You are in:

Contents

Report 6 of the 2 February 2011 meeting of the Communities, Equalities and People Committee, provides an update of Performance against compliance with the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime.

Warning: This is archived material and may be out of date. The Metropolitan Police Authority has been replaced by the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime (MOPC).

See the MOPC website for further information.

Victims’ Code of Practice performance update

Report: 6
Date: 2 February 2011
By: Assistant Commissioner Territorial Policing on behalf of the Commissioner

Summary

The purpose of this report is to provide an update of Performance against compliance with the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime.

A. Recommendation

That members note the progress being made to comply with the Code of Practice for Victims and efforts made to improve satisfaction.

B. Supporting information

1. The Code of Practice for Victims of Crime (VCOP) details 48 obligations for the Police Service to comply with. It is not possible or practical due to size and IT limitations to design a performance matrix for all 48 obligations.

2. Within the MPS several key obligations are monitored. These are areas that are considered of key importance to victims of crime and range from notification of a suspects arrest or decision to charge, through to maintaining ongoing contact with the victim throughout the investigation.

3. The Crime Reporting Information System (CRIS) is interrogated to identify the timeliness of updates to victims based on the date of entry of a particular code. The date of this code is what is used to determine whether the update occurred within the timescales or not. For example if a suspect was arrested on 1/11/10 and the victim informed code was dated 2/11/10 then this would be considered in time and compliant with VCOP.

4. This compliance data is issued to all Borough Crime Management Units on a monthly basis and represents compliance on that borough at that particular point in time. It should be noted that compliance data can change daily so therefore a snapshot is taken on the 7th of each month for the preceding month.

5. The main limitations to accurately monitoring VCOP is ensuring the investigator or police staff user remember to record the update code once a message has been passed to the victim. Quite often a report may appear as having little or no contact codes present, and yet a review of the investigative notes reveal high levels of contact between the MPS and victim.

6. To address this issue and provide an enhanced level of service, TP Emerald completed the rollout of the Victim Focus Unit project in January 2008. Its primary aims are to provide victims of crime with updates of investigations, to address VCOP obligations and to ensure that victims are given information about support services.

7. Figure 1 illustrates overall MPS compliance with keeping a victim informed of developments on a monthly basis (VCOP Obligation 5.9). The MPS has put significant effort into this area as prior to the publication of VCOP it was recognised nationally that victims were generally kept informed on an “as and when” basis.

Figure 1 - Compliance with Obligation 5.9 - Maintaining Monthly Contact

Month % records showing new update given within 28 days of previous update
January 2007 21%
January 2008 58%
January 2009 83%
January 2010 93%
September 2010 92%

8. The following table illustrates this same indicator and is broken down by London borough.

Figure 2 - Compliance with Obligation 5.9 - Broken down by London Borough

London Borough % records showing new update given within 28 days of previous update
Jan-08 Jan-09 Jan-10 Sep-10
Barking and Dagenham 68% 86% 96% 95%
Hackney 63% 92% 97% 93%
Havering 71% 81% 89% 91%
Newham 42% 71% 91% 94%
Redbridge 69% 85% 98% 100%
Tower Hamlets 48% 94% 94% 94%
Waltham Forest 86% 84% 93% 98%
Barnet 79% 89% 94% 82%
Brent 60% 78% 97% 98%
Camden 39% 95% 96% 97%
Enfield 61% 65% 89% 96%
Haringey 59% 86% 98% 99%
Harrow 52% 75% 70% 83%
Hillingdon 41% 81% 96% 94%
Islington 68% 92% 100% 98%
Bexley 90% 87% 94% 91%
Bromley 61% 80% 96% 93%
Croydon 59% 86% 95% 95%
Greenwich 29% 92% 92% 98%
Lambeth 45% 60% 95% 73%
Lewisham 75% 82% 91% 96%
Southwark 60% 77% 92% 88%
Sutton 44% 84% 99% 98%
Ealing 57% 97% 91% 85%
Hammersmith and Fulham 39% 70% 97% 97%
Hounslow 75% 85% 99% 98%
Kensington and Chelsea 96% 95% 84% 89%
Kingston Upon Thames 72% 97% 96% 96%
Merton 62% 89% 96% 97%
Richmond Upon Thames 84% 96% 96% 95%
Wandsworth 83% 93% 97% 92%
Westminster 45% 81% 99% 98%
MPS 58% 83% 93% 92%

9. Compliance with this area has been made easier by the provision of data to assist boroughs with identifying investigations where contact has either lapsed or is approaching its time limits. This data is provided centrally by Territorial Policing Operation Emerald (Criminal Justice department) and is supplied on a weekly basis.

Serious Acquisitive Crimes

10. Serious Acquisitive Crimes are not routinely extracted from the monthly performance information; therefore a year on year comparison is not possible. Figure 3 Illustrates data taken from a snapshot on the 21st October 2010.

Figure 3 - Overall compliance with obligation 5.9 broken down to Serious Acquisitive Crimes types

Offence Class Total No of VCOP Applicable Records Number of records shown as receiving ongoing update  
Residential Burglary 931 877 94%
Robbery (of business property) 66 65 98%
Robbery (of personal property) 1300 1254 96%
Theft from vehicle 193 182 94%
Theft/Taking of vehicle 256 237 92%
Total 2746 2615 95%

11. Figure 4 is the same indicator but broken down to Boroughs

Figure 4 - Borough Compliance with Obligation 5.9 broken down to Serious Acquisitive Crimes types

Borough Total No of VCOP Applicable Records Number of Records shown as receiving update %
Kensington and Chelsea 76 70 92%
Westminster 117 115 98%
Camden 51 51 100%
Hammersmith and Fulham 30 29 97%
Hackney 49 48 98%
Tower Hamlets 73 67 92%
Waltham Forest 53 46 87%
Redbridge 100 100 100%
Havering 48 46 96%
Newham 192 189 98%
Barking and Dagenham 94 91 97%
Lambeth 167 144 86%
Southwark 263 247 94%
Islington 62 62 100%
Lewisham 106 105 99%
Bromley 81 77 95%
Harrow 87 84 97%
Brent 164 156 95%
Greenwich 95 91 96%
Bexley 43 43 100%
Barnet 81 79 98%
Richmond upon Thames 48 48 100%
Hounslow 43 41 95%
Kingston Upon Thames 22 21 95%
Merton 54 53 98%
Wandsworth 88 86 98%
Ealing 95 85 89%
Hillingdon 96 89 93%
Edmonton 61 60 98%
Harringey 65 65 100%
Croydon 98 83 85%
Sutton 44 44 100%
Total 2746 2615 95%

Domestic Violence

12. Domestic Violence Crimes are not routinely extracted from the monthly performance information; therefore a year on year comparison is not possible. Figure 5 Illustrates data taken from a snapshot on the 21st October 2010.

Figure 5 - Borough Compliance with Obligation 5.9 broken down to Domestic Violence Offences.

Owning Borough Total No of VCOP Applicable Records Number of Records shown as receiving update %
Kensington and Chelsea 8 7 88%
Westminster 14 12 86%
Camden 12 12 100%
Hammersmith and Fulham 11 11 100%
Hackney 12 12 100%
Tower Hamlets 22 22 100%
Waltham Forest 17 15 88%
Redbridge 24 23 96%
Havering 23 18 78%
Newham 34 30 88%
Barking and Dagenham 32 29 91%
Lambeth 59 25 42%
Southwark 60 51 85%
Islington 10 9 90%
Lewisham 37 36 97%
Bromley 29 28 97%
Harrow 36 33 92%
Brent 71 64 90%
Greenwich 31 31 100%
Bexley 4 4 100%
Barnet 20 20 100%
Richmond upon Thames 17 17 100%
Hounslow 20 19 95%
Kingston Upon Thames 11 11 100%
Merton 17 17 100%
Wandsworth 20 19 95%
Ealing 31 13 42%
Hillingdon 17 13 76%
Edmonton 39 39 100%
Harringey 19 19 100%
Croydon 24 19 79%
Sutton 20 14 70%
Total 803 694 86%

Rape and Serious Sexual Offences Operational Command Unit (SCD2) - Investigated Offences

13. With regards to SCD2 investigations, Figure 6 Illustrates data taken from a snapshot on the 21st October 2010.

Owning Unit Total No of VCOP Applicable Records Number of records shown as receiving ongoing update %
SCD2 1346 686 51%

14. SCD2 works with the NHS Specialist Commissioning Group to jointly commission Haven services for victims of rape and serious sexual violence. The services are jointly funded to a total £4.2m this financial year. There are three Havens which are situated in Camberwell, Paddington and Whitechapel. There role is to improve criminal justice outcomes as well as physical and mental health outcomes for victims. Victims are generally referred by police to the Havens, but victims can refer themselves for Haven support anonymously. SCD2 Specialist Support Team provide dedicated support to the SCD2 Haven partnership through training, chairmanship of the strategic board and managing partnership initiatives

Increases in satisfaction

15. As mentioned earlier, the rollout of the Victim Focus Units (VFUs) has lead to far greater compliance with VCOP obligations. The MPS is keen to continue to improve the service it gives to victims of crime and is placing significant emphasis on the quality of the service delivered by VFU’s.

16. The following table illustrates the steady increase in satisfaction with police follow up. VCOP obligation 5.9 mirrors a user satisfaction survey (formally British Crime Survey) question that asks if the victim was kept informed on a regular basis and this requirement is a key principle of VFU daily business.

Year Obligation 5.9 Compliance Victim Satisfaction with follow up
June 2007 28% 58%
June 2008 70% 59%
June 2009 85% 66%
June 2010 94% 68%

17. Prior to the establishment of VFUs the satisfaction with police follow up remained static at around 58% and the MPS was bottom when compared to our 4 Most Similar Forces. However Quarter 4 data from IQuanta shows the MPS as improving and now 3rd within its MSF.

18. TP Emerald continues to push and develop the VFU’s and are now looking towards including the public satisfaction data along side VCOP performance. The aim is to illustrate the quantity of contact via VCOP compliance and the quality of that contact through the satisfaction measures.

C. Other organisational and community implications

Equality and Diversity Impact

1. There are no implications. This report details the current performance and compliance levels against VCOP and the steps being taken to further improve satisfaction levels.

Consideration of MET Forward

2. This area of work forms part of the Met Specialist strand and within that the Public Protection programme.

Financial Implications

3. There are no financial implications as this report is focused on performance and compliance against VCOP.

Legal Implications

4. There are no legal implications as this report is focused on performance and compliance against VCOP.

Environmental Implications

5. There are no environmental implications as this report is focused on performance and compliance against VCOP.

Risk Implications

6. There are no risk implications as this report is focused on performance and compliance against VCOP.

D. Background papers

None

E. Contact details

Report authors: Alan Catlin, Victim and Witness Care and Court Interfaces Project Manager, TP Emerald - Department of Investigation and Criminal Justice, MPS

For information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback