Victims Code of Practice update

Report: 5
Date: 1 September 2011
By: Assistant Commissioner Territorial Policing on behalf of the Commissioner

Summary

This report provides an update of compliance with the code of practice for victims of crime. The report also contextualises the Victims Code of Practice (VCOP) within the wider Customer Service programme in the MPS.

A. Recommendation

That member note:

1. the levels of compliance with the code of practice for victims of crime.
2. That members note the practical challenges with accurately assessing long term compliance.
3. That members note the proposed next steps of the MPS Customer Service programme and its relationship with VCOP compliance.

B. Supporting information

1. The Code of Practice for Victims of Crime (VCOP) details 48 obligations for the Police Service to comply with.

2. The MPS monitors eight VCOP indicators that are considered of key importance to victims of crime. All but one of these indicators concern the timely notification of victims of key milestones or decisions relating to their respective criminal cases or investigations. Performance Information Bureau produces a monthly VCOP performance report with data presented by Borough and Area Command.

3. Four of the indicators are paired (for suspect release and charge):

Indicator 5.4 - victim referred to Victim Support Services within target time
5.9 - victim updated within 28 days
5.14 - victim updated of suspect arrest within 7 days
5.15&16 - victim updated of suspect release within 7 days
5.21&23 - victim updated of suspect charge within 7 days
5.26 - victim updated of suspect non-court disposals within 7 days

4. The Crime Reporting Information System (CRIS) is used to monitor performance. VCOP codes relating to each victim notification, inputted by the officer in the case, are compared to the arrest or suspect-related entries on the CRIS and the difference in time between the two calculated. VCOP compliance is dependent on officers or staff inputting the VCOP code within a certain period of time. The codes are not automatically generated or inputted.

5. Since 2008 Territorial Policing (TP) Criminal Justice have embedded Victim Focus Units across MPS boroughs with the aim of providing victims of crime with updates of investigations, to address VCOP obligations and to ensure that victims are given information about support services.

6. This report has been compiled in response to an MPA commissioning brief and focuses on VCOP compliance against three of the eight indicators - 5.4, 5.9, and 5.14. Data relates to the month of April 2011.

Overall MPS Compliance with Key VCOP indicators

7. Overall compliance with obligation 5.4 (Victim Support Referral) is currently 95%. This is slightly up from April 2010 compliance which was 91%

8. Overall compliance with obligation 5.9 (Victim informed of progress in a case) is currently 88% - a slight decrease on April 2010 of 93%

9. Overall compliance with obligation 5.14 (Victim informed of suspect arrest) was 88% a slight increase on April 2010 figure of 86%

Victim Support Referral (5.4) Compliance - MPS BOCU Breakdown

10. The top 5 MPS BOCUs in this area are Barking, Bromley, Croydon, Islington and Haringey. These BOCUs show a compliance range from 99% -100%

11. The bottom 5 MPS BOCUs are Lambeth (92%), Wandsworth (91%), Westminster (90%), Havering (89%) and Hillingdon (82%)

Victim Informed of Progress (5.9) Compliance - MPS BOCU Breakdown

12. The top 5 MPS BOCUs in this area are Camden, Hounslow, Westminster, Redbridge and Waltham Forest. These BOCUs show a compliance range from 99% - 100%

13. The bottom 5 MPS BOCUs are Croydon (79%), Bromley (79%), Kensington & Chelsea (78%), Barnet (72%) and Barking (54%)

Victim Informed of Arrest (5.14) Compliance - MPS BOCU Breakdown

14. The top 5 MPS BOCUs in this area are Richmond, Camden, Hounslow, Lewisham and Islington. These BOCUs show a compliance range from 97% - 99%

15. The bottom 5 MPS BOCUs are Kingston (80%), Newham (79%), Southwark (79%), Lambeth (79%) and Tower Hamlets (77%)

Serious Acquisitive Crimes (SAC) VCOP compliance

16. Serious Acquisitive Crimes are not routinely extracted from the monthly performance information; therefore a year on year comparison is not possible. The following data is taken from a snapshot on the 18 May 2011 for the month of April 2011.

Overall MPS compliance with obligations broken down to SAC types

17. Compliance with obligation 5.4 (victim support referral) is currently 97%. The data breakdown shows compliance is 93% (Theft/Taking of Vehicle), 93% (Business Robbery), 96% (Theft from Vehicle), 97% (Personal Robbery) and 97% (Residential Burglary)

18. Compliance with obligation 5.9 (Victim informed of progress) is 89%. The data breakdown shows compliance is 86% (Theft/Taking of Vehicle), 88% (Residential Burglary), 89% (Theft from vehicle), 90% (Personal Robbery) and 94% (Business Robbery).

19. Compliance with obligation 5.14 (victim informed of arrest) is 84%. The data breakdown shows compliance of 68% (Business Robbery), 80% (Residential Burglary), 85% (Personal Robbery), 86% (Theft/Taking of vehicle) and 88% (Theft from Vehicle).

Victim Support Referral (5.4) Compliance - MPS BOCU Breakdown

20. The top 5 MPS BOCUs in this area for serious acquisitive crimes are Enfield, Croydon, Merton, Redbridge and Kensington & Chelsea. These BOCUs show a compliance range from 99% - 100%

21. The bottom 5 MPS BOCUs are Hackney (95%), Newham (94%), Tower Hamlets (94%), Lambeth (92%) and Hillingdon (89%).

Victim Informed of Progress (5.9) Compliance - MPS BOCU Breakdown

22. The top 5 MPS BOCUs in this area for serious acquisitive crimes are Camden, Hammersmith & Fulham, Waltham Forest, Hounslow and Haringey. These BOCUs show a compliance range from 99% - 100%

23. The bottom 5 MPS BOCUs are Bromley (80%), Hillingdon (79%), Barnet (75%), Croydon (71%) and Barking (53%).

Victim Informed of Arrest (5.14) Compliance - MPS BOCU Breakdown

24. The top 5 MPS BOCUs in this area for serious acquisitive crimes are Richmond, Havering, Camden, Lewisham and Bexley. These BOCUs show a compliance range from 95% - 100%.

25. The bottom 5 MPS BOCUs are Hackney (74%), Croydon (71%), Barking (71%), Tower Hamlets (68%) and Kingston (54%).

Domestic Violence VCOP compliance

26. Similar to SAC, Domestic Violence crimes are not routinely extracted from the monthly performance information, therefore a year on year comparison is not possible. The following data is taken from a snapshot on the 18 May 2011 for the month of April 2011

Overall MPS compliance with obligations broken down to Domestic Violence types

27. MPS compliance with obligation 5.4 (victim support referral) is currently 91%.

28. MPS Compliance with obligation 5.9 (victim informed of progress) is 72%.

29. MPS Compliance with obligation 5.14 (victim informed of suspect arrest) is 94%.

Victim Support Referral (5.4) Compliance - MPS BOCU Breakdown

30. The top 5 MPS BOCUs in this area for domestic violence crimes are Kensington & Chelsea, Harrow, Bexley, Barnet and Haringey. These BOCUs show a compliance rate of 100%

31. The bottom 5 MPS BOCUs are Tower Hamlets (85%), Wandsworth (84%), Enfield (64%), Hillingdon (64%) and Havering (57%).

Victim Informed of Progress (5.9) Compliance - MPS BOCU Breakdown

32. The top 5 MPS BOCUs in this area for domestic violence crimes are Westminster, Camden, Waltham Forest, Merton and Newham. These BOCUs show a compliance range from 99% - 100%

33. The bottom 5 MPS BOCUs are Bromley (67%), Lambeth (50%), Kensington & Chelsea (50%), Ealing (47%) and Southwark (37%).

Victim Informed of Arrest (5.14) Compliance - MPS BOCU Breakdown

34. The top 5 MPS BOCUs in this area for domestic violence crimes are Richmond, Havering, Camden, Lewisham and Bexley. These BOCUs show a compliance rate of 100%

35. The bottom 5 MPS BOCUs are Kingston (86%), Barnet (85%), Hackney (84%), Lambeth (83%) and Southwark (82%).

The context of the VCOP compliance levels

36. VCOP performance is a based on a snapshot of live reports on the CRIS system. Boroughs are responsible for their VCOP compliance. The data that is provided to boroughs every month allows them to assess their ‘direction of travel’ in relation to compliance. However, the data does enable true year on year comparisons. If the performance snapshot was undertaken every day over a five day period, varying levels of compliance would be recorded on each day. This results in changeable borough performance figures and comparative standings. An example of this is the VCOP Data for June 2011 now shows Barking as 93% compliance with 5.9 (as opposed to 54% in April 2011). The context for overall compliance is shared with SAC. Indeed the same boroughs are listed in the bottom five for performance.

37. VCOP compliance is measured through the inputting an update code on the CRIS once a message has been passed to the victim. Compliance varies and dip sampling has revealed that CRIS reports may have few or no contact codes present, and yet the investigative notes reveal high levels of contact between the MPS and victim.

38. The context for Domestic Violence VCOP compliance differs to mainstream crime. BOCU Victim Focus Units are not responsible for the care of DV victims. Due to the nature of the crime and risk to the victim this is remains the responsibility of the officer in the case, working in the Community Support Unit. Review of DV CRIS reports reveals that the apparent non-compliance with VCOP did not reflect poor levels of victim contact.

39. Specifically in relation to improving compliance around domestic violence obligations, the TP Crime Directorate Service Delivery Teams are responsible for monitoring and evaluating performance and service delivery for domestic violence. They have a specific role in relation to domestic violence and work closely with strategic partners to ensure that the Mayor's plans to end violence against women in London (‘The Way Forward’ - Taking Action To End Violence Against Women and Girls’) is progressed. They are able to support and advise Boroughs on all aspects of policy and procedure, support investigations and provide information on areas of good practice.

40. The CSU Service Delivery team (CSU SDT) at TPHQ has responsibility for the standard operating procedures for domestic violence which have a clear thread of victim communication and update running through each level of investigation, particularly in relation to the secondary investigation, where it remains the responsibility of the investigating officer to maintain contact with the victim up to and often beyond the case disposal stage, in order to manage the risk of harm.

41. Areas of performance that are currently monitored centrally for DV include arrest and sanctioned detection, appropriate flagging of cases, homicide rates and repeat victimization. In addition, the CSU SDT will select random areas to ensure compliance on an ad hoc basis or on request from other departments. Issues of non-compliance are raised at various meetings including the CSU managers meeting, TP Senior Management Team meetings, etc. or communicated direct by e-mail to the Borough(s) concerned.

42. Meetings are held every six weeks between all Community Safety Unit Detective Inspectors and a team member from the central Victim and Witness team has input at this meeting.

SCD2 Sapphire - Secondary Investigation of rape and serious sexual offences.

43. From 2714 available records, 60% of these are shown as receiving an ongoing update (sample data extracted 18 May 2011). However, this data should not be read in isolation as Sapphire units use paper based systems for recording all victim contact and this information is not always repeated in a CRIS entry. Contact with victims is typically recorded in SOIT logs. The sensitive nature of Sapphire investigations mean that a computer (CRIS) generated system of victim referral is not always appropriate.

SCD 5 - Child Abuse Investigation Command

44. SCD5 investigate cases in partnership with assigned social workers and Victim Support Services are rarely brought into the process. Measures 5.9 and 5.14 run at 78% and 88% compliance rates respectively. Child Abuse cases share some of the sensitivities of Sapphire investigations, where contact with the victim needs to be tailored and cannot be undertaken within VCOP target times.

Comparison of performance to other similar forces.

45. The MPS is unique among its most similar forces in utilising the crime reporting system to monitor aspects of VCOP. TP Criminal Justice OCU contacted GMP, West Yorkshire and West Midlands who stated that their performance measurement was survey-based.

The future for VCOP performance monitoring and broader victim care

46. VCOP compliance does not always correlate to good victim care or wider customer service. Indeed, BOCUs that may not appear to comply with VCOP can still perform well for victim satisfaction. This has prompted TP to consider how to approach the measurement and monitoring of VCOP compliance.

47. The CRIS system does not facilitate analysis regarding the type or quality of contact with the victim. Instead, VCOP indicators are representative of quantity rather than quality, and cannot provide any assessment of victim satisfaction.

48. All this suggests that monitoring and improving VCOP compliance will not improve the service to victims of crime if carried out in isolation. The strategic goal for the MPS is to improve the quality of victim care and so the challenge is to incorporate VCOP performance monitoring within a more comprehensive programme of work and performance framework for victim care and customer service.

49. The MPS is in the process of refreshing its Victim Service Strategy. The key performance indicator (KPI) for success is the overall satisfaction of victims of crime, as reported in the MPS User Satisfaction Survey (USS). This measure is a corporate KPI in the 2011-14 Policing London Business Plan.

50. An action plan to accompany the strategy is out for consultation among key stakeholders. The MPA is represented on the Confidence and Satisfaction Board, which ensures that the Authority will be involved in the programme. The decision to move away from VPCSOs and victim focus units is one that has been considered and compensated for in the action plan.

51. The TP Customer Service Team are working with the TP Development programme to ensure that victim care and contact is not adversely affected by any transition or change programmes and that it standards are actually enhanced. Victim care and contact has been mapped across policing processes and MPS Business Groups and TP are designing new tools for officers to provide better contact with victims.

52. One of the drivers of overall satisfaction is ‘police follow up’ - the effectiveness of how the police keep victims informed and support them throughout the criminal justice process. Police follow up is a cornerstone of the TP action plan. VCOP performance will form part of the performance framework that will be monitored within a wider set of performance measures. Specifically, the VCOP measures will help to ensure that victim vulnerability is addressed. Victim vulnerability is a driver of the white/BME victim satisfaction gap which is a corporate priority for the MPS.

C. Other organisational and community implications

Equality and Diversity Impact

1. VCOP compliance relates to victims from across London’s communities. Detailed victim profiling within VCOP compliance measurement is not routinely undertaken, making it difficult to assess whether communication with victims is even across London’s communities. The limitations of the available data prevent a comprehensive analysis of the impact of VCOP compliance across communities.

2. TP have recognised that high standards of victim care should be achieved across London’s communities and across its Boroughs. The MPS Confidence and Satisfaction Board consider that the optimum measure for this is through the MPS User Satisfaction Survey. The White-BME satisfaction gap is a corporate KPI and a strategic outcome within the forthcoming MPS Customer Service Strategy.

Consideration of Met Forward

3. The MPA and MPS community engagement commitment 2010-2013 contains a number of themes, two of those being;

• Increased public confidence in the Police; and
• Delivering value for money.

4. Improving the standards of victim care will result in increased levels of victim satisfaction. The satisfaction of victims of crime is a proven contributor to public confidence in police.

Financial Implications

5. There are no additional financial implications as a result of this paper.

Legal Implications

6. There are no direct legal implications arising as this report is submitted for information only.

Environmental Implications

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

Risk Implications

8. There is a current risk regarding the possible withdrawal of funding for VPCSO’s.

D. Background papers

• Appendix 1 - extract from MPS VCOP compliance monthly performance report

E. Contact details

Report authors: Kevin Rogers, Victim and Witness Team Inspector and Richard Gittings, Head of Customer Service, MPS

For information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback