Territorial Policing thematic performance report

Report: 7
Date: 8 June 2009
By: Temporary Assistant Commissioner on behalf of The Commissioner

Summary

This report provides:

1. details of current performance achievements and any good/poor practice on the management of crime property (property related to crime held by the police) including current and future oversight of the system, any changes to practices, staffing issues and supervision.
2. a report by exception on top key level performance areas at a London-wide and Borough level. Including areas identified through MPS internal performance management systems (i.e. Crime Control Strategy Meetings).
3. an update on the outcome of Operation Spotlight, discussing how the principles of this operation will be taken forward and how the MPS will build on good practice identified during the operation.

A. Recommendation

That

1. the Committee notes the work being undertaken to improve MPS processes in respect of the management of crime related property;
2. the Committee notes TP performance in 2008/09; and
3. the Committee notes the outcome of Operation Spotlight and endorses the proposed approach to help drive burglary performance in 2009/10.

B. Supporting information

Management of crime related property

1. ‘Crime related property' includes all property seized by or otherwise coming into the possession of police during the investigation of a criminal offence, and also includes property found by or handed to police.

2. Approximately 70% of property items held in MPS stores are generated by Borough Operation Command Units (BOCUs) within Territorial Policing (TP). Items are recorded on both manual and computerised systems. The majority of new property items are taken to the station reception office and entered manually on to a paper record as either involved in crime or as property found. Prisoner related property is taken to the custody suite and recorded on the NSPIS custody system.

3. Those items that are retained are then recorded on the BOCU database (TOAST) and, if transferred to Central Property Services for long-term retention, are entered on the Crime Related Property System (CRPS). SO/SCD commands have their own locally devised books and records. There is currently no integration between MPS property management systems and therefore no search capability, although this will change with the introduction of METAFOR which is an integrated property recording and management system.

4. Managing property items and exhibits across the MPS is a considerable task both in terms of volume and complexity. There are currently approximately 893,000 items stored in 54 locations across the 32 BOCUs. In the two MPS Central stores, the MPS is storing 168,000 items. Storage space is at a premium and work is ongoing in preparation for the introduction of METAFOR and as reflected within the METAFOR business case approved by the MPA to manage down the volume of property stored.

5. An MPA Internal Audit in 2008 reported on the MPS framework for the management and control of crime related property. Key recommendations included the need for business ownership, new cash handling systems, improved supervision of high-risk property items, and the introduction of key performance indicators.

6. Part of the medium-term solution to the issues raised rests with the introduction of METAFOR that will enable tracking of all property items and forensic submissions for the MPS. Roll-out across all BOCUs and Central Property Services is scheduled between March and December 2010 and it is anticipated will provide considerable benefits linked to its property functionality. These include;

• Increased investigative opportunities
• Time saved re-keying
• Improved service at front counters and to crime victims
• More restoration of property to owners
• Reduction in number of property related civil claims
• Reduced demand on storage space
• Clear visibility of cash and high value/risk items
• Facilitating the management of POCA seizures
• Provision of quality management information

7. In order to maximise the benefits of METAFOR considerable business change is required to introduce consistency and to raise standards in the management of property. In order to address the issues and recommendations raised by MPA Internal Audit, and to ensure that TP business change will enable the successful introduction of METAFOR, the Commander responsible for Organisational Capability and Criminal Justice within TP has taken ownership of property and formed a new team to complement the ongoing work of the METAFOR Programme. This team is based within TP Emerald and its costs have been absorbed within the TP budget.

8. This team will ensure that TP addresses MPA Audit recommendations and is fully prepared for the implementation of METAFOR in order to maximise its benefits. A plan has been produced to introduce a series of new procedures and initiatives across TP, including the creation of a best practice property management model. This activity will focus initially on high-risk areas for the MPS before pursuing longer-term strands. Priorities include a new cash handling standard operating procedure to reduce organisational vulnerability and maximise visibility of Proceeds of Crime Act seizures, as well as reconciliation exercises to confirm the volume of items held in stores.

9. In addition, the work will include a resourcing and supervisory model, to ensure that there is appropriate staffing based on volumetrics and activity analysis and support, with clear guidance on governance, line management responsibilities, selection and risk assessment. A training needs analysis is under way to identify role specific training.

10. As previously stated, there will be a concerted drive to reduce the number of exhibits and property items held both locally and centrally. This action is required both to address the critical storage issue, minimise data cleansing work pre-METAFOR, to ensure more speedy restoration of property, and to dispose of historical items holding no investigative value.

11. It is recognised that there is a need to change attitudes towards the longer-term management of exhibits. ‘Property’ itself is an ambiguous word that is used in a different context in different parts of the organisation, e.g. Property Services Department, ‘Property for Policing’ project. Most of the property seized by police is either an ‘exhibit’ or a ‘potential exhibit’. Central Property Services are proposing to change their name to Criminal Exhibits Services and TP are proposing to introduce new terms and roles in their business area, including Exhibit Store and Exhibit Store Officers/Managers etc. This will also reflect the importance of the work of staff in these roles and raise standards and attitudes amongst officers to this ‘routine’ work. This re-branding is scheduled for June 2009.

12. TP will be testing many of the new processes on Westminster Borough for four weeks from 27 April 2009. The MPA Audit and MPS Inspectorate teams have been consulted throughout the METAFOR design period and their views will also be sought prior to promoting any lessons learnt and identified good practice to the rest of the MPS.

Borough Performance (by exception) in 2008/09

13. An overview of overall MPS performance for 2008/09 was given in detail in a report to Strategic and Operational Policing Committee at its meeting in May (‘Headline Performance Report: Full Year 2008/09’ by the Acting Deputy Commissioner.). That report contained a summary of crime figures for selected crime categories for the 2008/09 performance year; a summary of performance against the 'Critical Performance Areas' (CPAs) - the top-level measures featured in the Policing Plan - for the 2008/9 performance year (Appendix 2); and a report on all of the measures featured in the Policing Plan and the Statutory Performance Indicators (SPIs) set by the Home Office for the 2008/09 performance year.

14. The report referred to above highlighted both positive achievements and challenges for the MPS as a whole. The former included reducing assault, gun crime, knife crime, robbery and burglary; the latter included rises in business crime, recorded rape and hate crime.

15. A number of boroughs achieved good results across a wide range of performance measures. The five most notable were Kingston, Richmond, Tower Hamlets, Camden and Hackney.

• Kingston achieved exceptional results in detecting crime, user satisfaction and public confidence. The sanction detection (SD) rate for rape improved to 57.9%, compared with 25.0% in 2007/08 and the SD rate for other serious sexual offences increased from 25.4% to 35.7%. The SD rate increased markedly too, rising to 16.5% compared with 5.5% in 2007/08. For the latest available data (rolling 12 months to Dec 08), the borough achieved the highest rating in the MPS for user satisfaction (84%) and maintained a high degree of public confidence (86%).
• Richmond also enjoyed exceptional success in the same areas, with the highest SD rates in the MPS for most serious violence and assaults, domestic violence, and being amongst the best performing boroughs for most crime types in terms of sanction detections. It also maintained very high levels of user satisfaction (82%) and public confidence (91%).
• Tower Hamlets enjoyed substantial crime reductions across the board, most notably in residential burglary (-31.9%), robbery (-21.8%), vehicle crime (-19.6%) and youth violence (-22.2%).
• Camden achieved substantial reductions in crime and exceptional improvements in detecting crimes, meeting all its targets in both areas. For example, the SD rate for rape improved from 39.0% to 55.0%, and the SD rate for residential burglary improved from 14.8% to 25.0%. Robberies fell from 1,335 to 1,000 and theft from motor vehicle fell from 3,866 to 2,622. The borough also enjoyed an outstanding degree of public confidence (93%).
• Hackney oversaw substantial reductions in most crime types including robbery (-16.3%), residential burglary (-13.4%), vehicle crime (-15.0%) and youth violence (-10.0%). There were big improvements both in the domestic violence SD rate (from 38.2% to 48.6%) and the domestic violence arrest rate (54.25 to 72.3%). Public confidence grew from 54% to 77%.

16. There was exceptional achievement in particular performance areas by boroughs not mentioned above. Examples of these are:

• Bexley’s serious sexual offences SD rate of 55.0% was far and away the best not only in the MPS, but also in its iQuanta group (the next best rate in the group was 41.8%, and the group average was 30.7%).
• Barnet’s residential burglary SD rate of 26.7% also greatly surpassed those of its peers on iQuanta (the next best rate in the group was 16.8%, and the group average was 12.3%).
• Kingston achieved exceptional results in detecting crime, user satisfaction and public confidence. The sanction detection (SD) rate for rape improved to 57.9%, compared with 25.0% in 2007/08 and the SD rate for other serious sexual offences increased from 25.4% to 35.7%. The SD rate increased markedly too, rising to 16.5% compared with 5.5% in 2007/08. For the latest available data (rolling 12 months to Dec 08), the borough achieved the highest rating in the MPS for user satisfaction (84%) and maintained a high degree of public confidence (86%).
• Richmond also enjoyed exceptional success in the same areas, with the highest SD rates in the MPS for most serious violence and assaults, domestic violence, and being amongst the best performing boroughs for most crime types in terms of sanction detections. It also maintained very high levels of user satisfaction (82%) and public confidence (91%).
• Tower Hamlets enjoyed substantial crime reductions across the board, most notably in residential burglary (-31.9%), robbery (-21.8%), vehicle crime (-19.6%) and youth violence (-22.2%).
• Camden achieved substantial reductions in crime and exceptional improvements in detecting crimes, meeting all its targets in both areas. For example, the SD rate for rape improved from 39.0% to 55.0%, and the SD rate for residential burglary improved from 14.8% to 25.0%. Robberies fell from 1,335 to 1,000 and theft from motor vehicle fell from 3,866 to 2,622. The borough also enjoyed an outstanding degree of public confidence (93%).
• Hackney oversaw substantial reductions in most crime types including robbery (-16.3%), residential burglary (-13.4%), vehicle crime (-15.0%) and youth violence (-10.0%). There were big improvements both in the domestic violence SD rate (from 38.2% to 48.6%) and the domestic violence arrest rate (54.25 to 72.3%). Public confidence grew from 54% to 77%.

17. On the other side of the coin, Barking & Dagenham had a poor performance year across a wide range of performance measures. Sanction detection rates were the worst in the MPS for rape, robbery, racist crime and domestic violence. The borough also suffered badly in terms of volume crime offences. Although motor vehicle crime fell by 14%, robbery increased from 615 to 753 offences (+22%), while the numbers of burglaries rose from 855 offences to 1,414 (+65%). There were small increases in ‘most serious violence’ and ‘youth violence’, compared with a fall in most boroughs for these crime types. The borough also has some of the lowest ratings in the MPS for ‘user satisfaction’ and ‘public confidence’.

18. DAC Operations visited Barking & Dagenham in November 2008 and a plan for performance improvement was made, based on work carried out by the TP Performance Unit and the ‘capability review’ team. The key elements were to improve the quality of supervision and compliance with crime investigation standard operating procedures, and to build a performance management framework which will ensure that performance, and the factors influencing it, remain to the forefront of management scrutiny. To these ends:

• the borough has provided training for sergeants and detective sergeants which includes crime supervision
• the senior management team now reviews priority crimes overnight at the daily management meeting
• a best practice two page document has been sent to all officers and staff to assist them in reporting residential burglary
• primary investigation training has been provided for all officers
• a fortnightly dip sample of CRIS reports is carried out by the by the local performance and review unit.

19. DAC Operations will be revisiting the borough in the middle of May to review progress in the agreed areas. TP Performance Unit will monitor performance data for the 2009/10 performance year and will report on progress in mid June once the final figures for April and May have been published.

20. Other boroughs (Bromley, Croydon, Merton and Redbridge) also delivered broadly disappointing results in 2008/09, albeit with redeeming features in particular areas. All of these boroughs have been visited by DAC Operations, resulting in plans for action which either have been or will be reviewed at follow up DAC visits.

21. Work is also being done to reinforce the TP performance framework in conjunction with the current structural and managerial changes at TP command team level. Link commanders will take a more intrusive attitude towards performance on each of the boroughs under their aegis. This will assist in identifying signs of deteriorating performance at an early stage, so that the causes can be identified and solutions put in place promptly.

Current priorities and new activity

22. TP has the lead responsibility for most of the CPAs and also for many of the priorities determined by MPS Performance Board. TP command team is mindful of the need to achieve the right balance of resources and effort in all the ‘priority’ areas in which it has lead responsibility. This means that whilst the subjects mentioned in the paragraphs below are the focus for the strategic and tactical activity described, this is not being carried out at the expense of other corporate priorities (terrorism, serious sexual offences, serious youth violence, gun crime, gangs etc.). The latter may not be mentioned in this document if there is no new activity or initiative to report, but work in these areas continues to be no less of a priority.

23. Notwithstanding the overall picture of good performance in 2008/09, TP command team has already recognised challenges for the current performance year and started to tackle them. MPS intelligence and performance analysis suggests that residential burglary will rise in April and May compared with the same period last year. Furthermore, although external customer satisfaction surveys show that the focus on burglary during Operation Spotlight has raised customer satisfaction within the MPS, there is room for improvement. Commander (Crime) has therefore put in place the following arrangements with immediate effect:

• Borough activity will be supported and directed by a corporate control strategy;
• The new good practice guidance on forensics identified by SCD4 will be implemented;
• Dedicated detection teams will implement best practice on detections;
• Central coordination has been put in place to support boroughs in their management of prolific burglars upon release from HMP. This is based on the Met Intelligence Bureau’s estimate that as many as 20% of all residential burglary may be at Level 2 (i.e. committed by the same offenders on more than one borough);
• The Bumblebee brand will be re-launched to increase public awareness and enhance prevention.

The effectiveness of these measures will be assessed in June, when the final figures for residential burglary in April and May will be available.

24. TP command team has taken note of the ‘offences brought to justice’ (OBTJ) and SD rates for serious acquisitive crime. For the latter, the MPS’s rate of 10.4% was below the target (11.8%) in 2008/09, and the MPS was a long way behind the best force in its most similar group on iQuanta (West Yorkshire 20.2%), although on a par with the other two forces in the group. MPS Performance Board discussed a paper prepared by TPHQ which described West Yorkshire’s operation to maximise sanction detection opportunities, primarily through the ethical pursuit of ‘taken into consideration’ (TIC) detections. Within the MPS, Camden and Barnet operate ‘suspect units’ which similarly maximise sanction detections through offences ‘Taken Into Consideration’ (TICs). TP command team will consider how to implement good practice from West Yorkshire, Camden and Barnet (e.g. offender management programmes on each borough). However, Performance Board has made the decision to prioritise offences relating to violence, so additional resources will be primarily directed towards that end, rather than to improving the detection of serious acquisitive crime. TP will continue to use existing resources, such as the TPHQ Borough Support Team, to put in place improvements in detecting serious acquisitive crime.

25. TP command team will also boost performance in reducing and successfully detecting serious acquisitive crime through the latest round of the Crime Control Strategy Meetings (CCSMs), organised around the geographical links (South, East, West) where boroughs meet with their link counterparts to discuss a particular theme, review performance to date, share good practice, and explore ideas for improvement. Commander Simmons is leading on these meetings. The ‘5 Ps’ will provide a framework for the discussions. Some of the topics are listed below:

• Performance
  • Borough performance on serious acquisitive crime, including weapon and gun enabled offences.
• Productivity
  • Attrition data from reported incidents to sanction detection;
  • Police bail – average length of time;
  • Named suspects not yet arrested, including direction of travel;
  • Warrants outstanding, including direction of travel.
• Professionalism
  • Control strategies – the new landscape;
  • Allocation of staff and breakdown of DC/PC deployment;
  • Use of VIIDO (Visual Images Identification & Detections Office) for serious acquisitive crime and impact on performance.
• Presence
  • Response times and the minimum response victims can expect;
  • Repeat victimisation for individuals and neighbourhoods.
• Pride
  • Victim satisfaction and public confidence in relation to serious acquisitive crime.

26. Performance and intelligence analysis has also indicated an increasing number of thefts from shops, a problem which is likely to worsen in the current economic climate. MPS Performance Board has noted this, but decided against naming it as a corporate priority at the moment, so no additional money, staff or other resources will be directed towards it. However, activity has been put in place using existing resources to combat the increase in theft from shops both external (shoplifting) and internal (stock loss). This activity includes:

• Trialling models of engagement with businesses e.g. with the Victoria Business Partnership to assess what the MPS can expect from businesses in protecting themselves against theft offences.
• Enhancing police presence in target areas (high streets, out-of-town shopping destinations and mixed wholesale/retail areas) through Operation Uplift using Safer Neighbourhood Teams, Metropolitan Police Special Constabulary and officers deployed via Operation Sphere.
• Increasing the number of patrols.
• Maximising police presence by working with retailers, the use of virtual courts and the use of Penalty Notices for Disorder (PNDs).

27. Joint Engagement Meetings (JEMs) are problem solving meetings run by the MPA, between the MPS, Local Authorities and other partners including Transport for London, British Transport Police and the London Criminal Justice Board. Currently the main theme is serious youth violence. During the meetings a number of actions are agreed by the various partners to reduce serious youth violence. Good practice is also identified. To date eight boroughs have taken part: Kensington and Chelsea, Croydon, Bexley, Hammersmith and Fulham, Lambeth, Southwark and Westminster. Examples of good practice identified include the introduction of a virtual licensing board in Croydon, which has allowed members to convene at short notice and respond quickly to licensing matters. All actions are followed up by the MPA and action is being taken to improve the exchange and dissemination of best practice.

Operation Spotlight

28. Operation Spotlight was introduced from Monday 17 November 2008 as a high-level plan in support of the MPS response to the increase in residential burglary offences in October and November 2008.

29. The strategic intention was to reduce levels of residential burglary, increase detections and improve levels of victim satisfaction over the Christmas period. The aims being to achieve a 4% reduction in residential burglary, to increase the sanctioned detection rate for residential burglary to 16%, and to seek improvement in the level of customer satisfaction for residential burglary victims.

30. Victim satisfaction improvements as a result of this activity will not be reported under the Home Office measure until June 2009. An interim measure utilising structured customer call-backs to burglary victims selected at random, conducted by an external company (Market Research UK) and staff not from the borough assessed were used to evaluate improvements.

31. At the commencement of Operation Spotlight residential burglary offences was at a 3.7% reduction (against target 4.5%) and 14.1% Sanction Detection rate (target 16%). The seasonal trend during the Christmas period 2008 suggested that residential burglary would rise peaking in early January 2009.

32. Victim satisfaction for the MPS had been declining during the first two quarters of the 2008/9-performance year. The MPS target is 78.5% and was at 76.5%, with a 0.5% decline in the first six months of the performance year. Burglary victim satisfaction stood at 82% compared to the MSF rating of 90%.

33. The operating principle for Operation Spotlight was that improvements in burglary performance relating to reduction, detection and victim satisfaction would be achieved without wholesale redirection of resources away from Serious Youth Violence. The emphasis was on delivering the operational objectives through process improvement involving minimal application of resources. The operation aimed to cement structures and processes for sustained reduction in offences and improving sanctioned detections together with implementation of measure to drive improvements in victim satisfaction, which could then be consolidated through to the end of the performance year.

34. The methodology used was to prioritise the most challenged boroughs. All 32 boroughs were assessed on the basis of individual reduction or increase in offences and associated Sanctioned Detection rates. This assessment culminated in the prioritisation of each borough under high, medium and low risk (red, amber and green coding).

35. Each borough was required to provide a burglary champion. Performance Review Meetings were set up with the most challenged boroughs commensurate with risk assessment. The ten most challenged boroughs were the primary focus for reduction efforts to ensure maximum impact on the overall MPS position.

36. The methodology applied to outstanding suspects and wanted persons for violence offences was also applied to residential burglars. A benchmark for borough performance on this measure was established. Burglary Activity and Enforcement Weeks were set up with the principle aims of significantly reducing outstanding suspects circulated for residential burglary on Emerald Wanted Missing System (EWMS) and CRIS, and to target the most prolific offenders. Additional funds were allocated to our forensic processes to increase the turnaround of forensic identifications thereby allowing fast time arrests of known perpetrators.

37. The following mandatory requirements were introduced:

• All Forensic dockets to be processed within 48 hours of receipt were enforced with compliance being monitored centrally through specified burglary champions on each borough.
• All residential burglary allegations to be screened in for review by a DS gatekeeper.
• A maximum of two-week police bail to return dates for any suspect arrested for residential burglary unless an extended date authorised by an officer of Chief Inspector rank or above.

38. A further aspect of the methodology applied was to focus on crime reduction in specific locations. Each borough was required to provide an action plan dependant on performance and areas of weakness. The key focus was to ensure all activity was mainstreamed into core business.

39. Operation Sphere (regular redeployment of office based staff to operational duties) personnel were initially tasked to the most challenged boroughs to assist on crime prevention initiatives in those locations indicated by intelligence/analysis.

40. Victim satisfaction best practice was adopted throughout Operation Spotlight and mainstreamed within core business to deliver long-term success. The core activities delivered were:

• A standardised response from Central Command Complex (CCC) that does not create unrealistic expectations.
• Attendance at all scenes by a police officer (a key factor in Most Similar Force satisfaction which moved away from the previous approach of burglary sole response by scene examiners only).
• Forensic visit within target of 4 hours.
• Deployment of dedicated burglary cars on priority boroughs to improve the quality of the initial investigation.
• Safer Neighbourhood Team follow up visit to all burglary victims mandatory within 72 hours, provided three key corporate messages on crime prevention, reassurance and continued support. An interim burglary pack was supplied to all victims.

41. Another key element of the methodology was cross business group support:

• Met Intelligence Bureau (MIB) provided problem profiles regarding the significant volume increase in challenged boroughs.
• MIB identified 28 most prolific burglary offenders suspected of over 13,000 offences within the MPS area.
• SCD4 (Forensics) was required to fast-track identification of forensic products to increase early intervention.
• Media services together with TP Press Office coordinated a corporate Christmas burglary campaign.

42. The approach taken by Operation Spotlight resulted in a number of successful outcomes.

43. Operation Spotlight achieved a 1.1% reduction in burglary offences for the performance year 2008/9 (Offence trends at the start of January had suggested that a 2% increase was possible).Operation Spotlight achieved a 13% Sanction Detection rate for residential burglary for 2008/9.

44. Victim satisfaction for residential burglary has improved in the following areas:

• Satisfaction with police response - increased from 81% to 91%;
• Satisfaction with police treatment - increased from 90% to 97%;
• Victims informed somebody would visit - increased from 93% to 98%;
• Victims informed what happens next - increased from 90% to 98%;
• Victims supplied with a burglary pack - increased from 61% to 76%, of which 93% found them to be useful;
• Victims provided with crime prevention advice - increased from 70% to 83%;
• Victims being reassured by police - increased from 83% to 93%.

45. In order to support performance during 2009/10, it is recommended that the following approach is adopted:

• The principles and structure of Operation Spotlight be adopted during the first quarter of the performance year 2009/10. This being a highly challenging period for residential burglary due to the low volume of offences during April and May 2008.
• To continue to enforce the mandatory requirements set out for boroughs during Phases 1 and 2 of Operation Spotlight to ensure effective management of their respective burglary profiles and robust allegation management.
• To maintain the current victim satisfaction strategy (Corporate resolution to the requirements of the burglary victim pack is critical to MPS success in victim satisfaction).
• Effective coordination and management of prolific burglars in HM custody through MIB to ensure they are effectively managed upon release.
• Implementation of Dedicated Detection Teams pan MPS to ensure every opportunity for maximising Sanction Detections through corporate prisoners and the TIC process is achieved.

C. Legal implications

1. Section 19 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 provides the police with general powers to seize items of property where they have reasonable grounds for believing the property to be evidence relating to an offence. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 additionally provides police with powers to seize money if it is suspected to represent the benefit of crime. Retention periods are also set out in various legislative provisions. METAFOR will ensure all entries are made consistently across the MPS, which will aid clear auditing of property, recovery and disposal.

2. The initiatives to reduce burglary are consistent with aims set out in the National Policing Plan and the Commissioners objectives under the ‘5 P’s’ framework. It also follows established best practice in other Police Forces and is based on previous successful operations implemented within the MPS.

D. Race and equality impact

Management of crime related property

1. There are no direct implications currently identified for race and equality arising from this report.

Borough Performance (by exception) in 2008/9

2. There are no direct implications for race and equality arising from this report. However, the MPS cannot achieve its aims without the support of our communities and we remain alert to the potential impact of the initiatives outlined in this report on particular groups in relation to age, ethnicity and social or cultural background.

3. Historically results from the Crime Victim Satisfaction Survey nationally show that white victims of crime express higher levels of satisfaction with the service received from the police. This white/BME satisfaction gap is monitored nationally via Statutory Performance Indicator (SPI) 1.2.

3. Within the Home Office’s most similar forces group the latest available data, year to September 2008, indicates:

• white victims are more satisfied than BME victims
• the difference in the MPS is similar to that found in the other 3 Forces in this group.

Strategy to address and reduce the satisfaction gap

5. In December 2008 the MPS created a ‘Victims and Witness Satisfaction Working Group’. Attendance at the working group is by senior management team members from across various MPS directorates as well as colleagues from Victim Support together with an MPA member.

6. This group will report to Commander Organisational Capability and Criminal Justice Reform and will be overseen within the MPS governance arrangements being developed to drive improvement in confidence.

7. Terms of reference include:

• Co-ordination of the pan-MPS work;
• Direct further analysis on the disparity of satisfaction with police between white and BME groups as a result of their experience;
• Set in place policy, action and monitoring to ensure a reduction in the disparity;
• Improving the quality of service delivered to all victims and witnesses.

8. Other key areas of public satisfaction considered by the working group include the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime, Witness Care Units, Policing Pledge & Witness Charter. The group will be responsible for ensuring that any pan London initiatives are effectively coordinated.

9. A synopsis of the various initiatives being undertaken in support of the strategic approach was reported in a paper to the MPA SOP Committee in April 2009.

Operation Spotlight

10. Burglary disproportionately affects the less wealthy members of society who may often live in rented accommodation that research shows is less secure, or lack the funds to protect their property with basic security such as window locks or secure door locks. In addition, research shows that the impact on victims of residential burglary does have a gender bias with women generally being more affected than men. This trauma can be exacerbated as people who are less financially resilient often find home insurance more difficult to fund.

11. Burglary is a crime of opportunity and in most cases there is no evidence that properties are targeted due to any person's faith, sexual orientation or race. However, there are cases where organised criminal networks do target individuals for a specific purpose, such as the theft of high value jewellery, and in these cases there can be a racial disproportionality amongst victims.

12. Operation Spotlight made a significant contribution to the reduction in burglary across London. In so doing it will have had a more positive effect in supporting the more vulnerable sections of London's communities, whilst the disruption of some organised criminal networks may well have prevented burglaries effectively targeting people from minority ethnic groups.

E. Financial implications

by lead accountant

Management of crime related property

1. There is no additional financial implication to the TP Emerald team established to review working practices and business change requirements (as outlined in paragraph 7 of Section B above) as this team has been resourced from within existing budgets. This activity would have been necessary notwithstanding the introduction of METAFOR. However, the advent of METAFOR has enabled the TP Emerald team to begin to identify opportunities for cashable savings that will be reported on and included in the normal business planning process once fully ratified.

2. METAFOR is subject of a separate business case approved by the MPA Finance Committee in May 2007 and further reviewed by the same committee on 17th April 2008.

Operation Spotlight

3 The total additional corporate cost of Operation Spotlight in 2008/09 was £2,677,429. Any funding requirements for 2009/10, to continue with the initiative, will be found from within the Territorial Policing budget.

F. Background papers

None

G. Contact details

Report author: Commander Minton, MPS

For information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback