Review of Independent Custody Visiting administration arrangements

Report: 5
Date: 6 July 2006
By: Chief Executive and Clerk

Summary

This report recommends that the MPA should to assume direct responsibility for the administration of the Independent Custody Visiting (ICV) Scheme. This would enable the Authority to achieve and demonstrate proper compliance with its statutory responsibilities and to manage the scheme effectively.

A. Recommendations

That

1. Members agree the proposal to remodel the administration of Independent Custody Visiting in London.
2. the timescale proposed for these changes be agreed.

B. Supporting information

1. In essence, the proposal is for the MPA to directly carry out the administration of the Independent Custody Visiting scheme including local panels. This would mean a move away from the existing structure of 32 local part-time panel secretaries, who although funded by, are not accountable to the MPA. This proposal is to replace the existing arrangements with a core team of 8 permanent full-time MPA staff.

2. Those staff would each be responsible for providing day to day administrative support to a number of Panels (not more than 4 per staff member) and would also have shared pan-London responsibilities for marketing, recruitment, training, dissemination of information; and for developing the scheme as a whole. They would be expected to monitor the performance of their Panels and to support and work closely with Panel Chairs to ensure that the Panel is effectively led. Staff would receive appropriate training, meet regularly with each other to share and develop best practice, and would provide a more flexible resource thorough being able to cover each other’s work where necessary.

3. Panels would continue to exist on a borough level, as they do currently. Local relationships would be enhanced through ICV staff liaising with MPA colleagues responsible for local partnership activity and borough level community engagement, so that the work of the ICVs can be effectively integrated into all the other aspects of MPA and community involvement with local policing. The proposal would have the added benefits of enabling the MPA to play a more strategic role in addressing issues raised by ICVs both locally and on a pan-London basis, and in making the MPA’s scrutiny role in relation to the Police more visible.

4. The contribution that volunteers make to custody visiting in London is huge and the MPA has not to date done enough to recognise, appreciate or develop this. Having a central team of staff working closely with Panels would enable to MPA to strengthen the volunteer base and ensure that volunteers are properly supported, recognised and rewarded for their efforts. The Authority would also have the opportunity to raise the status and visibility of the ICV Scheme across London and to undertake effective branding, which would also serve to increase the profile of the scheme.

5. Essentially, the proposal would enable the MPA to take proper ownership of the scheme for the first time, meet it’s statutory requirements, raise standards, build good practice and ensure a consistent approach to custody visiting across London – ultimately benefiting detainees as well as ICVs.

History and background of Custody Visiting in London

6. Independent Custody Visiting developed out of recommendations made in the Scarman report in 1981, following riots in Brixton and other parts of the country. A system of ‘lay visitors’ was established to check on the welfare of people held in police custody and to offer community reassurance. Lay visiting schemes were established in several London boroughs at this time. Those schemes were overseen by the Home Office and, latterly, the Metropolitan Police Committee as the precursor of the MPA.

7. The MPA became responsible for the ICV scheme in 2000, by which time there was a scheme operating in almost every London borough. In 2002, under s51 of the Police Reform Act 2002, Independent Custody Visiting became a direct statutory responsibility of Police Authorities. Under the legislation, Police Authorities have a duty to operate effective Custody Visiting schemes and their schemes must comply with a Home Office Code of Practice and National Standards.

8. Custody Visiting in London developed organically and was already well established when the MPA assumed responsibility for it in 2000. Custody Visiting Panels had been accustomed to functioning autonomously and the MPA for its part was slow to address the need to manage the disparate local schemes as an entity. Attempts by the MPA to standardise processes and rationalise administration to achieve greater uniformity were not always well thought out or executed, and in many cases not followed through. The Authority has not, until recently, taken a hard critical look at the structure it inherited for the scheme, nor has it fully addressed its statutory responsibilities for the scheme.

9. Along with the variety of administrative structures of ICV Panels, the MPA also inherited the funding anomalies that had been established. Panels all perform the same function, though there is a variance in numbers of stations and cells that Panels have responsibility for. This variance however cannot begin to account for the considerable financial discrepancies in how Panels are currently funded. The tradition of ‘grant funding’ Panels, has itself further promoted Panels’ perception of autonomy and independence from the MPA. This in turn has tended to foster an ’arms length’ relationship between the MPA and custody visitors, which has hindered the Authority’s capacity to ensure a consistent and uniform level of service across London.

10. In 2004 the MPA recognised that the scheme in London was in need of overhaul and reform, and that the MPA itself needed to raise its game to provide effective support to ICVs. The Authority commissioned Ian Smith, also Chief Executive of the Independent Custody Visiting Association (ICVA), to conduct an independent review of the London Custody Visiting Scheme. His report was presented to the Authority in November 2004.

11. The report found that, among other things, the MPA:

• Inherited an ineffective, inefficient service provision
• Is not meeting its statutory requirements as outlined in the Police Reform Act 2002, Paragraph 51
• Does not have a clear stated purpose or development strategy for independent custody visiting and therefore cannot use resources effectively or efficiently and cannot perform to its potential
• Is not represented in selection and appointment process for independent custody visitors (p.21)

Appendix 1 contains an extract from the report, entitled ‘Consultant led findings’. This details the areas that the MPA needs to improve in order to have an effective scheme, and one which is not in breach of requirements. The full report can be found on the MPA website at: www.mpa.gov.uk/downloads/committees/x-ce/ce-050203-05-appendix01.pdf

12. The report proposed that developing a new structure of centralised administration was essential, if the MPA was to address its short-comings in relation to statutory requirements and providing leadership. The report proposed that there should be 5 Scheme Co-ordinators and a Scheme Manager, employed by the MPA.

13. The Report was considered by the Community Engagement Committee in February 2005, and after hearing from the consultant and the representatives of ICV’s in London, the Committee resolved as follows:

1. the Committee, having regard to the MPA’s responsibilities for Independent Custody Visiting in accordance with the Police Reform Act 2002, paragraph 51, welcomed the findings of the Review undertaken by Ian Smith;
2. members supported a programme of action and reform drawing upon the findings of the Review of ICVPs undertaken by Ian Smith by which the MPA is able to fulfil its statutory responsibilities in ensuring a consistent and effective custody visiting service in London;
3. officers continue to consult closely with the Chairs, volunteers and administrators of the local Panels across London in the development and implementation of this programme of reform; and
4. the Deputy Clerk establish a London ICV Programme Board with responsibility to oversee the reform process as well as provide an ongoing oversight body of the ICV service, reporting to the Community Engagement Committee.

13 Ian Smith’s recommendations received a robust reaction from ICVs, who felt that the proposed changes would represent a loss of autonomy. They also lacked confidence in the feasibility of the recommendations to deliver an effective support structure for London. Given the negative response from ICVs, it was decided to take a measured approach to implementation and to seek to develop a comprehensive reform programme in consultation with ICVs through the Programme Board. The first key step of this process was to recruit a Scheme Manager who could take the lead on the future development of the scheme.

14. It is now 18 months since the Authority received this report and decided on a programme of reform to meet the recommendations. Steps have been taken to address many of the issues highlighted. A Scheme Manager was recruited and started in November 2005. Two Scheme Co-ordinators have been recruited, with the second Co-ordinator in place as of June 2006. The Scheme Manager has developed a Memorandum of Understanding for ICVs and policies around grievance, conduct, performance and expenses. A database is being used to hold details of all visitors and to extract information from visit report forms. (This is an important step towards enabling the MPA to use the outcome of visiting to hold the MPS to account and influence policing policy and practice). All ICVs are now being vetted centrally and have a uniform pass. However the existing structural arrangements makes progress frustratingly slow for all concerned.

15. In early 2006 the Deputy Chief Executive and the MPA Lead Member on ICVs decided that it was time to take more active steps towards the model recommended by Ian Smith in his independent review. A further internal review of the options for administration of the scheme was launched. This review is attached as Appendix 2. The conclusion of this review was that the MPA should implement a system of centralised administration, employing 8 full-time Co-ordinators responsible for 4 Panels each, overseen by the Scheme Manager. It was felt that the increase in number from the recommendation in Ian Smith’s report was necessary to adequately manage the service in London, taking into account visit volume, and geographical constraints.

16. Meanwhile, the Authority remains in breach of its statutory responsibilities in relation the scheme. In order to meet those responsibilities in full, there is a need to restructure the way in which the scheme operates and for the Authority to move decisively to a ‘management’ role in relation to the ICV scheme, in line with the legislation and the original recommendation of Ian Smith’s report.

17. Centralising the administration of the scheme, through appointing a team of MPA Co-ordinators to provide administrative support to Panels, monitor performance, market, recruit and train ICVs would enable the Authority to achieve this critical shift.

Benchmarking

18. From 2002, all Police Authorities have statutory responsibility for Custody Visiting. The MPA is the largest Police Authority and as such, has the opportunity to lead independent custody visiting provision in the UK.

19. The majority of Custody Visiting Schemes around the UK follow a similar model in terms of how they are organised. Typically, a Scheme Administrator, employed by the Police Authority, supports the scheme. Schemes are organised into Panels or Divisions of Custody Visitors, with an ICV acting as Chair (or Co-ordinator, as they are more commonly called) of each Panel/Division.

20. In the majority of Custody Visiting Schemes the Police Authority play a significant role in the management of schemes. This enables Authorities to ensure that they are meeting their statutory responsibilities. For example, common practice would include:

• Police Authority advertises for volunteers.
• Police Authority holds open information evenings on ICV.
• Interested members of the public attend and complete an application form.
• Police Authority assesses the application form, and if suitable, arranges an interview and takes up references.
• Police Authority Members and/or staff participate on a Panel to interview volunteers.
• Police Authority organises basic training and interviewed volunteers attend – usually staff deliver training and/or attend to assess volunteers on the day.
• Training forms part of the selection process.
• Police Authority informs successful volunteers and starts vetting process.
• Police Authority allocates volunteer to a ‘Panel’, Panel Chair/Co-ordinator supports the volunteer through an induction process.
• Police Authority staff attend all Panel meetings and have a role in liaising with the Police.
• Police Authority staff in consultation with Chair/Co-ordinator of Panel meets with new ICVs at the end of 6 months to assess their performance and accredit them for 3 years if successful.
• Police Authority staff involved in the 3 year accreditation review meeting.
• Police Authority liaises with the Police over issues raised as a result of visits.

21. At the present time in London, Panels advertise, recruit and interview locally. Panel practices around these processes vary considerably, so no consistent message about volunteering as an ICV in London is being presented. The MPA relies on Panels to inform them that there is a new volunteer. The MPA then facilitates vetting. Induction processes vary considerably. The volunteer is supposed to attend training in their first 6 months, not all do. Initial training for newly appointed visitors to panels is delivered by an ICV who is a trainer, but there is no formal MPA input or assessment. The MPA plays no other role with individual volunteers, other than to formally accredit them, once their vetting comes through. Some Panels operate probationary periods and some do not. Accreditation is automatically renewed if people want to stay. There is no MPA attendance at Panel meetings and the MPA rarely liaises with the Police over local issues identified by ICVs.

22. Whilst it is true that London is unique in many ways and it can be difficult to make direct comparisons with other parts of the country, there are some key fundamentals that can be transferred through expanding the model used very successfully by other Authorities. It is important that the scheme is benchmarked. Issues of scale, geography, throughput and category of detainees should not be seen as rationale for the Authority to retain the current devolved relationship with Panels. The proposed model, with 8 Co-ordinators, takes these factors into account.

23. The leadership of the Chair is crucial to the performance of the Panel and as such, needs to be better resourced and supported by the MPA. Under existing arrangements, Chairs of ICV Panels are elected independently by their Panel. There is no input, support or training provided by the MPA on how to perform the role or what the standards or expectations are on Chairs.

24. As is the case in other Police Authorities, Panel Chairs for the London ICV Scheme need to receive a role description and specialised training to enable them to perform their role effectively. Chairs should be afforded the opportunity to gain a broad knowledge of wider criminal justice issues that may impact on detainees, in order to provide sound stewardship and guidance to their Panel members. They also need to be able to develop a positive relationship with the MPA and to work closely with MPA staff to ensure performance and standards are achieved. The proposals for centralised administration, with MPA staff each responsible for a small cluster of Panels, would enable this to happen.

25. The Home Office until recently has left Police Authorities to manage their schemes as they see fit. But it is likely that a more rigorous monitoring process will emerge, as the Home Office is proposing to commission ICVA to undertake a series of ‘Health Checks’ of Police Authority ICV Schemes.

Consultation process

26. The MPA began an internal review of administration in early 2006. An update was presented to the ICV Programme Board in February. The Programme Board is a steering group set up to oversee the original review process (following the report from Ian Smith). It consists of MPA officers, 4 elected ICV representatives and representatives from the Emerald Custody Directorate and is chaired by the MPA Lead Member for the ICV Service (initially Aneeta Prem and now John Roberts).

27. The full findings of this review (Appendix 2), were presented to the Programme Board on 11 May.

28. The 4 ICV Programme Board representatives did not support the findings of the internal review, criticising the proposals for not presenting a governance model; ignoring work done by the ICV representatives on costings and number of staff required (Appendix 5); failing to recognise the borough based future of policing; and risking losing good existing administrators.

29. MPA officers and the Lead Member remain convinced that implementing a new model of administration is central to carrying forward the reform of the scheme as outlined in Ian Smith’s review and that the existing proposals are robust and workable.

30. Following the Programme Board meeting, on 15 of May a letter and a copy of the internal review was sent to all ICVs individually. ICVs were asked for their thoughts and comments on the review recommendations and were given until 30th June to respond. A summary of responses received to date will be sent subsequently as Appendix 4. A folder containing individual responses will be placed in the members room.

31. All current panel secretaries were written to at the same time and were assured if Members ratified the proposals, individual consultations would take place with them (and their employers, where appropriate).

32. On 26 May a further meeting took place between the Chair of the Authority and the 4 ICV Programme Board representatives to discuss the proposals. During this meeting the ICV Programme Board representatives had the opportunity to share their concerns over the proposals with the Chair of the Authority. Subsequently a letter went from the Chair to the lead representative, outlining what had been discussed and further addressing the points raised in the meeting. A copy of the Chair’s letter is included in Appendix 3.

33. A follow up meeting with the Chair of the Authority and the 4 ICV Programme Board representatives is scheduled to take place on 29 June.

34. A formal submission from the ICV Programme Board representatives on this proposal is included at Appendix 6.

35. If members ratify the proposals on the 6 July, detailed consultation and negotiation will begin with all panel secretaries and an action plan will be developed to map out the change process and timescales.

36. It is possible that some of the existing part time panel secretaries may be covered by TUPE such that they will transfer to the Authority’s employment. It seems likely that only a small number of the administrators will be in scope of TUPE, and this will become clearer once detailed consultation commences. It is also intended that some of the roles in the new central team could be ring fenced initially, to allow for existing panel secretaries who may be interested in applying.

37. The MPA has discussed this report and the proposal to change the structure of the scheme in London with the Home Office. The Home Office indicated its support in principle to the proposal and welcomed the pro-active approach of the MPA to ensure that resources were more effectively targeted at improving custody visiting and, thereby, standards of custody. The proposed approach is consistent with national direction on raising both the profile of and contribution from custody visitors.

Change management

38. The proposed changes to the structure of the London ICV Scheme are unpopular amongst some independent custody visitors. A summary of comments from ICVs can be found in Appendix 3. There is a widespread misperception that ICVs will lose their autonomy and independence. The report by Ian Smith highlighted the fact that there was confusion over the word ‘independence’ in light of the statutory obligations on police authorities to ‘manage’ schemes. His view was that in London this has been ‘exacerbated by a lack of leadership, management, operating guidelines and volunteer policies/contracts’. He suggested that whilst many London ICVs argue that they need to be ‘independent’ from the Police Authority, a more appropriate interpretation of this is that ‘the visitors are selected because they are independent community members at the time of recruitment, but must operate inter-dependently with the MPA and MPS to facilitate the actual process’ (p21)

39. One result of the history of the MPA’s relationship with custody visitors since 2000 is that there is divide between the MPA and the volunteers and a pervasive attitude of ‘us vs them’ being perpetuated. . Panels have been allowed to continue to develop autonomously and in isolation from the MPA, furthering this divide.

40. Changing some of the negative attitudes towards the MPA on the part of ICVs is a challenge that the Authority needs to meet decisively, through taking ownership of the scheme. The current structure of 32 Panels, each supported by a part-time local panel secretary, does not allow the MPA to build an ‘MPA Custody Visiting Scheme’. Instead it fosters and perpetuates a culture of pseudo autonomy and independence (from the MPA) in each borough, leaving the MPA to ‘support’ the functioning of 32 individual panels, rather than developing and ‘managing’ the ‘MPA ICV Scheme’.

Compliance with Home Office requirements

41. The Police Reform Act 2002 and the Codes of Practice governing Custody Visiting place an obligation on Police Authorities to assume a direct, active involvement in their Independent Custody Visiting Scheme.

42. Appendix 2, the Internal Administrative Review, pages 4-6, covers the main areas where the MPA is currently in breach of its statutory responsibilities. Perhaps the gravest area of concern is recruitment, where the MPA is completely in breach of requirements, as there is no meaningful involvement in recruitment, interview, selection or review of volunteers. That the Authority has assumed legal responsibility for 450+ volunteers whom it has had no hand in selecting is a concerning and potentially dangerous situation in terms of insurance and liability.

43. The necessary reform of the scheme is not possible without changing the existing structure for governance and administration. The ICV Scheme Manager has made some progress in addressing areas of concern, but without the reforms recommended in this report, the Authority will be limited in what it can do in adequately meeting statutory requirements around issues such as recruitment, selection, performance etc.

Timescale

44. If Members agree the proposals the new structure should be in place at the start of the financial year 2007/08. Detailed individual consultation with existing administrators should begin in July 2006 and recruitment process should start in September 2006. It is hoped that it will be possible to arrange for staff to start together, so that once they have been appointed and cleared, an intensive induction and training process can be undertaken to ensure that they are fully equipped and trained for their role.

45. Ian Smith’s recommendations were published in November 2004 and an agenda of change has been on the table from this point. MPA Officers see no benefit in the Authority delaying taking ownership of the scheme any further or extending the timescale for these changes.

Impact assessment

46. There are several significant likely impacts of a decision by Members to centralise the administration of the ICV Scheme.

47. The MPA currently provides funding for local panel secretaries to administer each Panel across London. A number of panel secretaries are Local Authority employees and some are also responsible for administrative work on behalf of the CPCG in their borough. It is possible that under new arrangements, some of these employees would transfer automatically to the MPA under TUPE. As the majority of panel secretaries work for a small number of hours to support the ICV Scheme, it is unlikely that redundancy will be a significant issue. However Members need to be aware that supporting the proposals will have an impact on people’s jobs. The MPA will seek to work with local partners to manage these impacts in a fair and sympathetic way.

48. It is possible that there may be resignations from amongst current ICVs if Members agree these proposals. If this were to happen there would undoubtedly be a period in which the MPA’s ability to ensure that custody visiting was taking place would be hampered and the service might deteriorate in some boroughs. Clearly this would be undesirable, however if it does arise, the MPA will be in a position to publicly display its intention to take ownership and to effectively manage the scheme. The Authority would be able to: implement appropriate structures, policies, practices and guidelines required for effectively managing the scheme before recruiting new ICVs; ensure the full ‘sign up’, co-operation and compliance of existing ICVs to the ‘new’ scheme; establish a more appropriate professional relationship between the MPA and ICVs from the outset.

49. Conversely, if Members do not agree the proposals, the MPA will continue to struggle to meet the requirements of the statutory Code, and to build a purposeful new working relationship with ICV’s.

Conclusion

50. Change to the ICV Scheme of this nature and magnitude will have a significant impact on custody visiting in London. The MPA has the obligation, and the opportunity, to build an efficient and effective Custody Visiting scheme – a scheme that is in line with Home Office guidance around Custody Visiting - that shares structures and practices with other schemes, and that has the potential to become a centre of excellence.

C. Race and equality impact

1. The impact of these changes on race and equality would be positive. The proposed model of administration would enable MPA officers to be involved in the recruitment and selection of volunteers. This would mean that MPA equal opportunity policies were adhered to throughout this process and that relevant statistics were collated on the make up of potential and actual ICVs. It would also enable the MPA to standardise the interview process, ensuring that all Panels addressed questions of equality as part of the interview with perspective candidates.

2. Economies of scale would mean that the core staff team could pool resources in advertising for new ICVs and alongside local recruitment. This has the potential to greatly broaden where and how opportunities are advertised across London, enabling the scheme to reach a much wider and more diverse audience.

3. MPA staff would have a responsibility to ensure that as far as possible, Panels reflect the make up of the community in which they operate. Whilst we currently ask Panels to try to achieve this, there are some Panels that are very homogenous and do not successfully reach out to other communities in their area. This is something that the MPA would be able to challenge in future.

4. Under the new proposals, MPA staff would be involved in delivering training for ICVs and as with recruitment, would be able to ensure that equal opportunity policies were adhered to and issues of equality and diversity were consistently addressed as part of the training.

5. The consultant’s review highlighted the need to ensure that the London ICV Scheme was more diverse and more effectively represented the communities that it served. He also recommended that the MPA institute specialist cultural awareness and diversity training for ICVs. This is done in other Police Authorities and both actions would be significantly easier to achieve and implement under the proposed new arrangements.

6. Effective information gathering about visiting, made possible through a unified team and standard systems, will enable the MPA better to identify and address with the MPS issues affecting the treatment of minority groups as detainees and to secure fairer services.

D. Financial implications

1. Currently the MPA gives ICV Panels grants to enable them to operate. Panels use this funding to pay for administrative support, volunteer expenses, recruitment materials, advertising, meeting rooms etc. As mentioned in 2.3, this arrangement helps to perpetuate an unhelpful relationship of distance and autonomy between Panels and the MPA. It is also manifestly unequal in that there is little apparent rationale behind the varying allocations.

2. The budget for the ICV Scheme has been developed incrementally for a number of years, based on historic and in many cases anomalous allocations. In 2006-07 a fundamental review of the requirement led by the ICV Scheme Manager has now established a reasonable operating budget of £451,000, which will allow the scheme to operate more effectively and start to develop.

3. More information on how Panels are currently funded is available in Appendix 2 (p.7). Some initial costings of the proposed changes can also be found in this document (p.12). Centralised administration will be a more cost effective option in the long run as the MPA will be able to benefit from economies of scale.

4. It is envisaged that the core costs of the new structure can be met from within the existing ICV budget allocation. With the new proposals, initial operating costs for the Authority may increase, as there may be a brief period of time where existing and new arrangements necessarily overlap. Funding will be reviewed and any significant deviations from the proposed operating budget will be reported back to COP. The potential long-term financial benefits of having a better-managed, safer scheme easily out way any short-term increase in costs that may occur.

E. Background papers

• Appendix 1 – Consultant led findings – extract from the review of the London Custody visiting Scheme by Ian Smith
• Appendix 2 – MPA Internal Review of ICV administration by John May
• Appendix 3 – Chairs response to ICV Programme Board representatives
• Appendix 4 – Summary of comments received from ICVs as part of the consultation on the review.
• Appendix 5 - Papers produced by ICV Programme Board representatives –‘ICV Panel Administration - areas for costing and decision’ and ‘Framework for Change’
• Appendix 6 – Formal response to the proposals by ICV Programme Board representatives – ‘ Improving Custody Visiting in London’

F. Contact details

Report author: David Riddle, Deputy Chief Executive and Kerry McClelland, ICV Scheme Manager, MPA.

For more information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback