Hackney Recommendation 61 monitoring group – progress report

Report: 08b
Date: 17 July 2003
By: Clerk

Summary

A local monitoring group, with representation for local authority, community and voluntary organisations in Hackney borough, has been monitoring the implementation of Recommendation 61 (police stops) in Hackney since its implementation on 1 April 2003.

This report outlines the progress that the Group have made to date, and brings to the attention of this Board a number of the issues that the monitoring Group have been considering and outlines the proposed next phase of the work of the group.

A. Recommendations

Members are asked to

1. Note and agree the terms of reference and success measures of the Monitoring Group.
2. Agree the funding proposal for the training and information for the refugee community in Hackney.
3. Note and comment on the issues raised in paragraphs 13–14 concerning the low level of compliance in completing the Rec 61 ‘stops’ form.
4. Agree the proposal outlined in paragraphs 20–22 for the local event to inform the public on the progress of the implementation in Hackney.

B. Supporting information

1. The local Recommendation 61 Monitoring Group has met on 3 occasions since the implementation of the police stop implementation in the borough of Hackney. Peter Herbert, the Deputy Chair of this Board, chairs the group. The group took some time to carefully consider the terms of reference, membership and the measures that it will use to assess and monitoring the success of the police in implementation of this scheme. The terms and reference and measures for success are attached at Appendix 1 and Appendix 2.

Membership of the monitoring group

2. At the onset, the group has tried to ensure that it is representative of the diverse communities in Hackney and can be informed by some of the key agencies such as the Education Learning Trust which has the strategic overview for schools and close links with the Directorate with responsibility for youth initiatives in the Borough.

3. Members will note that the Head of the Hackney Technology & Learning Centre is a member of the group. This membership has proved to be invaluable in ensuring that head teachers and others in the Education Service in Hackney is continuously informed and engaged in the initiative. Schools were informed and subsequently invited to the launch event on 31 March 2003; they are regularly updated on the progress of the scheme and the issues arising from the Monitoring group. During this summer, materials provided by the MPA will be made available to all schools as part of the borough wide summer programme for all children of school age.

4. The Kurdish and Turkish ethnic communities are represented on the Monitoring Group in order to address the key concerns of this community that were brought to the attention of the Authority during the early stage in planning this implementation. These were primarily to do with the high incidents of stop and search and the use of Section 61 in the borough. As many in this community did not have English as their first language, it was felt that there were likely to be issues that may arise for the MPA and MPS particularly with regards to keeping the community informed about their rights.

5. The representatives on the group have proved extremely helpful in promoting the new initiative and advising and assisting the MPA in ensuing that materials are available in the appropriate dialects and languages. This is being progress and they have recently submitted a proposal to undertake a programme of information throughout the summer period. This is attached at Appendix 3. Members are asked to agree the proposal and the funding to carry out this important piece of work.

6. It has proved extremely difficult to identify an organisation to represent the views and interests of the Black African Caribbean Community in Hackney. This is partly due to the local funding arrangement in the Borough. Efforts are continuing to be made in view of the fact that people from this community continue to be over represented in the Hackney stop and search and police stops data. Councillor Julius Nkafu, the local council representative on the group has undertaken to bring this to the councils attention to see what influence, if any, can be brought to address this situation.

7. The Peabody Trust, which provide the young people who participated as speakers in the launch event on 31st March 2003 continue to play an active role on the group and it has been proposed that this organisation be asked to do some specific work with young people in Hackney to inform and update them on the implementation of recommendation 61 as part of their 2003 summer programme. A request for several thousand copies of the ‘Know Your Rights’ leaflets have been ordered so that this material can be widely distributed

Promotion and information

8. The MPS had undertaken to take some responsibility for promoting and publicising the scheme in Hackney as part of the funding received from the Home Office. At the last meeting of the Monitoring Group, however, it was reported that progress in doing this has been hampered due to the funding not being immediately available. The Lead Inspector for this area of work has been asked to look into this as a matter of urgency and to bring this to the attention of the Authority should the problem persist.

Monitoring data

9. The group has considered the April, May to June data from the borough police. This is attached at Appendix 4.

10. The data shows that between 1 May-29 May 2003 369 stops forms were processed. Members will note that although the Black African Caribbean population for Hackney is 24%, the number of Stops for the one-month was over 55% this being the highest proportion of stops for any of the minority ethnic groups in the borough.

11. Significantly one of the next highest recorded data is that for those stopped who refused to define their ethnicity. The police have highlighted this as a problem area in that the current Home Office 16+1 categorisation does not allow subjects to self define as Black British should they wish to do so. The MPS will be taking this up with the Home Office and the MPA will seek the views of the APA and other police authorities on the APA stop and Search sub group to see whether this is a concern that is specific to London or whether the other areas using the 16+1 form are also experiencing the similar difficulties. In view of the fact that the MPS has already set a precedent by varying the 6+1 categorisation on its revised stop and search and stops form, that the EOBD may want to suggest that any further reprints of the form take this revision into consideration.

12. There is also currently no facility on the form for individuals of the Turkish, Kurdish or other significant ethnic minority communities who are stopped to self define and have this recorded on the form. The Monitoring Group has been assured that this will be addressed in future revisions of the form, however, it is unclear about the timescale when this will happen.

13. The MPS have reported that up to 70% of individuals in Hackney are apparently opting not to wait for the stops form because of the time it takes for it to be completed. This has been supported by an internal review conducted by the MPS Internal Consultancy Group.

14. This Board has raised this as a potential area of concern and the MPS had given assurances that this would be addressed through the training programme and other local initiatives. It is evident from the Internal Consultancy report that such a high level of non-compliance is likely to result in effective monitoring of the success of the initiative being extremely difficult. The Monitoring Group has voiced its concerns to the Hackney officers and will be continuing to explore this area at future meetings. If levels of compliance do not improve the Board will want to pursue the issue further.

Future work of the Monitoring Group

15. It is the consensus of the Monitoring Group that the MPA and MPS have not done enough to inform the residents of Hackney about the Recommendation 61. Although the Borough had undertaken to be responsible for the local publicity and promotion of this initiative by using part of the funding it received from the Home Office, it was reported to the last Monitoring Group meeting that the funding was no longer available. The MPS has undertaken to look into this and to inform the Authority should this difficulty persist. At the time of drafting this report further information is still awaited..

16. The Group has suggested that the most urgent need is for a dedicated campaign of information to take place over the summer. A number of initiatives are already planned to take place take place during the summer throughout the borough. It was proposed that the MPA should make available copies of the ‘know your rights’ materials in various community languages so that they can be widely distributed including to the children and young people who attend the summer programmes.

17. The Turkish and Kurdish Community have submitted a proposal to facilitate a series of 5 information workshops throughout the summer to inform the community about issues of stop and search police stops. The total cost for these events, which will be facilitated by the Newham Monitoring Project is £4686. Members’ views are sought on this proposal. If there is support for this initiative, the cost can be met within the current budget.

18. The Peabody Trust will be conducting a series of consultations with youths on the police priorities. It is proposed that part of these events will be to inform and update young people on Recommendation 61 in Hackney. The organisation is likely to submit a separate proposal to monitor the level of knowledge about the scheme. This will be brought to members attention at a subsequent meeting.

Public meeting on September 03

19. An undertaking was given on 1 April at the launch event that the MPA/MPS and local authority would organise a public meeting to inform the community on the progress of the implementation within three months of the start of the initiative.

20. Councillor Julius Nkafu, the Hackney Council Community Safety manager and and MPA officers have met to look how such an event can be organised. It is now proposed that a public meeting be held in September and that this event be used to inform, update and seek the views of the public on their experience of the implementation. A detailed programme has yet to be drafted for consideration by the Monitoring Group and it is planned that the link member Eric Ollerenshaw be asked to represent the MPA at the event which will be held in the afternoon/evening. Subject to members approval, the Monitoring group will progress the planning of this event.

21. The outcomes from this event will give the monitoring group a clearer steer on whether the implementation has had a positive or adverse effect or the communities in Hackney Borough.

C. Equality and diversity implications

The work of the monitoring group in Hackney obeys some of the key requirements of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, it actively involves members of the communities as well as key partners in scrutinising this aspect of the police performance which has traditionally caused significant mistrust. There is a potential that the MPS continued high levels of stops of BME communities in Hackney could be assessed for adverse impact within the general duty of the RRA. The Monitoring Group will be taking specific advice from the CRE on this to inform the next phase of its work in the autumn.

D. Financial implications

The proposed costs associated with this report are:

• £4,686 for the Kurdish and Turkish information workshops and £5,000 for the public meeting to be contained within budget and the additional costs of printing the ‘Know Your Rights’ leaflets.
• The EODB budget included £10,000 in this financial year to meet reasonable costs associated with the implementation of Recommendation 61. The current proposed costs can be contained within budget, should members agree to them going ahead.
• Additionally, the Home Office has indicated that it would be sympathetic to the MPA submitting a budget for funding to support the public information about recommendation 61. A submission will be made to support the work in Hackney and the general publicity to the remaining boroughs in London, subject to members approval.

E. Background papers

None.

F. Contact details

Report author: Julia Smith

For more information contact:

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

Appendix 1: Terms of reference – Hackney recommendation 61 Monitoring Group

1. Background to phased implementation of Recommendation 61

In March 2002, a revised draft Code A, the guidance for police officers on stop and search was issued for consultation. This draft Code included provision for the implementation of Recommendation 61 for stops where the police hold someone to account to be recorded.

In September, the Home Secretary announced that there would be a “phased” implementation of Recommendation 61 in selected sites, to assess the best ways forward in terms of information recording, collation and analysis.

In practice, this means that recording of stops will be introduced in a selected number of areas to assess different approaches and the different ways in which the information is collected and analysed with a view to finding the most effective methodology, including trialling the use of mobile data.

Definition of a stop

Officers must record all stops which fulfil the following definition of a ‘non-statutory encounter’ as set out in the draft Code A: [1]

When an officer requests a person in a public place to account for themselves, i.e. their actions, behaviour, presence in an area or possession of anything, a record of the encounter must be completed at the time and a copy given to the person who has been questioned. (para 4.11)

The recording requirement does not apply to:

• general conversations with members of the public (e.g. giving directions);
• seeking witnesses;
• seeking general information;
• establish background to incidents (involving peacekeeping or resolving disputes);
• traffic stops when a HO/RT1 (‘producer’), Vehicle Defect Rectification Scheme notice (VDRS), or Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) is issued; or
• traffic stops when a breath test is required.

Stops must be recorded at the time of the encounter unless exceptional circumstances make it wholly impracticable (e.g. public order situations or urgent calls for service). If a record is not made at the time, it must be completed as soon as practicable afterwards. Officers should make every reasonable effort to obtain the information necessary to complete a record.

A record of an encounter must always be made whenever a person requests it, regardless of whether it is fulfils the definition of a ‘recordable’ stop.

2. Terms of Reference of the Local Implementation and Monitoring Group

The terms of reference of the Group will be to:

• oversee the development and implementation of the communication and strategy to support the implementation of Recommendation 61, initially in Hackney, and in the other boroughs in the MPS.
• provide overview and scrutiny the implementation and monitor the impact and progress of the scheme in Hackney through the receipt and of local data, reports and presentations
• provide advice, learning to the wider Home Office evaluation of the phased implementation of Recommendation 61 and to support other boroughs selected for implementation of Recommendation 61.
• Request papers, reports and the attendance of MPS and other partners organisation representatives that will support the local implementation
• bring issues to the attention of the MPA Equal Opportunities and Diversity Board, MPA, MPS, Hackney Council and key stakeholders.
• facilitate discussions between the MPA/MPA and community groups and organisations concerning the implementation of Recommendation 61.
• ensure feedback to inform improvements into the MPS Stops and Stop & Search system.

3. General Purpose of Implementation Monitoring Group

The added value of the group will be in focusing upon specific aspects of the implementation being developed by the MPS at corporate and local borough levels and to bring an element of independent ‘reality testing’, objectivity and independent overview of implementation. Additionally, it will:

• monitor implementation of Recommendation 61 (paper based and IT) in the boroughs identified by the MPA and MPS.
• advise on and inform guidance for the promotion and communication of the initiative in the local boroughs as well as Pan London
• develop processes and advice for assessing the impact of the implementation of Rec 61 on local community.
• identify and promote areas of joint working with other agencies to inform the initiative.
• propose areas for reports to the relevant MPA committees.

4. Membership

The membership of the local monitoring group will be drawn from the statutory, voluntary and community organisations in Hackney. As police stops primarily affects young people, a high emphasis will be placed on ensuring young people and or organisations in which young people play a significant role will be representation.

• Safer Communities Executive
• London Borough of Hackney (elected member)
• Learning Trust (LEA)
• Youth Organisation (Peabody Trust)
• Probation Service
• Faith Representative
• MPS Staff Association
• GLA
• MPA
• MPS/BOCU
• APA
• Community Services
• CPCG w/Group
• Race & Equality Council
• Community Voluntary/ Local Organisations – Somalis?

5. Priority issues to be considered at meetings

• Police data on police stops/stops and searches
• Community responses to stops/stops and searches
• MPA/MPS Communication and publicity of recommendation 61
• Complaints to police/through partner organisations
• Impact of use of Section 60 on Rec 61
• Rec 61 impact on role of police officers in schools/ truancy issues

Appendix 2: Phased implementation of recording stops in Hackney: Success measures

Reasons for setting success measures

1. The main aim of phased implementation in Hackney is to help identify the most effective approaches to recording police stops for subsequent implementation across the Police Service in London (and England and Wales).

There are four main reasons for setting success criteria, namely to:

• Reflect the expectations/concerns of different stakeholders in the process (MPA/MPS/local community/young people etc);
• Focus the local monitoring and evaluation on the key outcome measures;
• Help the Communications and Monitoring group make a decision, based on the outcome of local exercises about which approaches to MPA/APA/Home Office
• Provide the opportunity to inform as well as influence the outcomes of further local and the national implementation.

2. Format of success criteria
Whatever the criteria for success are, they need to be specific and measurable (using quantitative and/or qualitative data). Criteria should also be realistic in terms of what can be achieved by the requirement to record stops. For example, it is unlikely that the recording of stops will produce no additional bureaucracy for the police whatsoever, nor is likely that recording will, on its own produce community confidence in policing. Following from this, it is important that the criteria are examined in a balanced, holistic way when the subgroup decides which approaches are most effective. Greater emphasis may, of course, be attached to outcome measures that are considered to be more important.

3. Monitoring data and information
The Communications and Monitoring Group will be responsible for receiving regular data (qualitative and quantitative) and bringing key issues to the attention of the EODB and the Authority. In addition, the monitoring data and performance of the implementation will be regularly reported to the MPA Equal Opportunities and Diversity Board at its bi-monthly committee meetings.

4. Possible success criteria
The following table was developed by the APA and is intended to provide a starting point in determining what the key areas for success are and also in developing related evaluation questions. It will be important to balance these issues against the local operations and issues that will need to be taken into consideration.

6. 2003/04 meeting programme
The implementation and Monitoring Group will have one or two specific themes to consider. These will be dealt with through presentations and discussion, rather than reports. The objectives of the discussion will be to consider arrangements in place, advise on development of the area in question, identify organisational issues and monitor progress on each area of focus.

Appendix 3: Application To MPA for REC 61 Training for Refugee Community Organisations

Aim:

• To provide 5 refugee community organisations with training around the implementation of Recommendation 61 of the McPherson report into the death of Steven Lawrence

Objective

• Run 4 training sessions with 5 volunteers from 5 refugee communities in Hackney
• Run one training session for the communities represented by each of these volunteers
• Produce information leaflets around Rec 61 in 5 community languages
• Develop an action based network from these communities

Background

In April 2003, a pilot project was launched in the London Borough of Hackney compelling the Metropolitan Police to record every stop, and stop and search and issue the person stopped with a receipt outlining why they had been stopped and providing them with information about the stop. This has major implications for the many refugee communities in LB Hackney. There is a need to provide an education programme to these communities explaining what this means and outlining the implications of being stopped and issued with a receipt by the police. This needs to be done in mother tongue, in an environment, and by a training provider that is non-threatening to these communities. It should also be a part of a wider capacity building programme for Refugee Community Organisations to help them deal with racial attacks and complaints about the police. These communities are excluded from many of the mainstream initiatives to deal with these issues. This is an attempt to begin to address some of that exclusion.

Activity

A grant will be paid to each community group to engage the Newham Monitoring Project to deliver three training sessions. The training plan is still in draft form but will contain the elements listed below. 5 volunteers from Somali, Turkish/Kurdish, French Speaking African, Zimbabwean and Eritrean communities will attend each training session. They will contribute to the development of information leaflets for their communities that will be produced during the training and will be available for distribution by the end of the training. They will also help to identify, and take responsibility for getting this information to their communities. They will also arrange sessions to inform their own communities about Rec 61. Each volunteer will be paid for attending the training.

Budget

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback