Update of restricted duty officers review

Report: 4
Date: 20 May 2010
By: Director of Human Resources on behalf of The Commissioner

Summary

This report provides an update on the review of restricted duty officers, and serves as a follow-up paper to that presented to the Joint Productivity and Performance and HR Remuneration Joint Meeting held on 17 September 2009.

A. Recommendations

That

1. the content of the report be note noted particularly the reduction in the rate of ill-health retirements (IHRs) within the latest phase of the review.

B. Supporting information

Context

The aim of the review was to:

• Improve operational resilience and deployment flexibility within the MPS.
• Improve career opportunities for restricted duty officers, given that some officers could be restricted for the majority of their service, subject to specific individual circumstances.
• Increase the potential for officers to develop new skills
• Review the appropriateness of current restrictions, including the need for further adjustments
• Clarify for officers and line mangers what distinct policing activities could be safely undertake subject to an appropriate risk assessment. This would include the ability to safely undertake officer safety training (OST) and emergency life support (ELS) training where appropriate and safe to do so.
• Ensure the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) meets the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA)

1. This report combines information from the phase 1 review - Havering, Brent and Westminster, and phase 2, Croydon and Camden. 87 officers have been reviewed under phase 1 and 63 under phase 2.

2. At the outset of the review there were differences in the expectations of what could be achieved by adopting an activity-based approach to assessing restricted duty officers. The latest version of the activity proforma completed by the medical officer is attached at Appendix 1. A pragmatic approach was therefore adopted that recognised the limitations of any assessment which had to take account of previous assessments, current roles and responsibilities undertaken, and the hitherto cultural risk-free approach to restricted duty deployments. The more appropriate approach, therefore, was to assess how an increase in productivity across a range of activities could be achieved for individual officers, within a risk-assessed environment. The use of the activity proforma was therefore chosen as the way forward as it makes clear to both officers and management what can be safely undertaken without constant recourse to the medical officer. This approach will have significant benefits should officers have to be urgently redeployed in the event of a major incident.

3. The review initially centred on Phase 1 operational command units (OCU’s) of Brent, Havering and Westminster and then after a short evaluation, moved onto Phase 2 being Croydon and Camden.

4. As a result of the evaluation and feedback from Phase 1 OCU’s changes were made to the administrative procedures; capability proforma and communication procedures.

5. The main area of on going development is the mechanism by which OCU’s can increase operational resilience and career development of officers from the information obtained from the capability proforma.

Outcomes

6. Appendix 2 summarises the quantifiable outcomes of the review for phase 1 and 2.

Returned to full duty

7. At the outset of the review the expectation of a high number of officers being returned to full duty was not realistic. The total number of officers from both phases returning to full duty is 9. This represents 6% of the officers reviewed.

Recommended for consideration of Ill Health Retirement (IHR)

8. Phase 1 had 20 officers recommended for IHR with the majority of those being from Havering Borough (22.9% of those reviewed): phase 2 identified 2 officers (3.2% of those reviewed). This reflects the unique nature of Havering having a very high number of restricted duty officers due to its favoured location that suited many restricted officers for travelling purposes, and a more IHR focus by those officers in the early stage of the process possibly due to misunderstanding the purpose of the review.

9. The briefings delivered under phase 2 have focussed more on retention in service allied to increased productivity and operational resilience, and have resulted in fewer officers looking for ill health retirement. As the review moves forward it could reasonably be expected that IHR recommendations will be more in keeping with phase 2 findings but there is the possibility that numbers may again increase as officers have a right under Police Regulations to be considered for IHR should they have medical evidence to support the claim.

Officer Safety Training (OST)/Emergency Life Support Training (ELS)

10. Before the review the norm was that a majority of restricted duty officers did not attend OST or ELS training. The review has enabled a significant increase in this area of training. This enables line managers to upgrade an officer’s operational deployment in the knowledge they are now safety training compliant. In terms of service liability issues this diminishes potential Service vulnerability should an officer be injured whilst intervening while travelling to and from work.

Shift Patterns

11. The success of the review in this area centres on much greater clarity on the shift patterns an officer can undertake. This was not available before and has been well received by line managers and officers.

Defined Headings of Capability

12. One of the challenges of developing the capability/activity proforma was to identify the activities officers actual undertake. The new process allows the medical officer to assess the officer against these activities and allow the line manager to consider what the officer could do when considering additional deployment options. The success of the review in this area is that more detailed information than ever before has been provided which again has been well received by line managers and individuals. From an individual perspective the information allows career development options to be better assessed using the capabilities/activities listed on the proforma and comparing them against other job profiles.

Feedback

Senior Management Teams (SMTs)

13. Feedback from the OCU SMTs has been positive in terms of their understanding of officers’ individual needs and how this may be translated in to the Presence and Productivity strands. That said, more work is required to convert this theoretical understanding in to reality and this will be an on-going theme for the foreseeable future as officers continue with the reviews. Another important factor that has been identified by the Boroughs concerns the fact that if IHRs do take place then there will be a clear advantage to their operational resilience. However, there is potential that the advantage will be short lived as they could be posted restricted duty officers in accordance with Service policy. There is some evidence to suggest that this is already happening. This in turn raises the question as to what is a viable number of restricted officers that an OCU can accommodate without adversely impacting on core functions such as patrol. This is a very complex scenario and one more appropriate for consideration by Management Board within the deployment plan.

14. The area requiring development across the phase 1 and 2 and which will be a feature as the review moves forward will be the process of actively using the improved information. This is centred on increasing operational resilience and increasing the career development of the officers. A theme is emerging of using the improved data at the OCU’s Workforce Planning Meeting where deployment options can be discussed. One specific example is that Camden Borough has already utilised the improved data on restricted duty officers to deploy a number to limited shift work addressing issues around Pledge compliance on the Borough. Croydon is considering implementing a rotation policy for its restricted duty officers to ensure high levels of productivity and operational resilience as well as career development. It is this type of activity and action that will reap the most positive benefits that will be developed over time.

15. Clarity was requested from the SMTs on who is responsible for taking forward follow up action in respect of medical officers’ recommendations. This has been addressed jointly with TPHQ and OH and will be reviewed by the health and wellbeing team post THR go- live to ensure that clarity of communication remains. The HR Operational Support (HROS) structure under THR will provide a key role in this area.

Line Managers

16. Feedback was obtained from a variety of direct and indirect sources with the overview that line managers were supportive of the review as it gave them much better information on their staff and capabilities than they had had previously. It has provided them with information to enable more pro-active management of officers, using the additional information to agree additional deployment options. Importantly it gives managers the confidence to task officers in new areas of activity without reference back to occupational health for fresh advice.

Individual Officers

17. For phase 1 of the review officers were asked to complete a questionnaire and attend one to one interviews and for phase 2 complete a questionnaire only. The following areas were identified from the feed back:

Communication issues

18. The phase 1 evaluation identified that communication needed to be improved at all levels. Communication under phase 2 has improved through better co-ordination of the initial briefing material and the face to face briefings. Previous speculation and rumour about the purpose of the review and possible outcomes have disappeared and the positive aspects of the reviews have become better understood. On going engagement with federation representatives, the Disabled Staff Association and diversity group members has greatly assisted in ensuring a single, clear message is conveyed across the MPS.

19. Communication issues improved considerably for phase 2 OCU’s as the review implemented the learning from phase 1. The decision to trial the delivery of the reviews at the OCU was welcomed and the feedback in terms of officers’ expectations being met was positive. However this was not repeated due to logistical problems and issues with the overall suitability of the accommodation provided. The most positive aspect revealed was from those officers returned to full duty in terms of the decision being much quicker than in the normal course of events. In terms of learning from the feedback this centred on venues of the review when held locally, in one case an officer thought the venue was poor; the MPS should be looking at the way it employs people with disabilities and not place them into boxes for statistical purposes; concerns that the recommendations from the medical officer will not be addressed by line managers and or the Borough and that once the review had been completed officers would be left just to muddle through as usual.

Ill Health Retirement

20. For phase 1 the question of ill health retirement arising did surprise some and they needed further time to consider the option. Those officers who were considered for ill health retirement expressed dissatisfaction with the process. This can be summarised as a lack of feedback where they were in the system. This is turn increased the anxiety of some officers and caused OCU’s difficulty in determining when to advertise for vacancies that may occur, thus
affecting their operational / service delivery. In addition one officer experienced being side lined within their post in anticipation of their retirement when there has been no decision on IHR leaving them feeling under valued. The learning from phase 1 in this respect has been acted upon and the feedback and process improved for those officers going forward to be considered for IHR from phase 2.

OH and Medical Officer

21. Briefings were delivered personally by OH staff to all officers subject to the review. The briefings became more positive as the process was rolled out due in part to the officers gaining more information on outcomes that may affect them and the quashing of unhelpful rumours that had undoubtedly unsettled some.

22. The medical officer has reported the reviews in a very positive light and has not experienced any problems with the officers seen. The medical officer has continued to visit operational units to gain a better understanding of the roles and activities that officers may be expected to undertake and can therefore speak with some authority on what activities an officer can safely undertake.

Career Enhancement and Line Manager Engagement

23. The questionnaire asked whether the review had enhanced their career development. The majority stated it did not and this theme continued from the phase 2 feedback. There are several factors at work in these responses some of which are not attributable to the review. The review has effectively started an engagement process between restricted officers, line managers, OCU’s and the MPS. This has not been in place before. Officers reported that they feel line managers and OCU’s do not know how to deal with restricted duty officers and consequently their career development and self worth suffers. Indeed a number of officers reported that they had not discussed their medical officer review with their line manager - this is being addressed.

24. Reasons for discussions not taking place between the officer and the line manager typically centred on the fact the restrictions had not changed and there was nothing to discuss. This raises the question of line managers’ understanding of the review and the opportunities it may give them in terms of productivity and presence. Where there is a positive engagement, such as the two cases identified during the one to one interviews between line managers and the officers, it is clear the relationship is a rewarding one. The benefits identified were excellent attendance levels and a noticeable increase in motivation and willingness on the officer’s part to do more, thus benefiting the unit in terms of productivity and job satisfaction for the officer. The key traits of the line manager in these successful relationships centred on being fully aware of the officer’s restrictions and capabilities, effective communication and an effective management style. In general officers stated that they feel line managers do not know how to deal / manage a restricted duty officer and all too often see such an officer as a problem. Another factor at work is that the responses also depend on
where the officer is in terms of their length of service. Officers with significant service remaining expressed themselves more positively with the review.

25. Additional positive feedback from some officers centred on the fact that they were now better informed about their capabilities and so could consider other roles in the future.

26. This issue of career enhancement will need to be developed as the review goes forward and continue for the foreseeable future. It is hoped that at both local and corporate level that improved management information systems will build on and demonstrate a more effective inclusion of restricted duty officers.

Learning to date

27. The area that requires further development is increasing the operational capacity of the restricted duty officers and in turn their career development that will support the Productivity and Presence strands. Some good practice is already emerging with active consideration of restricted duty officers skills and abilities by a BOCU Workforce Planning Meeting and initiatives such as considering a rotation policy for such officers. This is the area that will provide the long term business benefits and is the area OCU’s are being encouraged to develop. The process is also allowing the culture around restricted duty officers to become more positive as the visibility of restricted duty officers becomes clearer and colleagues generally obtain a better understanding of the extent of the activities that restricted duty officers can undertake.

C. Other organisational and community implications

1. Equality and Diversity Impact

No negative race or equality issues have been identified. Although the reviews are mandatory, no officer can be compulsory ill health retired and any deployment options considered will be subject to risk assessment and reasonable adjustments where appropriate. Disability issues are addressed as part of the review process. The gender balance for the reviews is approximately 25% female, 75% male, which is broadly similar to the current gender service profile. Black and minority ethnic (BME) officers accounted for just under 3% of the reviews, significantly less than the 9% BME service profile, reflecting the fact that the majority of officers in the review had a service profile in excess of 20 years where BME officers are under represented. Recent and on-going service recruitment trends will positively impact on the upper length of service profile for gender and BME figures over time.

2. Financial implications

Territorial Policing funded a Medical Officer for the review at a cost of £110,000 for the financial years 2009/10 and 10/11.

The cost of additional ill health retirements was raised at the meeting held on 17 September 2009. For reasons explained in this paper the number of submissions for IHR arising specifically from these reviews has significantly reduced under phase 2. Given however the concerns expressed at the last meeting it should be noted that ill health retirements are increasing generally and almost doubled from 37 in 2008/09 to 70 in 2009/10. This may be due to the need for officers who need to be deployed elsewhere exercising their right to be submitted to the Selected Medical Practitioner (SMP) for consideration of IHR. It is difficult to forecast accurately the number of ill health retirements for 2010/2011 but it is likely to be in the region of 70 once again.

The total cost of ill health retirement including payments for Injury Awards has averaged about £29m over the past few years. But this is set to increase significantly this year in part due to the increased numbers being ill health retired as a result of the review. Current forecast show a potential increase of over £3m. Additional resource of £3m was built into the 2010/13 MTFP phased over three years - £1m in 2010/11, £2m 2011/12 and £3m in 2012/13 cumulatively. Table 1 below shows the breakdown of current funding for each of the three elements of the total pension costs due to ill health.

Table 1 - Breakdown of current funding

With the additional costs of about £3m being forecast this year Table 2 below shows the potential funding gap over the next three years. Options are being assessed to address this problem.

Table 2 - Breakdown of funding 2009/10

3. Legal implications

This interventionist approach is likely to assist the MPS in ensuring that it has complied with its duty of care towards officers who are on restricted duties. It also assists with the MPS’ continuing requirement to consider reasonable adjustments pursuant to the Disability Discrimination Act, together with an informed assessment of those eligible for ill health retirement. Provided the reviews are proportionate and subject to Equality Impact Assessments, there does not appear to be any adverse legal implications.

4. Environmental implications

There are no environmental issues raised by the report. It should be noted however, that the MPS Environment Strategy will, during the course of the 09/10 financial year, be superseded by a Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Strategy that is currently in development, and which will take into account a broader scope of issues, including social and economic issues. It is possible that the material issues
identified by the strategy and which inform the CSR reporting framework, will include issues addressed by the Review of Restricted Duty Officers report, for example, Disability, Health & Safety, Valuing Employees, Working Standards, Training Opportunities, Communication, Equality and Diversity, etc.

D. Background papers

None

E. Contact details

Report author: Robert Crawley, MPS

For more information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback