Professional Standards Performance Indicators

Report: 12
Date: 5 November 2009
By: Director of Professional Standards on behalf of the Commissioner

Summary

This report provides:

• An update on current performance regarding Professional Standards Performance Indicators
• An analysis by BOCU/OCU of good and poor performance
• Trends and areas of potential risk, identifying steps taken to redress emerging problems
• Highlighted issues from recently published report on police complaints by the IPCC
• Identification of equalities and diversity issues arising from the data

A. Recommendation

That the Committee notes the current performance indicators as illustrated in the appendices and any areas of risk, good practice and potential issues as outlined in the text of this report.

B. Supporting information

1. Appendix 1 – contains the Public Complaints & Conduct Matters Performance Indicators.

2. Appendix 2 – contains Public Complaints data by Area Command by BOCU by Allegation Category.

Performance Information

3. The performance indicators relating to the work of the Directorate of Professional Standards appear in Appendix 1. The following points relate to areas of risk, good practice and potential issues requiring further investigation.

Public Complaints – 2008/09

4.

• The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) published their report on Police Complaints: Statistics for England and Wales 2008/09 in September 2009. The following commentary summarises some of the information and findings contained in the report.
• The numbers of allegations recorded have increased from previous years. At the end of 2008/09, allegations had increased by 15% over previous financial year, from 9,124 allegations to 10,849 allegations (excluding Direction & Control matters and complaints ‘not recorded’ under the Police Reform Act 2002). This is greater than the national average of 8% in England and Wales in 2007/08.
• This rise continues the upward trend in complaints since 2004; however the MPS number of allegations per 1000 officers has always been consistently lower than the average for England & Wales. Furthermore, when using the per 1000 officer comparator, the MPS are lower (316) than their next most similar force, Greater Manchester Police (387).
• The increases are as a result of a number of factors and should not necessarily be viewed as negative. The IPCC stated that “The overall increase in the number of complaints reflects growing confidence in the system and more consistent complaint recording standards”.
• The MPS strongly encourage the reporting of complaints to enable us to learn from the incidents and improve our service. We have made it easier for people to make complaints online and through a dedicated Customer Service Team within DPS.
• The DPS has also worked with community groups across London to make people aware that the professional standards of officers and staff is very important to the MPS so that people can have confidence that complaints will be treated seriously.
• A high proportion of complaints (37%) are resolved locally. Of those requiring an investigation 152 allegations (4%) were found substantiated.
• For an allegation to be substantiated there must be provable misconduct on behalf of the police officer or police staff. Current legislation does not allow an allegation to be ‘upheld’, where the member of public may have been the subject of a failure in service, but there is no misconduct or unsatisfactory performance by a specific police officer or member of staff.
• The IPCC have proposed the introduction of the concept of ‘upholding a meritorious complaint’ even though there may not be sufficient evidence or reason to show misconduct or unsatisfactory performance.
• The IPCC position is based on para. 2.4.7 of the Home Office Guidance which states ‘An investigation into a complaint is not automatically an investigation into whether a police officer or a special constable has breached the standards of professional behaviour but rather an investigation into the circumstances that led to the dissatisfaction being expressed by the complainant of the actions of one or more persons serving with police’. Whilst there would not appear to be any difficulty in recording in a report an explanation as to what is regarded as the service failure it is difficult to see how the Home Office Guidance confers on the IPCC any legal power to make a finding of misconduct outside the regulatory framework. In this regard see the Legal Implications section.

Public Complaints 2009/10 (Appendix 1 – Table 1)

5.

• Please note that the figures contained in Appendix 1 contain Direction & Control matters and complaints ‘not recorded’ under the Police Reform Act 2002 and thus they will differ from the figures quoted by the IPCC.
• The effect of the allegations arising from the G20 demonstrations is being reflected in the figures for the first quarter of 2009/10 with a greater proportion of oppressive behaviour allegations (29%) being recorded compared to the 25% recorded in 2008/08. By the second quarter of 2009/10 oppressive behaviour allegations had settled back to 25.6% although the performance, based on Quarter 1 and 2, indicate that the end of year figures 2009/10 is likely to be greater than the previous year.
• G20 also resulted in an increase in ‘Not Recorded’ allegations in the 1st Quarter 2009/10, representing 10% of the total, completed in the period, compared to 6.4% in 2008/09. Many of the G20 allegations, which were not recorded as a complaint under the Police Reform Act 2002, related to Direction & Control matters.
• Out a total of 289 G20 cases recorded, 73 were purely Direction & Control, approximately 85 cases recorded as complaints contained an element of Direction & Control. The remaining 131 cases were recorded as complaints, without any element of Direction & Control, although 15 of these cases were discovered to relate to officers from other forces.
• There has been reduction in the percentage of allegations Locally Resolved, and a corresponding increase in allegations investigated. In part this is due to Boroughs choosing to undertake ‘proportionate’ investigations, supplying the complainant with an outcome to an investigation letter, rather than pursuing the Local Resolution route.
• There has been an increase in the proportion of Local Resolutions dealt with ‘locally’ (66%) by Boroughs and Business Groups and a corresponding decrease in the proportion of those dealt with by DPS (34%). These accord with the expectations under the ‘Taylor’ reforms.
• Since ‘Taylor’ such changes have played a part in the increase in time taken to complete all cases, rising from a yearly average of 49 days in 2008/09, against a target of 64 working days, to 56 days average for Q1 and Q2 in 2009/10.
• Similarly the time taken to locally resolve an allegation has risen from an average of 38 days in 2008/09, against a 43 working day target, to just over the target with 44 days average in the financial year to date 2009/10.

Professional Standards Support Programme (PSSP)

6. The public complaint data (October 2008 – September 2009), presented in Appendix 2 by Area Command, is used to ascertain which (B)OCUs will receive support. Both the actual volume of allegations and the number per 100 officers are taken into consideration in determining where to direct resources. The current strategic direction for PSSP is professional behaviour – incivility, which has resulted in a reduction in the proportion of allegations of incivility from 19.3% in 2008/09 to an average of 16.5% over the first two quarters of 2009/10.

7. Those highlighted in blue in Appendix 2 have received, or are currently receiving additional support. The remaining Boroughs are all scheduled to receive support during the final quarter of 2009/10.

PSSP Community Engagement Project

8. The DPS Prevention and Reduction Team (PART) has been conducting a PSSP Community Engagement Project that has been delivered in consultation with the relevant Community Partnership lead at the respective Borough

9. The Community Engagement Project serves to increase community confidence by: -

• Advising the meeting that PSSP is being delivered to officers on their Borough and that our officers’ professional standards are important to the MPS.
• Informing the audience as to the wide range of duties our officers face on a daily basis and the many successful police interactions, but acknowledging that sometimes we could do things better.
• Reinforcing that the MPS is a ‘learning organisation’, which is keen to respond to feed back from communities.
• Describing the complaints system and how DPS and the IPCC work in dealing with complaints.

10. To date, DPS has delivered the Community Engagement product to the following: -

• Asian community leaders Independent Advisory Group (IAG) – Greenwich
• Stop & Search Panel - Lambeth Community College
• Muslim elders & youth groups - Waltham Forest
• Racial equalities group - Lewisham

11. The PSSP Community Engagement concept was additionally shown to the MPS Race IAG several months ago and was well received as good practice.

12. The IPCC, Head of London Guardianship, has also attended a PSSP delivery to officers and the Commission is being informed of all DPS Prevention work currently being undertaken.

13. The IPCC Learning Lessons Team and the DPS Prevention Team (Organisational Learning) are in regular contact to ensure that all learning recommendations and good practice are actively implemented into all business areas throughout the MPS.

C. Race and equality impact

1. DPS has contributed fully to the Authorities Race and Faith Enquiry, chaired by Cindy Butts. The DPS Diversity Co-ordinator has attended the enquiry and given evidence.

2. At this stage there does not appear to be a significant impact to race and diversity within the current Professional Standards Performance Indicators; however the PSSP process includes analysis of the demographic information for both complainants and officers/staff.

3. The PSSP has also delivered a community engagement product to a number of minority groups in certain Boroughs.

D. Financial implications

There are no financial implications concerning the Professional Standards Performance Indicators.

E. Legal implications

Under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2008 (‘the Regulations’) misconduct is defined as the breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour. Under the Regulations the ‘appropriate authority’ must make a preliminary assessment as to whether the conduct which is the subject matter of the allegations, if proved, would amount to misconduct or gross misconduct and if they determine that it would amount to neither they may take no action, take management action or refer the matter to be dealt with under the Performance Regulations. Where they determine that misconduct would, if proved, amount to misconduct they must determine whether it is necessary for the matter to be investigated and if they determine that an investigation is not necessary they may take no action or take management action. Where they determine that conduct, if proved, amounts to gross misconduct the matter must be investigated.

Where a matter is investigated and subject to disciplinary proceedings the Misconduct Board or Panel must determine the matter on the civil standard of proof, i.e., whether it is more probable than not that misconduct or gross misconduct occurred.

The report indicates that the IPCC has proposed the introduction of the concept of ‘upholding a meritorious complaint’ even where there may not be sufficient evidence or reason to show misconduct or unsatisfactory performance. Under the current Regulations an allegation or complaint can only be substantiated on the civil standard of proof. If the IPCC are proposing a lower standard of proof it would be necessary to amend the Regulations and to do so it would be necessary to show that any such amendment was a fair and proportionate measure to achieve some legitimate aim.

F. Background papers

• Appendix 1: Table 1 – Public Complaints - Performance to 30 September 2009; Table 2 – Conduct Matters, Misconduct Decisions and External Partners - Performance to 30th September 2009
• Appendix 2: Table 3 – Public Complaints by Area Command by BOCU by Allegation Category – 12 Months to 30/09/2009

G. Contact details

Report author: Michael Clark, Higher Performance Analyst, Directorate of Professional Standards and Clive Chalk, A/Detective Chief Superintendent, Directorate of Professional Standards

For information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback