no member of the ICV Team was present at this meeting we have been unable to establish how this concern has been resolved and/or what escalation is required. In the absence of clarification from those who attended the meeting an assessment will be made at the next Hackney ICV Panel meeting, on 5 December 2011, what further action may be required.

Plans

20. Seven ICVs from Westminster and Southwark panels have received enhanced SC level clearance and will form a panel to visit detainees held under anti-terrorist legislation. The primary site for Terrorism Act (TACT) detainees is the newly developed TACT facility at Southwark, though Paddington Green will continue as an overflow suite. There will be a requirement under anti-terrorist legislation that ICV visits to TACT detainees are reported to David Anderson QC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. As yet there is no clear indication of the kind of information Mr Anderson will require, and without it we are unable to develop a suitable visit report form and training module to inform and report the visits. Discussions are ongoing between Mr Anderson, ICVA and the London ICV Scheme Manager. We plan to host a meeting of the TACT ICVs in January and establish some terms of reference around visiting rotas and meetings. We are conscious of the possibility of being overtaken by events. Should the need for TACT visits arise before the information requirements are known, and forms and training are in place, the visits will be conducted under the existing procedures as detailed in the Special Protocols in the ICV Handbook.

21. The review of the changes in the ICV Team service delivery introduced in January 2010 was completed by the MPA Planning and Performance Improvement Unit in early June. The results were broadly supportive of the way the scheme was managed and supported. The full, unedited report will be released along with the ICV Team response to the main points and suggestions in the coming weeks.

22. The ICV Team is planning to commission a radio advert in the New Year as part of its aim to increase community awareness of the work custody volunteers do and the part it plays in holding the police service to account.

23. All Authority members are invited to the ICV Scheme Social Event at City Hall on the evening of 12 December 2011. An attendance of 162 is expected, including 12 police officers. The CECF Sub-Committee Chair will give a brief speech and present a number of experienced volunteers with awards for long service. Such events are part of the ICV Scheme’s efforts to recognise and reward our volunteers for their work and ongoing commitment.

C. Other organisational and community implications

Equality and Diversity Impact

1. Ongoing monitoring of applications indicates that although the diversity of the scheme, or individual panels, does not always match the demographic make-up of London or the individual boroughs, no group is adversely affected in recruitment and retention procedures. A diversity monitoring exercise is planned for 2012 to try and capture the data not submitted at the application stage. No diversity data is collected on detainees visited by the scheme.

2. The ICV Scheme will continue its roll out of Diversity Training with a further four sessions in 2012. This supports the Scheme and Authority commitment to ensure equal and impartial treatment in all aspects of the custody visiting process.

Consideration of MET forward

3. The transfer of the statutory responsibility for custody visiting from the MPA to MOPC means that the ICV Scheme will continue to contribute to the Met Partners and Met People strands of Met Forward.

Financial Implications

4. At the end of September the 2011/2012 budget for the ICV Scheme showed an under-spend of £39,309. The adjusted forecast would deliver an under-spend of £31,077. However many high cost items are still to be paid for such as the full cost of the London ICV Conference, the ICV Social Event and the commission and airplay for awareness raising adverts. The anticipated budget includes a forecast figure of c£18,000 income from BTPA.

Legal Implications

5. There are no legal implications arising from this report.

Environmental Implications

6. There are no environmental implications arising from this report.

Risk Implications

7. No active risk implications arising from this report.

D. Background papers

• Appendix 1 – ICV panel performance, membership, concerns and outcomes from April to September 2011.

E. Contact details

Report author: James Tate, Criminal Justice and Custody Oversight Team Leader, MPA

For information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback