The Unsatisfactory Performance Procedures in the Metropolitan Police Service

Report: 4
Date: 8 December 2011
By: Deputy Commissioner on behalf of the Commissioner

Summary

This report summarises the brief history of third party reporting within the MPS, and its response to the recommendations made during the Macpherson report.

A. Recommendation

That members note the report.

B. Supporting information

Background

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

2. The UPP procedures consist of three formal incremental stages for managing performance and attendance. Performance issues include low productivity, mistakes in tasks and not completing work. Attendance is a poor record of attendance at work. 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. 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.

3. Instances of UPP at the formal stages are centrally recorded and monitored by the Practice Support Team (part of the Deputy Commissioners Portfolio). The monitoring includes ensuring that sufficient management information has taken place before the formal steps of the process are used.

4. The MPA Communities, Equalities and People Committee on 2 February 2011 requested further information be provided in relation to the following points of discussion.

• The Unsatisfactory Police Performance Procedure (UPP) does not seem to be used enough in the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).
• Could any reasons for the disproportionate use of UPP against Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) officers be identified from the data supplied?
• Consideration is given to centrally recording UPP Management Action.

N.B. In July 2011, MPS Departments responsible for Professional Standards have been the subject of restructuring and now form part of the Deputy Commissioners Portfolio. This restructuring presents opportunities over the forthcoming months for the newly aligned departments to deliver UPP more cohesively.

Using UPP

5. The committee positively acknowledged that there had been a year on year increase of the use of UPP by managers in the MPS. The committee however considered that the level of usage still did not appear high enough in comparison to an organisation the size of the MPS. As a result a short piece of research that included some small focus groups with identified managers, as well as data analysis was conducted to consider and identify possible causal factors.

6. The single most consistently identified barrier to usage at the focus groups was that the process was perceived to be protracted. Therefore, managers would often use other procedures in preference to UPP (typically misconduct) to address the concerns.

7. The data research and focus groups also identified that at the earliest stages of UPP a complete picture of its use was not being captured. This was because there is no requirement to centrally record Management Action (a critical but informal stage of the process). At this early stage, when seeking to correct underperformance central data is not currently held.

Disproportionality

8. For the reporting period January 2010 to December 2010 37 officers were the subject of formal action under UPP. Of this group 15 officers (40.5%) were from BME backgrounds.

9. The ethnic breakdown comprised of:

20 White British males
5 Pakistani males
3 Bangladeshi males
1 Black African male
1 Asian other male
1 Black British male
1 Black Caribbean male
1 Greek and Greek Cypriote male
1 Black Caribbean female
1 Indian female
2 ethnicity not stated.

10. Analysis was undertaken of these cases. Firstly, it was noted that there was not an even distribution of UPP cases across the MPS and therefore caution needs to be taken when extrapolating wider conclusions from such a small sample group.

11. Secondly, it was identified that one (Borough) Operational Command Unit accounted for a third (5) of all cases raised against BME officers. Analysis was undertaken of these cases. This revealed that all the officers involved were members of the Metropolitan Police Special Constabulary (MSC) on the (B)OCU. The (B)OCU MSC had 135 officers, 79 of which were BME. UPP action had been taken in these cases for a single performance matter (failing to complete mandatory National Centre for Applied Learning Technologies
training after numerous requests). UPP action had been undertaken fully in accordance with UPP Policy and Standard Operating Procedure (SOP).

12. Of the remaining 10 cases no discernable pattern of analysis could be drawn as the cases emanated from a cross section of the MPS.

Centrally Recording Management Action

13. Management Action is a key element of the UPP process (as previously highlighted). Of the managers and Professional Standards Teams consulted, they highlighted that early intervention was the most effective means of resolving an underperformance issue in the long term. Examples were provided of officers who had permanently improved their attendance or performance following UPP management action. However, concern was expressed that often key details around the circumstances resulting in the action was lost when the line manager involved transferred post. There was support for a central record to be held of management action taken that would be accessible to an individuals new line manager. Some managers who had not used UPP expressed the view that the recording of management action centrally would also be a positive step to the wider use of UPP.

Recommendations

14. As stated above, in July 2011 MPS Departments responsible for Professional Standards have been the subject of restructuring and now all form part of the Deputy Commissioners Portfolio. The opportunity for closer working and shared initiatives is a key benefit of this restructure. To this end, in relation to UPP opportunities for business improvement are already being scoped.

15. Notwithstanding the above, the following key recommendations from this paper are being actively considered with a view to early implementation.

• Centrally Recording Management Action
  The benefits of centrally recording management action are that it could assist new line managers when considering how to address underperformance concerns. In addition the recording of management action centrally would provide a more accurate corporate overview of the actual usage of UPP.

It is acknowledged that consultation should take place with key stakeholders (including the Police Federation) before a final decision is made in relation to the central recording of management action.

• Development for line managers in UPP
  The Leadership Academy training syllabus does incorporate modules on the management of UPP. With the Leadership Academy now part of the Deputy Commissioners Portfolio, it is a timely opportunity to review the syllabus to ensure that the input is achieving its stated aims. We recommend and will be actioning a review of the specific training needs.
• Review People Pages to ensure the information includes providing practical advice to line managers.
  As part of the effective implementation of the T/HR operating model, ‘People Pages’ was designed to provide practical on-line advice and assistance to line managers and staff on all Human Resources related matters. Currently a ‘My HR Self Service Help Guide’ has not been created for UPP. It is recommended that that a UPP HR Self Service Help Guide is created.

C. Other organisational & community implications

Equality and Diversity Impact

1. A core aim of the UPP SOP, monitored by Expert Services Employment Relations (ESER), 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 ESER has access to intelligence from the Fairness at Work data and acts on such concerns.

Consideration of 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 relies 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 Directorate of Professional Standards 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 author: Darren Bird, Assistant Director, Assistant Director, Deputy Commissioners Portfolio and Simon Hockley, Employment Relations Manager, Deputy Commissioners Portfolio, MPS

For information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback