Review of progress report relating to agreed outcomes of Morris, Taylor, Commission for Racial Equality and Ghaffur reports as it relates to Professional Standards

Report: 08a
Date: 6 October 2005
By: Chief Executive and Clerk

Summary

The purpose of this paper is to outline some of the key challenges and concerns from a range of equality and diversity perspectives as it relates to professional standards within the MPS.

A. Recommendations

That members agree:

1. To review progress across the four key headings outlined in sections 2 - 5 of the Report within the next six months.
2. To invite DPS to use the questions as outlined in Appendix 1 as a basis for quality assuring existing policies, procedures and practices.
3. To receive a report that demonstrates the remedial steps taken by DPS to resolve the declining trend of available and accurate equalities data in casework.

B. Supporting information

Background

1. The Directorate of Professional Standards [DPS] was established in October 2000. DPS’ remit is to investigate where the behaviour of officers potentially offends the Police Code of Conduct, is criminal or makes the MPS liable in civil or employment law. It does not investigate the conduct of ACPO officers, whose conduct is the responsibility of the MPA, or police staff, although its remit does extend to members of the public who are thought to be involved in corrupting officers in the MPS.

In 2004, a series of reports concerning policing, professional standards and equality and diversity were produced, including The Report of the Morris Inquiry (‘The Morris Report’). These reports generated 210 recommendations for improving policing and employment matters.

One of the key recommendations emerging from The Morris Report was that DPS undertakes a ‘fundamental review’. One of the purposes of this concurrent report is to outline the key equality and diversity issues as the fundamental review begins.

Process, procedure and practice

2. The strategic aim for the ‘fundamental review’ of DPS is “to develop a greater internal and external trust and confidence through improved sensitivity, timeliness, effectiveness and efficiency of DPS investigations.” The quality of the policies, processes and actual practice of the MPS DPS, and how integrity is upheld across the organisation, are key predictors of public confidence in the organisation, within its workforce, in addition to among London’s diverse communities.

An indicator, which could contribute to the organisation developing greater confidence in its work, in this area, would be to demonstrate no significant disparity between the experiences of people based on their identity e.g. ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation, religion and belief, or age. This outcome-focus is in line with the organisation’s corporate response to the recommendations made by the Morris Inquiry, CRE Formal Investigation, Ghaffur Thematic Review of Race and Diversity in the MPS and the Taylor Review. This would demonstrate that the organisation is able to show that a person’s identity or experience is not a significant factor in determining whether or not an investigation will proceed or of a less favourable experience if investigated.

This measure could also contribute to ensuring proportionality across the range of DPS operations - evidence of clear policies and practices, which follow an objective set of criteria, determining the course of action taken which are accountable and transparent. An ability to demonstrate these business principles would greatly contribute to building confidence among staff, and London’s communities.

Data collection and monitoring

3. ‘Intelligence’ is crucial in relation to the success of any investigation. Data, disaggregated by equalities categories is equally important in improving the way that the directorate works. There is significant public, and officer, concern regarding the way that an apparent pattern of decisions has prompted perceptions of disproportionality around how different sections of communities are differently handled. Without this information, the organisation is not both unable to refute these allegations confidently, nor is it able to identify significant patterns or trends within the organisation.

Possible solutions include ensuring that the organisation is capturing the data it currently collects routinely e.g. ethnicity. The Case Management Protocol currently being developed by the MPA will create an additional monitoring mechanism, which can scrutinise the level of information captured. Furthermore, the Case Management Protocol will also request that information according to all equalities categories (age, disability, ethnicity gender, religion and belief, and sexual orientation) is collected requiring DPS to ensure this information is also collected routinely in the future.

Given the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 due to be in force on December 3rd 2006, and the implications of future legislation, there is a strong case to say that DPS should be collecting information according to all equalities categories routinely.

Asking all the questions will provide DPS with the ‘full picture’ from which its intelligence regarding patterns and trends will be far more accurate and enhance its preventative work.

Stakeholder engagement

4. A historic concern stated repeatedly in relation to engaging people who use services delivered by the public sector, is that their experience is not valued in delivering real improvements. Equally, ‘users’ of DPS have a valuable contribution to make in improving how it works.

The planned ‘new’ DPS / S.A.M.U.R.A.I. group will provide DPS with a community engagement mechanism from which to build. The MPA Race and Diversity Unit advise that MPA officer representation would benefit the work of the group.

Wider stakeholder involvement in the methodology and progress of the ‘fundamental review’ is equally important for the same reasons. While S.A.M.U.R.A.I., MPA member and David Muir’s involvement are all positive, in the spirit of meaningful learning, engaging other sectors who are charged with holding other public professionals to account could be extremely beneficial. Positive examples could be experiences from the General Medical Council, the Law Society or ACAS.

Evidence of Learning

5. One of the major challenges for DPS and the MPS is to demonstrate evidence of learning from high profile cases as well as routine cases. The Morris Report identified a number of key concerns such as delay; supervision; how the investigative process is handled; disclosure; lack of sensitivity to victims and others; welfare support and the media.

Whilst work is on-going to tackle these issues as part of the wider fundamental review, there is a need for both the DPS and the MPS to develop a sound equalities and diversity baseline, which is benchmarked (wherever possible) with robust performance measures around some of these challenges. These measures should be focused around employment, service delivery and community engagement. Some of these performance indicators could include:

• Evidence of a proportionate response to cases deemed suitable for investigation
• Evidence of routine dip sampling of files to ensure case management quality assurance
• Evidence of links between performance and personal diversity objectives
• Evidence of case management data being shared appropriately with staff, police and/or community groups as part of the overall work as set out in the Project Initiation Document on the fundamental review
• Evidence of partnership working with the community in order to improve performance and the perceptions and experiences of those investigated
• No significant disparity between the experiences of BME police officers and staff investigated and white police officers and staff

Sharing best practice from case management data is vitally important if managers within the MPS are to learn how to handle complaints successfully; doing so also provides evidence that the MPS is learning from previous cases.

It is important that any system devised for collating data on cases should be routinely profiling equalities information on age, disabilities, ethnicity, faith/non-belief, gender and sexual orientation. This information should not only be on those against whom allegations are made, but also on those making allegations. This will assist both DPS and the MPS demonstrate that it is meeting its various statutory duties under existing and forthcoming equalities legislation.

Interfaces With Other Programmes & Initiatives

6. The DPS paper makes references to other key programmes currently being delivered by the MPS, including the Service Review [1], the Together programme [2], the Corporate Strategy [3] and the Race & Diversity Learning & Development programme.

These four major initiatives will be pivotal in formulating the direction and speed of travel for the MPS over the next three years. A checklist in Appendix 1 of some of the key questions from an equality & diversity perspective is listed. It is important to note that this checklist is not intended to be exhaustive; however, it does provide a general framework and approach for ensuring that the relevant equality and diversity questions are posed and answered.

C. Race and equality impact

The Commissioner has described equality and diversity as a ‘brutal business imperative’, which must be central to the organisation’s activity. The key strategic aim of the ‘fundamental review’ is identified as building trust and confidence both within the organisation and within London’s diverse communities. By not understanding, identifying, and demonstrating the equality and diversity implications of promoting professional standards within the MPS, the organisation risks the very confidence and trust it is seeking to build.

D. Financial implications

There are no direct budgetary requirements arising from this paper. However, if MPA officers are to support DPS in undertaking its Review, there will be an opportunity cost, which will have to be met.

E. Background papers

• The Morris Inquiry
• CRE Formal Investigation
• Taylor Review
• Ghaffur Thematic Review of Race & Diversity in the MPS

F. Contact details

Report author: Hamida Ali & Laurence Gouldbourne, MPA.

For more information contact:

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

Appendix 1

The following questions should be examined across a backdrop of existing and forthcoming equalities legislation. It will not be merely enough for public bodies to promote ‘good race relations’ – they will be required to eliminate discrimination and promote good relations on the grounds of race, gender, disabilities, sexual orientation, age and religion/non-belief.

Assessing

• What level of equality impact assessment is conducted in relation to casework?
• Which methodology of equality impact assessment will be conducted in relation to the current fundamental review of DPS? What issues have been identified in impact assessment work to date? How have these affected the review’s methodology?
• Has a (race) equality impact assessment been conducted in relation to the work in DPS linked to the Morris / CRE / Ghaffur / Taylor inquiries? What issues has this work identified? How are they being addressed?

Consulting

• Given the public interest in police officer accountability, how has DPS consulted with officer communities and London’s communities during the (race) equality impact assessment process?

Monitoring

• What data does DPS casework record according to gender, race, religion, age, sexual orientation and disability?
• What information informs DPS how they are achieving against equality and diversity in relation to its employment practice, service delivery and community engagement?
• What performance measures have been devised to track satisfaction levels between different equality groups?
• investigations
• How has DPS captured the learning offered by Virdi, Morris, CRE, Ghaffur, Taylor and casework, and how has this affected policy and procedure?

Publishing information

• What information does DPS publish in relation to its casework, its equality impact assessments and its community engagement?

Training

• How does DPS ensure that it has the capability and competence to deliver against the equality and diversity dimension of its service delivery, employment practice and community engagement?
• What specific learning and development supports this?

Employment duty

• What is the composition of DPS officers in terms of role disaggregated according to gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, age and religion?
• What policy operates in DPS around length of time in post? Is there a maximum length of time a member of staff can work in DPS?
• What proactive measures has the organisation put in place to attract a greater diversity in the make-up of its directorate? Does DPS offer a job rotation scheme, seconding officers from under-represented groups to inform the work of the directorate?
• What processes operate if within DPS an officer’s behaviour is felt to constitute misconduct?

Race Relations Amendment Act – general duty

• How does DPS support the organisation to maintain and deliver professional standards across the organisation?
• How does DPS support officers to understand exactly what is expected of them: what behaviours are associated with professionalism and how these are achieved?
• What measures has DPS put in place to promote good race relations between people of different racial groups in relation to its function as set out in the amended legislation?

Fundamental review

• What are the terms of reference for the fundamental review?
• How will staff communities and Londoners be involved in the consultation as part of this review process? How will staff associations be involved?
• How many consultation events will take place and when during the process?
• How will any consultation affect the decision making of the review process?

Race & Diversity Unit, MPA
October 2005

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback