MPS Disproportionality Sub-Group

Report: 08
Date: 1 May 2003
By: Commissioner

Summary

The London Street Crime Management Board (LSCMB) was established in June 2002 on the direction of the Home Office to tackle street crime by taking a multi agency approach. The aim is to include all the Agencies involved in the whole justice processes of arrest, trial, sentence and finishing with the probation service.

The Disproportionality Sub-Group of the LSCMB is jointly chaired by Lee Jasper of GLA and Commander Cressida Dick of the MPS Diversity Directorate. This report gives an overview of the aims of the Sub-Group as well as how they will be achieved.

A. Recommendation

The Board is asked to note the contents of this report.

B. Supporting information

Overview

1. The Sub-Group has been set up to monitor any disproportionality issues relating to the activities of Agencies involved in achieving the street crime reduction targets and to identify corrective actions required. These aims will be achieved by:

2. Improving data availability:

1. To highlight gaps/inaccuracies in disproportionality data in relation to the criminal justice system
2. To set in train actions to complete/improve the quality of data sets
3. To influence the development of systems so that, where possible, there is consistency of data categories and definitions across the criminal justice system
4. To suggest useful data for developing systems

3. Developing analysis:

1. To examine analysis and prompt further analysis of disproportionality information from across the criminal justice system relating to street and other volume crime
2. Where disproportionality is indicated by the data, to direct/commission research to explore possible reasons and to identify whether this could be considered to be unfair disproportionality. To take into account research already commissioned

4. Prompting action: Where unfair disproportionality is indicated, to raise this with LSCMB and within relevant Agencies, and to suggest appropriate actions to help address this.

5. The priority crime focus of the analysis is street crime, however this is likely to extend to other volume crimes over the lifetime of the Sub-Group. The identification of disproportionality relating to ethnicity will be the primary object of the analysis, however other breakdowns such as age and gender will help to inform this analysis. Similarly, the analysis will initially focus on those committing crime, but it is expected that this work will lead on to analysis involving victims and witnesses of crime

Current progress

6. The full Sub-Group has met three times. The availability and analysis of disproportionality data in the London Criminal Justice Agencies has been discussed. This revealed considerable variation in data availability in the different Agencies. The Agencies that deal directly with individuals appear to have the most comprehensive data compared to those Agencies that are partially dependent on information gathered earlier in the criminal justice process. The lack of data influences the level of analysis that can be carried out. Attached as Appendix 1 is the MPS data for December 2002.

7. The variation in the availability of data has led to the need for the different areas of work identified in the aims of the sub-group to be progressed concurrently. Two separate work areas (Data Development and Data Analysis) have been initiated;

1. Data development
   The initial stages of this work falls into two areas:
   • Gaining a more detailed understanding of what data is currently, or can be, made available from the different agencies
   • For those agencies where the completeness of their data is partially reliant on earlier stages in the criminal justice process, what actions can be taken in the short term to improve the quality of that data?
2. Data analysis
   This first stage of this work is the development of a research strategy that identifies what relevant activities have been or are being carried out and available analysis. This includes published research and analysis local to individual Agencies.

8. In order to gain a greater understanding of what data is currently, or can be, made available from the different agencies around monitoring disproportionality at the key decision points in processes, all members have agreed to provide other agencies with a document mapping out their key processes within the criminal justice system with:

• Key stages;
• What ethnic monitoring is done at each stage;
• What happens to the information;
• What data is used to monitor disproportionality at key points?

9. This mapping of processes, monitoring arrangements and data by each agency involved in the sub-group will enable future analysis of where disproportionality exists in the criminal justice system and then allow the Sub-Group to focus attention on the most relevant areas and commission research appropriately. The group has also commenced to monitor the compliance with 16+1 self-defined ethnicity data after implementation on 1 April 2003.

10. As there are other similar groups in London looking at disproportionality issues (such as the London Race Issues Group) this sub-group intends that its programme of work complements and feeds into work already being carried out in order to prevent duplication. Arrangements have been made to meet with other interested groups to discuss the need for a London Joint Criminal Justice Strategy for dealing with race issues. Furthermore, the Sub-Group would look to support the work of the newly created Home Office Race and Criminal Justice Unit and to keep the Unit apprised of its work plans as outlined above.

Fair practise monitoring

11. In Autumn 2000 the Diversity Forum, chaired by the Director of the Diversity Directorate DAC Grieve, established several working groups, including Fair Practice (External). This working group was to develop a mechanism to facilitate, at a borough level, the identification and monitoring of disproportionality in service delivery, and the implementation of remedial measures. The aim was to produce:

1. A package that each borough will use to monitor and evaluate fairness in delivering key policing services. This package will provide guidance on:
   • Data harvesting
   • 1st level analysis to identify possible disproportionality
   • Drilling down into problem areas
   • Addressing causes
   • Feedback to staff, the community and the MPS
2. An infrastructure that will provide easy access by boroughs to required data
3. A central monitoring and evaluative mechanism

12. There is an increasing requirement for the Metropolitan Police Service to monitor its processes and practices for disproportionality, as exemplified in the following strategic drivers:

Race Relations (Amendment) Act

13. The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 strengthens and extends the 1976 Act, without replacing it. There are two major changes:

• Extension of protection against discrimination by public authorities.
  This prohibits discrimination, making it unlawful for a public authority to discriminate on racial grounds – either directly, indirectly or by victimisation, in carrying out any of its functions
• Placing a new, enforceable positive duty on public authorities.
  This aspect tackles institutional racism in public authorities. There is a General Duty requiring public authorities listed in the Act to have due regard to eliminating unlawful discrimination and promoting equality of opportunity and good race relations between persons of different racial groups when performing their functions.

Ministerial priority for 2002-2003

14. To reduce the fear of crime in all sections of the community and in particular to increase the trust and confidence in policing amongst minority ethnic communities.

MPS Diversity Strategy Action Plan 2001- 2003

15. A key aim of the Action Plan for 2001-2003 is to improve the way we work in partnership with the public. Two strategies for achieving this aim are:

1. Taking diversity forward through leadership.
   To use a database of ‘Fairness Health Check’ indicators to monitor how officers use police powers, including Stop and Search
2. Challenging process and procedures.
   To ensure all police policies and practices comply with the Race Relations (Amendment) Act

MPA

16. The MPA Equal Opportunities and Diversity Board leads for the MPA on all issues relating to equal opportunities and diversity within the MPA and the MPS. Two key responsibilities of the Board are to monitor the MPS response to the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 Review and interrogate MPS performance data on diversity issues, particularly with regard to stop and search.

Home Office

17. Publication of the Section 95 CJA 1991 data, including the 2001-2002 stop and search figures. The report, Race and the Criminal Justice System, emphasises the need to develop a better understanding of the scale and causes of the under and over-representative of people from minority ethnic communities in the criminal justice system.

The process

18. The Metropolitan Police Service is committed to providing a fair policing service to all members of London’s communities, based on their trust, confidence and support. As a demonstration of this commitment the MPS is determined to identify, investigate and explain disproportionality in the delivery of key policing services. Whilst disproportionality between different ethnic groups is of fundamental importance to public confidence, the MPS is also interested in examining disproportionality between genders and across age groups. The table below shows the different categories that will be subject to scrutiny.

Ethnic group

White
Black
Asian
Other
Unknown

Gender

Male
Female

Age

Under 10
10-17
18-25
26-35
36-45
46-64
Over 65

The four key areas selected for scrutiny are:

• Stop and search
• Total Notifiable Offences screened in and detected
• The case disposal decisions for all arrests and specifically for arrests resulting from stop and searches
• Complaints against police

19. The Deputy Commissioner has committed the MPS to a consistent programme of identifying, monitoring and analysing differences, using the ACPO definition of disproportionality and unfairness. Disproportionality is defined as a difference in policing outcome between different groups and is an indication, but not necessarily proof, of unfairness. Disproportionality raises concerns and must be investigated and explained: in the absence of an explanation of disproportionality, unfairness may reasonably be inferred. This will be carried out by a phased approach, and boroughs were required to start by examining stop and search.

20. The Fair Practice Monitoring Group Diversity, chaired by Chief Superintendent Jarman, has the lead both for the development of comprehensive analytical guidance for BOCUs and for putting in place a central mechanism, which will support boroughs and provide corporate analysis for the Deputy Commissioner.

21. In December 2002 borough commanders were asked to submit, by 31 January, a one-page report covering:

• Any disproportionality (as defined by ACPO) identified in their use of stop and search, based on stop and search figures for October to December 2002, by ethnicity, gender and age compared with the borough population. Stop and searches carried out under Section 60 CJPO Act and S44 Prevention of Terrorism Act were not included in the data
• An explanation of any disproportionality so identified
• Any action being taken to address any unfairness

22. PIB publish monthly the stop and search figures for each borough, differentiated by ethnicity, gender and age. The chart compares each category as a percentage of the total of stop and searches with the borough population. It is recognised that there are weaknesses in this method of comparison, but we need to acknowledge:

• That there is no other consistent measure of comparison currently available
• That we are likely to be judged by others using borough population figures

23. It was emphasised to the boroughs that no assumptions should be made, for example that the discrepancy between male and female stop and search figures are what one would expect. Like disproportionality between ethnic groups, enquiry needs to be made as to why such disproportionality exists.

Other areas of key service delivery

24. It is intended to introduce a similar requirement of boroughs as regards the other three service delivery areas - Total Notifiable Offences screened in and detected, case disposal and complaints against police - once that:

• Boroughs have gained experience in explaining disproportionality in the use of stop and search,
• PIB and the Directorate of Professional Standards have developed centrally available statistics, and
• The MPS Fair Practice Monitoring Group have developed guidance for boroughs on analysis, as above

Central analysis

25. The MPS is now developing a central analytical mechanism, which will be charged with:

• Providing a consultative service to boroughs
• Providing a quality control function
• Identifying good practice
• Disseminating good practice to boroughs
• Provide feedback to boroughs
• Providing the Deputy Commissioner with a summary of borough reports

Submissions

26. Submissions were received from all boroughs in January 2003. The main reasons given for disproportionality in the activity of stop and search are broadly similar for most of the boroughs across the MPS. Some of the explanations given by boroughs are:

• All boroughs agreed that, using the ACPO definition and the borough population figures (1991 census), their stop and search figures were disproportionate.
• Every borough identified that the borough population figures (1991 census) were inaccurate and misleading. PIB are now in possession of the 2001 census data, and will now be able to use it for the stop and search data collected after 1 April 2003 as the census 2001 data is collected in the 16+1 self-defined ethnicity format.
• There was consensus that even if borough population figures were accurate, the comparison between stop and search figures and the resident population will not assist in determining fairness.
• Street population was felt to be a far more appropriate comparative measure. Firstly, that the areas where stop and search activity was focused had a higher concentration of black and Asian people.
• At certain times of the day there was a major influx of visible ethnic minority people into the borough because of places of entertainment, worship, educational establishments and employment
• The majority of boroughs suggested a correlation between suspects for crime, predominantly street crime offences, and the stop and search profile. This was linked with intelligence-led policing.
• All boroughs said although there was disproportionality in the activity of stop and search in terms of age, gender and ethnicity, they did not believe the activity was unfair.

Next steps

27. Work has commenced on developing a template to provide boroughs with a structured means of enquiring into their use of stop and search to a consistent corporate standard. As the boroughs were asked to present their submissions in a one-page format, this did not provide the opportunity to evidence the explanations for disproportionality. The template consisting of several questions will address the direction and effectiveness of the activity, as well as questions on consultation and training. This will enable the boroughs to provide evidence for the explanation for any disproportionality in a corporate fashion, it will also enable the MPS to identify and promulgate good practice

• Boroughs are being asked to submit a report covering any disproportionality identifying in their use of stop and search, based on stop and search figures for January to March 2003, by ethnicity, gender and age compared with the borough population. Stop and searches carried out under Section 60 CJPO Act and S44 Prevention of Terrorism Act were not included in the data
• An explanation of any disproportionality so identified
• Any action being taken to address any unfairness

Street population

28. Analysis of disproportionality in stop and search is centred on comparing the number of searches per resident population across ethnic groups. This raises the concern that searches per resident population are painting a distorted picture of disproportionality in the use of stop and search.

29. A project is being progressed in conjunction with the Home Office to develop a method for estimating street population that can be used throughout the MPS. In addition to independent street surveys being commissioned in a pilot borough (possibly Hackney) the opportunity to utilise CCTV is also being explored.

30. The project will:

• Develop an MPS approach to the estimation of street population throughout the service. MPS will commission an external agency to carry out the work
• Build on work carried out by Home Office and other forces
• Provide street population broken down by ethnicity (possibly age and gender)
• Be auditable and provide proof against external challenges of bias
• Provide a stable basis for future analyses of stop and stop and search

31. Development work is still continuing for the other subjects of complaints against police, screening-in and detection of total notifiable offences and case disposal decisions for all arrests. All of the IT systems and forms are 16+1 (self-defined ethnicity) compliant. It was implemented across the MPS on 1 April 2003, therefore stop and search activity will be recorded in the 16+1 format as from that day onwards. It will be possible to use the Census 2001 data for comparison with any stop and search data collected after 1 April 2003

C. Equality and diversity implications

There is a lack of confidence in the criminal justice system, particularly among minority ethnic communities in relation to stop/search activity. The work carried out by the Disproportionality sub-group and the Fair Practice group will assist the MPS to monitor the treatment of different ethnic groups in order to improve the service we provide. MPS must be able to demonstrate that boroughs are measuring and addressing, in a consistent manner, fairness in the delivery of key policing services. Under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, the police service and its individual members become liable for any racially discriminatory acts they may commit. This work will assist the effort to increase the trust and confidence in policing amongst minority ethnic communities.

D. Financial implications

There are no additional financial implications.

E. Background papers

None.

F. Contact details

Report author: Detective Inspector Manpreet Bains

For more information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback