Operation of the Unsatisfactory Police Performance procedures in the Metropolitan Police Service

Report: 8
Date: 2 February 2011
By: The Director of Human Resources on behalf of The Commissioner

Summary

This report contains management information and performance analysis in respect of the Unsatisfactory Police Performance Procedure (UPP). The report outlines the process followed in UPP cases. It also provides statistical data submitted during the period January 2010 to December 2010. Trends and data are compared against the corresponding period in 2009. The report also highlights recent initiatives undertaken to publicise UPP throughout the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

A. Recommendation

That members note the report.

B. Supporting information

Unsatisfactory Performance Procedures in the Metropolitan Police Service

1. Arising out of one of the recommendations of the Taylor review, the Police (Performance) Regulations 2008 (UPP) established detailed procedures for dealing with issues of unsatisfactory performance and attendance for all police officers (except probationers) up to and including the rank of Chief Superintendent. UPP also includes all special constables.

2. UPP provides a fair, open and proportionate method of dealing with unsatisfactory performance and attendance. The aim of the procedures are to encourage a culture of learning and development for individuals and/or the MPS.

3. The UPP procedures consist of three formal incremental stages for managing performance and attendance. Before commencing the formal staged process, line managers should at the earliest opportunity have identified and informed the officer of the need to improve their performance or attendance, and the consequences of not doing so. This early intervention is referred to in the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) as Management Action. As part of this line managers should actively consider if the identified apparent unsatisfactory performance is due to inadequate instruction, training, supervision or some other particular reason.

4. The MPS SOP has been perceived by some as being a protracted process that has contributed to the underreporting of police officer performance issues. It is worth noting however that the detailed design of UPP is as a result of national negotiation and not specifically an MPS concept. The MPS SOP mirrors the Home Office guidance on ‘Police Officer Misconduct, Unsatisfactory Performance and Attendance Management Procedures’.

Statistical Information: Officers subject to UPP

5. The Employment Relations, Expert Services (ES-ER) Department within Human Resources monitors pan MPS officers who are subject to the formal stages of UPP. Line managers are required to submit a form (MM5) at the instigation of each formal stage of the process to ES-ER. Although not formally captured informal management action is an important element of the procedures that precedes the instigation of UPP at stage one.

6. Data is supplied on the reporting period January 2010 to December 2010 and this is compared with data in the period January 2009 to December 2009.

• For the comparative period January 2009 to December 2009, there were 17 cases of UPP. Of these 17 cases, 4 cases proceeded to stage two of the process with 13 cases being managed at stage one only. No cases progressed to stage three. No cases were dealt with as gross incompetence matters. (A case relates to each stage within the UPP process, therefore an individual can have more than one case attributed to them in any twelve month period).
• For the comparative period January 2009 to December 2009, of the 17 cases of UPP, 4 were performance related matters and 13 were for attendance related concerns.
• Of the 13 officer’s subject of UPP in the comparative period January 2009 to December 2009, all 13 were Constables, but included one Detective Constable and one Trainee Detective Constable.
• For the reporting period January 2010 to December 2010 there were 42 cases of UPP. Of these 42 cases, 3 were dealt with at stage two, 2 cases were dealt with at stage three. Additionally 2 officers resigned prior to the stage three meeting being held. There was 1 case of gross incompetence recorded.
• For the reporting period January 2010 to December 2010, 20 cases were performance related matters and 23 cases were for attendance related concerns.
• Of the 37 officers subject to UPP in the reporting period January 2010 to December 2010, 19 were Constables, 4 were Detective Constables and 1 a Trainee Detective Constable. There was 1 Detective Sergeant subject to UPP. A total 12 Special Constables were also subject to UPP.

7. Whilst it is recognised that the total number of officers subject to UPP remains low, there has been almost a threefold increase in cases during 2010 compared to 2009.

Diversity Information:

8. Gender

• For the comparative period January 2009 to December 2009, 13 officers were the subject of UPP, 10 were male and 3 were female.
• For the reporting period January 2010 to December 2010, 37 officers were subject to UPP, 30 were male and 7 were female.

9. Ethnicity

• For the comparative period January 2009 to December 2009, 13 officers were the subject of UPP, 9 were White British males, 1 white British female, 1 Black – Caribbean male, 1 female Indian, 1 female recorded as any other group.
• For the reporting period January 2010 to December 2010 of the 37 officers who were subject to UPP, 20 were White British male, 5 were Pakistani male, 3 were Bangladeshi male, 1 Black African male, 1 Asian other male, 1 Black British male, 1 Black Caribbean male, 1 Greek and Greek Cypriote male, I Black Caribbean female, 1 Indian female and 2 not stated.
• For the reporting period January 2010 to December 2010 black and ethnic minority (BME) officers made up 40.5% of all individuals subject to UPP. Whilst this is a statistical overrepresentation the number of BME officers subject to UPP is numerically small at just 15. ES-ER closely monitors all aspects of diversity concerning UPP and if any patterns develop that cause concern they are fully
• investigated with the necessary interventions initiated.

10. Disability

• For the comparative period January 2009 to December 2009 no cases were recorded against an officer who had declared a disability.
• For the reporting period January 2010 to December 2010 no cases were recorded against an officer who had declared a disability.

11. Location

• For the comparative period January 2009 to December 2009 all cases of UPP except 1 originated from within Territorial Policing.
• For the reporting period January 2010 to December 2010 all cases except 3 originated from within Territorial Policing.

Application of the 5Ps.

12. It is recognised that despite a three-fold increase in UPP cases, there is still a need for broader use of UPP by managers across the MPS. The following work below has laid a strong foundation by equipping line managers with the necessary knowledge and skills to better manage a UPP process. That said as an incremental process that will continue to take time for it to be fully embedded and fully utilised across the MPS.

• The MPS HR Directorate has actively promoted the use of UPP to Professional Standards Champions (PSCs) pan MPS. During January and February 2010, jointly with colleagues from the Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) 12 separate Taylor Reform refresher training days were delivered. These training sessions aimed to update the skills and experience of PSCs concerning misconduct and unsatisfactory performance. Approximately 200 staff attended.
• The MPS Leadership Academy incorporates UPP as part of the core training provided to new 1st and 2nd line police managers. Furthermore, a mandatory e learning NCALT (National Centre for Applied Technologies) package has been introduced for all constables and managers of police officers. By September 2009 some 25,000 officers had completed the training and 6040 had completed the package specifically for managers of officers.
• In preparation for the transition to People Services within the MPS, a total of 7700 1st line managers received training in relation to managing UPP from the People Services project team.
• The introduction of Human Resources People Services has brought a new method of managing many HR processes including UPP. Through the People Services IT system, cases are now initiated, tracked and monitored. This functionality supports cases being managed and progressed in a timely manner.
• As part of a collaborative project involving Territorial Policing, DPS and Human Resources a small dedicated Performance Improvement Unit has been established. This unit through data analysis, identifies where (B)OCU intervention may be necessary to highlight and address team or individual performance or attendance issues.

Arrangements for ACPO officers

13. The Police (Performance) Regulations 2008 (UPP) established detailed procedures for dealing with issues of unsatisfactory performance and attendance for all police officers (except probationers) up to and including the rank of Chief Superintendent. For officers above Chief Superintendent, typically referred to as ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers), formal UPP proceedings is not an option. However should any shortfall in an ACPO officer’s performance and attendance be identified, it is expected as good management practice for this to be appropriately addressed at the earliest opportunity.

C. Other organisational and community implications

Equality and Diversity Impact

1. A core aim of the UPP SOP, monitored by ES-ER, is to ensure that the policy is being applied fairly and consistently to all police officers within the MPS regardless of personal characteristics such as gender, race, religion and belief, creed, ethnic origin, marital status, disability, age, sexual orientation, working hours or working arrangement. Furthermore the Equality Act 2010 includes a new Public Sector Equality Duty. It is proposed that the Public Sector Equality Duty will come into force in England and in Scotland from April 2011. The duty will cover all the protected grounds: age, disability, gender, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion and belief and sexual orientation. As such ESER will monitor UPP against all these protected groups. ESER will on an individual and if necessary on a collective basis make necessary interventions to ensure fairness and full compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty,

2. The MPS Diversity and Equality Strategy 2009-2010, specifically under Theme 3 Workforce has a key action to ‘improve the confidence of all our staff in our discipline and fairness at work processes so they are seen to be proportionate and fair’. To fully meet this obligation for UPP ESER have undertaken a number of key initiatives including providing training to line managers and staff. The Leadership Academy also provides training on UPP for all new managers of police officers. On an individual case basis ESER provide advice and guidance to line managers to ensure consistency and fairness in the application of UPP. Equally any officer who feels that the UPP process had not been applied proportionately or fairly, they have full and proper recourse to the appeal procedures. Additionally ES-ER has access to intelligence from the Fairness at Work data and acts on such concerns.

MET Forward

3. The UPP SOP directly supports MET Forward. The core purpose of UPP is to ensure that all officers are of an acceptable standard in terms of their performance and attendance. As such this has direct impact on core policing, general confidence and achieving value for money from all MPS officers.

Financial Implications

4. There are no specific financial implications arising from this report. However any costs associated with the issues highlighted in the report are covered by budgets held in business groups across the Service

Legal Implications

5. The MPS is under a statutory duty to have due regard to the

1. elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment
2. promotion of good relations between peoples of different groups
3. promotion of positive attitudes towards others

6. The MPS Equalities Scheme 2006-2010 is designed to ensure the continuous improvement in service delivery in this regard by improvements in the standard of policing and staff awareness of the organisational strategy. Effective governance is required to ensure improvements are achieved and is itself an aspect of the Equalities scheme.

7. In providing management information and statistical data in respect of officers subject to UPP proceedings and in addressing issues relating to equality and diversity with regard to the UPP process this report assists the MPA in monitoring MPS performance under the MPS Equalities Scheme.

Environmental Implications

8. There are no environmental issues raised by the report. It should be noted however, that the MPS Corporate Social Responsibility Strategy (CSR) takes into account broader 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 UPP report, for example, in relation to working standards, equality and diversity, organisational reputation, etc.

Risk implications

9. The UPP procedure is a devolved process and reiles upon managers being aware of the UPP SOP. The SOP incorporates procedural steps outlined in the Police (Performance) Regulations 2008. If a line manager did not follow the UPP SOP there is a risk that they could breach the Regulations. As such HR and DPS have made line managers aware of the UPP SOP through various training and awareness events. The UPP SOP is also available to all staff via the MPS Intranet ‘Aware’ system. Furthermore HR are able to offer advice and guidance to managers and staff about the process.

D. Background papers

None

E. Contact details

Report authors: Darren Bird Assistant Director, Head of Employment Relations Expert Services and Simon Hockley, Employment Relations Manager, MPS

For information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback