Professional Standards Performance Indicators

Report: 5
Date: 5 February 2009
By: Director of Professional Standards on behalf of the Commissioner

Summary

Public complaint allegations are predicted to rise by the end of 2008/09 continuing the trend of recent years and similar to the majority of forces within England & Wales in 2007/08.

The Professional Standards Support Program (PSSP) is currently tasked with reducing incivility allegations as a priority.

The MPS is piloting the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) Performance Management Framework

Following the introduction of the Taylor Recommendations, the MPS is developing methods to monitor the benefits arising from the change in legislation.

A. Recommendation

That the Committee notes the current performance as indicated in the Appendices and areas of exception, risk or good practice and potential issues as outlined in the text

B. Supporting information

1. Appendix 1 – contains the Public Complaints & Conduct Matters Performance Indicators.

2. Appendix 2 – contains Public Complaints data by Link Command by BOCU by Allegation Category

Performance information

3. The performance indicators relating to the work of the Directorate of Professional Standards appear in Appendix 1. The following points relate to areas of exception, areas of risk, good practice and potential issues requiring further investigation.

Public Complaints (Appendix 1 – Table 1)

• The numbers of allegations recorded has increased from previous years. If quarter four 2008/09 shows a similar rate of increase, then public complaints recorded will be 20% higher than the previous financial year. It is possible that events such as the Israeli/Gaza protests may increase this yet further.
• Previous examination has indicated that improvement in access to the complaints system has contributed to the rise. Significantly, since DPS introduced ‘online’ reporting in March 2008, 820 allegations have been reported via this method. This represents 8% of the total recorded (9981) in the same period.
• The MPS continue to meet the target for the average number of days taken to complete a public complaint. This has also been revised down from 90 days, elapsed time, to 70 working days. Calculations undertaken in this way now reflect the IPCC Guidance
• Two thirds of local resolutions are handled at (B)OCU level. This is in line with previous years and exceeds the 60% target set and follows the ethos of the Taylor recommendations for issues to be dealt with locally
• There has been a small increase in the percentage of allegations locally resolved in the financial year to date, 34% (2814) compared with 32% (2885) in the previous year
• Discriminatory behaviour allegations are projected to rise by a third, of which 6% have been made ‘online’. The potential to increase such allegations via this method, yet further, exists with the increased media coverage e.g. TV footage of the Israeli/Gaza protests. Oppressive behaviour allegations are projected to rise at a lower rate of 12%.
• If the current rate continues in quarter four there will be an 11% reduction in the numbers of appeals made to the IPCC
• The numbers of appeals upheld by the IPCC is projected to stay constant at 27%.

Conduct Matters (Appendix 1 – Table 2)

• There is likely to be a small decrease in the numbers of allegations recorded in the current financial year to date. From 1326 in 2007/08 to a predicted 1212.
• The number of days to complete conduct matters has decreased from 55 days in the previous year to 49 in quarter three, which is well below the 70-day target. This has also been revised down from 90 days, elapsed time, to 70 working days
• The percentage of incivility allegations has risen from 4.5% in the previous year to 6.7% for the financial year to date
• The proportion of substantiated allegations appears to be declining from 55.2% to 35.7%

Measuring the impact of the “Taylor” reforms

4. The “Taylor” recommendations were implemented on 1 December 2008. Currently DPS are developing a range of benefit measurements with which to assess the impact of Taylor against a benchmark of the ‘old-style’ misconduct process.

5. A number of indicators are being developed to enable the following proposed aims to be monitored on a quarterly basis:

• An increase in the use of the Unsatisfactory Performance Procedure (UPP) in the context of a reduction in misconduct procedures
• A reduction in the number of ‘gross-misconduct’ cases brought before a misconduct hearing
• An increase in dismissal outcomes for cases brought before a misconduct hearing for ‘gross-misconduct’
• Redistribution of workload from DPS to (B)OCUs
• Compliance with procedural timescales

6. Additional ‘qualitative’ indicators have been proposed but will prove challenging to collect and monitor. These are:

• Consistency of decision making/outcomes amongst (B)OCUs.
• Stakeholder feedback e.g. officers and line-management

7. In addition to the benefit measurements, DPS are also developing a report for each (B)OCU that will illustrate Taylor decision-making, timeliness and outcomes. It will be made available to BOCU professional standards ‘champions‘ and the appropriate DPS investigating officers aligned to these (B)OCUs. This information will assist in monitoring the parity of decision making across the MPS.

IPCC Performance Management Framework (PMF)

8. The Independent Police Complaints Committee (IPCC) is working in partnership with key stakeholders to design a Performance Management Framework (PMF) for the police complaints system. The framework will build on the Statutory Guidance and provide a useful tool for assessing and improving the performance of the complaints system as a whole.

9. The MPS has been selected as a pilot site and the DPS are currently working with the IPCC PMF project team to confirm the counting rules, provide sample data for each of the indicators and provide feedback on the impact of data collection activities.

10. A separate report has been prepared for the Strategic and Operational Policing Committee providing a more detailed explanation of the IPCC PMF and asking the Authority to agree that the indicators in that will eventually replace those contained in this report.

Professional Standards Support Programme (PSSP)

11. Since January 2007 the PSSP has offered support and guidance to Boroughs based upon those whose overall level of complaints, per 100 officers, was greater than their peers.

12. In October 2008 the PSSP was revised to move towards assisting Boroughs or Operational Command Units (OCU) based on a ‘theme’. The current priority theme is ‘incivility’ i.e. abusive, offensive or rude language or behaviour and the aim is to reduce allegations arising from such conduct significantly.

13. This approach recognises an upward trend in incivility in recent years and supports the MPS Policing Pledge that we will “respond to service complaints” and “always treat people fairly with dignity and respect.”

14. The public compliant data (Jan – Dec 2008) presented, in Appendix 2 by Link Command, is used during the PSSP Strategic Professional Standards Monitoring Meeting to ascertain which (B)OCUs will receive support. Both the actual volume of allegations and the number per 100 officers are taken into consideration in determining where to direct resources.

15. At the last Strategic Professional Standards Monitoring Meeting, in December 2008, it was agreed that the following (B)OCUs had a high level of incivility allegations and would receive the support of the PSSP. These are highlighted in blue in Appendix 2:

• East Command - Enfield, Hackney and Haringey
• West Command - Brent and Ealing
• South Command - Lambeth, Lewisham and Croydon

Please note that the information presented in Appendix 2 was produced after the strategic decision making process to direct PSSP resources. The strategic direction is reviewed quarterly.

17. In addition, Westminster was also chosen as it had a greater volume of incivility complaints but the lowest number per 100 officers. It was decided that DPS would look at this BOCU to gain an understanding of how they are achieving this and look to share good practice. TSG was also selected as it had a level of incivility allegations greater than any (B)OCU.

18. Each BOCU chosen will receive a detailed profile focusing on incivility allegations for these (B)OCUs. The key areas profiled are the officer(s), the complainant(s), the location and type of incident. This is used to produce a range of preventative measures, which are aimed at reducing the numbers of incivility allegations in these boroughs.

C. Race and equality impact

1. There is no impact to race and diversity within the current Professional Standards Performance Indicators, however the PSSP process includes analysis of the demographic information for both complainants and officers/staff. Additionally, the proposed IPCC PMF indicators will contain a similar element.

2. The Directorate of Diversity & Citizen Focus (DCFD) plan to work with DPS to see how the diversity data contained within the HR system (MetHR) can link with the data contained in the DPS system (Tribune) to enable a greater degree of analysis to be undertaken.

D. Financial implications

There are no financial implications concerning the Professional Standards Performance Indicators

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author: David Emmett, Performance Analyst, Directorate of Professional Standards and Michael Clark, Higher Performance Analyst, Directorate of Professional Standards, MPS

For information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback