HMIC ‘Going Local’ Inspection of Westminster BOCU

Report: 8
Date: 8 June 2009
By: T/AC Territorial Operations) on behalf of the Commissioner

Summary

This report highlights the recent HMIC Inspection of Westminster BOCU, sets it within context and indicates action to progress and address the recommendations within it.

A. Recommendation

That the Authority notes this report and seeks an update on progress in late 2009

B. Supporting information

Background

1. HMIC conducted its BCU inspection of Westminster BOCU between 19 and 27 January 2009, following an assessment of its performance in comparison with its most similar BCU group, which comprises Kensington and Chelsea, Camden and Islington BOCUs.

2. The report was published on 6 May 2009 and is part of a new regime within HMIC, whereby the Inspectorate is seen as more independent of the police service. Consequently, the publication was marked by an HMIC press release and, subsequently, an article in the Evening Standard.

3. The report took place following substantial structural change in Westminster BOCU and after a relatively difficult performance year to January 2009. It is worth noting that performance subsequently picked up and the 2008/09 sanction detection and crime reduction figures improved substantially on those assessed by HMIC. The MPS believes that the structural changes introduced by the previous BOCU commander contributed to the subsequent performance improvements and have placed Westminster in a good position to improve during 2009/10.

4. There are six main recommendations. These relate to borough restructuring, performance management framework, intelligence and proactivity, sanction detection improvement, compliance and professional standards and increasing capacity through resource leverage. Action on these recommendations and a range of ‘areas for improvement’ (AFIs) commenced immediately on receipt of the hot debrief in early February 2009. The recommendations are detailed in Appendix 1, which includes an executive summary of the HMIC report.

5. HMIC has drawn up a ‘notional contract’ requiring Westminster BOCU to action by March 2010. This includes an expectation that the BOCU will improve its quartile position on a variety of crime types, relative to the other three boroughs. Achieving some of these aspects will be challenging due to the sheer volume of notifiable offences in central Westminster, when compared to the residential population. Westminster’s overall crime volume and proportion of crime suspects and victims is higher than in the three BOCUs against which it is compared. However, it is anticipated that there will be substantial improvements in relation to sanction detections and crime reduction in burglary, serious violence, robbery and vehicle crime.

6. The HMIC recommendations and AFIs are featured within a BOCU improvement plan and work is ongoing to meet not only the headline issues but the detailed comments within them. Each recommendation and AFI has an SMT lead and links in with the new command arrangements on the BOCU. For example, the recommendations on sanction detection improvement and intelligence and proactivity are now firmly the responsibility of the detective chief superintendent, who has line responsibility for the crime command and criminal justice command, as well as overall responsibility for investigations, intelligence and tasking. The current borough commander, who has been in post since the inspection, has taken a personal lead on developing the performance framework and, indeed significant changes have already taken place.

7. The only recommendation that could cause real issues is the one concerning borough restructuring, with its suggestion that the BOCU should ‘move swiftly into the next phase of restructuring in a controlled way so as to minimise the time spent in the process of transition’. At the time of the inspection, it was intended to move to a functional model instead of the three geographic divisions that currently exist. However, the new borough commander has decided not to pursue a fully functional model, albeit some further rationalisation of back office functions will take place. The rationale, which is supported by Westminster City Council and other partners, has already been made clear to the HMIC inspection team who support the stance taken.

C. Race and equality impact

1. The report identifies particular strengths in relation to race and diversity and fairness and equality of treatment. The one AFI on updating the Westminster diversity strategy will be completed as part of the response to HMIC.

2. Continued focus on sanction detections and race, hate and faith crime is expected to increase performance in these areas.

3. There is continuing work with PCSOs and other staff, including a local gold group chaired by a superintendent, with reference to recent employment tribunals and matters raised in the media.

D. Financial implications

1. An initial assessment is that any costs specifically incurred in responding to the HMIC report are limited in scope and can be consumed within existing Westminster budget lines. The efficiencies referred to in the report at para 1.9 of the executive summary (see Appendix 1) have been identified as non-cashable savings. They will be used mainly to free up staff to meet the presence agenda and to address the performance challenges identified in HMIC's report.

2. Although HMIC para 1.9 refers to a sum of approximately £500,000 in savings, resulting from the Westminster restructuring programme, the actual amount saved was £633,000, which has allowed the BOCU to achieve its budget reductions for 2008/09 without loss of other devolved budgets.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author: Commander Simon Bray, Westminster BOCU, MPS

For information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback