Metropolitan Police Service update on the 'Disabled people and the police – a new relationship?'

Report: 07
Date: 4 October 2007
By: Deputy Assistant Commissioner Operational Services on behalf of the Commissioner

Summary

This report provides an update to the MPA Equal Opportunities and Diversity Board on MPS progress in response to the 48 recommendations contained within the MPA report “Disabled People and the Police – a new relationship?” The MPS’s ongoing response to the recommendations has been periodically reviewed by the MPA Disability Oversight Group, a time limited scrutiny panel supported by MPS Business Groups and the GLA. The group’s work programme was completed in October 2006 and this is the first report on activity and progress since the group was stood down. Responsibility for implementing the recommendations remains with the MPS. It is being overseen and monitored by the Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate supported by the MPS Equalities Scheme framework.

A. Recommendations

That members note MPS activity and progress in response to the MPA report ‘Disabled People and the Police – a new relationship?’

B. Supporting information

1. The MPA report ‘Disabled People and the Police – a new relationship?’ was published following wide consultation with disabled people and organisations representing disabled Londoners. The report included a 12-point ‘Disability Agenda’ and 48 recommendations.

2. To help interpret and take forward the recommendations into MPS Business Groups and Directorates, recommendations were grouped into the following nine themes:

• Custody
• Victims
• Training
• Corporate buy-in
• Policy
• Disabled people in the MPS
• Procurement services
• Monitoring
• Miscellaneous

3. The MPS published the MPS Equalities Scheme after the delivery of the MPA report and used the opportunity to include many of the themes and activities from ‘Disabled People and the Police – a new relationship?’ within the resulting ‘disability action plan’. Indeed, Action Plan D4 relates specifically to delivering on the report’s recommendations. The intention is to absorb the governance of any outstanding recommendations from the MPA report into the disability action plan. The lead for the MPS Equality Scheme is Deputy Assistant Commissioner (DAC) Alf Hitchcock.

4. Parallel to the MPS progress report being prepared, the MPS Disability Staff Association (DSA) canvassed the views of members concerning workplace conditions for disabled people and progress in relation to the MPS Equality Scheme (Disability) Action Plan. A wide range of concerns were expressed primarily around the Service’s ability to provide evidence of:

• Activities and initiatives at both corporate and local level designed to deliver these commitments (Equality Scheme (Disability) actions)
• Any audit trail and monitoring of initiatives (corporate and local) linked to both MPS Values and Equality Scheme actions
• Progress made or underway: Does the disabled and deaf community have to wait until the due date of Equality Scheme actions before evidence of progress is made available?
• Coordination of disability expertise - those who would seek out advice on disability issues are unclear as to who is, or should deal and with what.

5. The MPS recognises the concerns of the DSA and the legitimacy and value of feedback from disabled people within the organisation. Whilst the DSA feedback concerning the MPS’s approach and commitment to deliver the disability specific actions from the Equality Scheme makes uncomfortable reading, it is a view that the MPS must, and will, immediately consider and address. This will be achieved by referring the DSA feedback in full, and as a priority, to the next meeting of MPS Equalities Scheme Steering Group in November.

6. The DSA report responding to the MPS Equality Scheme (Disability) action plan is attached at Appendix 2.

7. The DSA, together the Disability Independent Advisory Group (DIAG) and other disabled people advocate groups provide the MPS with an invaluable opportunity to listen to disabled people providing and receiving policing services. Only by affording such groups regular and appropriate access to key decision makers and processes can the MPS achieve its goal of providing a safer London for all citizens.

8. Due to the size and configuration of the MPS update to the report’s 48 recommendations, it is appended to this report at Appendix 1 and is arranged around the nine themes mentioned at paragraph 2 (the exception being ‘Monitoring’ that is addressed at paragraph 13 below). The report contains a further 14 appendices requested by the MPA that provide commentary and summaries to support the reader understand the breadth and diversity of the MPS approach aimed at providing an excellent level of policing services to disabled people.

9. A number of the appendices provide commentary in addition to detailing progress against the recommendations in response to questions put by the MPA following sight of an early draft of the report.

10. In bringing together the report, the MPS has involved Ossie Stewart (author of ‘Disabled People and the Police – a new relationship?’) and members of the MPS Disability IAG.

11. This report has focused specifically upon the MPS’s’ relationship with, and progress to, improve services for disabled people. The MPS is committed to providing excellent services to all Londoners. Therefore, whilst throughout the report there are many examples of positive initiatives relevant uniquely to disability, many of the approaches, policies and good practices discussed (e.g. community engagement) are now mainstreamed into day-to-day policing of London’s diverse communities.

12. Due to the wide ranging nature and pan-MPS impact of the recommendations, the report frequently uses examples from single Business Groups to provide evidence of activity. This is not to say that progress is not more widespread across other or all Business Groups. An example is ‘community engagement’ that is mentioned throughout the report almost entirely in the Territorial Policing (TP) Safer Neighbourhoods context. Community engagement, and specifically the need to engage with and respond to the views of disabled people, occurs across Business Groups. The development of a new MPS Community Engagement Infrastructure (led by the Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate [DCFD]) will bring together and professionalise how the MPS engages London and will undoubtedly ensure improved and more systematic access to all communities.

13. The (DCDF), through their association with the MPS Equality Scheme, will continue to systematically monitor and evaluate the MPS response to the report’s 48 recommendations with a view to reporting back progress to the MPA.

14. The report does not comment on progress against Recommendation 25 as this was an MPA specific activity concerning internal scrutiny processes.

15. The fact that the MPS has made progress against almost all the recommendations contained within the MPA report (and continues to deliver on a wide range of other disability related service improvement initiatives) does not mean that it is satisfied with the level of policing services available to disabled people. The MPS recognises that there is more work to do in responding to the 48 recommendations of the MPA report and, more widely, in making police services fully accessible, relevant and appropriate to disabled Londoners. Similarly, as evidenced by the DSA report, it must work closer with its staff associations to develop a workplace that better provides for disabled staff members. The MPS is prepared to respond to these challenges that will undoubtedly lead to a closing of the gap between the reasonable demands and needs of disabled people and the quality, type and breadth of services routinely delivered by the MPS.

16. The MPS understands and responds to fact that ‘identity’ and ‘community’ are often complex and contested terms. People identify themselves in many different ways and frequently with several different communities or groups. Whilst some disabled people may identify themselves together as a community (e.g. British Sign Language users) the significant majority do not. It is therefore unhelpful and incorrect to use generalisations when referring to disabled people as, similar to all Londoners, their policing needs will be determined by individual difference and personal preference.

C. Race and equality impact

The report outlines the MPS response to the MPA report ‘People and the Police – a new relationship?’ that is aimed at improving the quality of policing services to disabled people and disabled MPS staff. The MPS is committed through the development of the MPS Equality Scheme and the delivery of a wide range of other disability related service improvement initiatives to providing an excellent police service to all Londoners. The continuing activity and progress associated with delivering the recommendations contained within the MPA report ‘People and the Police – a new relationship?’ undoubtedly supports the MPS meet that challenge. The work is very likely, therefore, to have a positive impact on ‘race and equality’.

D. Financial implications

Where appropriate, the financial implications associated with the implementation of the recommendations are discussed within the report.

E. Background papers

• The MPS Equalities Scheme 2006 – 2010
• MPA (GLAD) Report, “Disabled people and the police – a new relationship.”
• Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) Codes of Practice.

F. Contact details

Report author: Inspector Stephen Warwick, Diversity Strategy Co-ordination Unit (DSCU) Police Sergeant Keith Thames, Disability Strand, DCFD. Revised by Chief Superintendent Ed Bateman, MPS

For more information contact:

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

Appendix 3

MPS Equalities Scheme - objective D4

Objective D4

Deliver on the recommendations contained in the MPA Report: Disabled People and the Police – a New Relationship

Key elements

1. Ensure that any existing stand alone governance arrangements for this work undergo a smooth transition into the Equalities Scheme oversight processes
2. What is required in respect of any outstanding recommendations is identified and progressed in line with this action plan
3. Disabled people are engaged in the process of determining progress or otherwise and also in evaluating methodology.

Outcomes

Any shortcomings in respect of the policing service delivered to disabled people and identified in this work are addressed in a timely and audited fashion. Disabled people must have confidence in our response.

Indicators

• Satisfaction Survey results in relation to public trust and confidence in the MPS, amongst disabled people
• Monitoring in relation to the scope of engagement activity with disabled stakeholders in support of the Scheme.

Lead

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate

Target date

July 2008

To view the full MPS Equalities Scheme please go to Met Aware system.

Appendix 4

Summary of the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime

The Code of Practice for Victims of Crime replaces the Victims’ Charter and makes statutory obligations on the level of customer service that a victim of crime should expect to receive. It became mandatory on the 1st April 2006.

The Code lists, under each agency, the service levels a victim must receive. Under the new Code it will be possible for a dissatisfied victim of crime to complain about the service they receive. That complaint, should they still not be satisfied, can be taken to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

Key changes include:

Vulnerable and intimidated victims must be identified as soon as possible, and Special Measures considered in line with the Youth and Criminal Justice Act 1999. The Act lists the following as those who could be vulnerable and/or intimidated:

• People with learning difficulties
• The physically disabled
• Witnesses suffering from fear and distress (intimidated witnesses)
• Those victimised over extended periods of time
• Those with mental health problems
• Children

The Code places time limits for giving updates on the progress of the investigation. Victims identified as vulnerable or intimidated must be updated within one working day of an event occurring. These updates ensure that police maintain contact with victims of crime. They are apprised of the process, advised what happens next, can ask questions and seek support. This will reassure victims who need to feel they are in safe hands and be confident in the professionalism of the individual and system.

Arrangements to discharge these mandatory requirements:

• CRIS updated to make identification of vulnerability/intimidation mandatory together with pop-up messages when data is entered in certain fields
• A performance management framework is being developed which measures compliance by borough
• Emerald has rolled out a programme to raise awareness to all police officers and staff. This included identifying a single point of contact on each borough, incorporating the Code in recruit training, publishing Notices and articles in the Job newspaper and conducting seminars and briefing.

Other complimentary strands of work

‘No Witness, No Justice’ (NWNJ) - This programme introduced Witness Care Units with Witness Care Officers at each Criminal Justice Unit within London. From the point of the first court hearing a WCO contacts all witnesses in the case and carries out a Needs Assessment. A recent review by the National NWNJ Project Team concluded; “All those involved with implementing and delivering witness care in London should be proud of what they have achieved so far. The final review has shown that victims and witnesses throughout London are getting a considerably enhanced service compared to the pre-witness care service. Major achievements highlighted by the review include the provision of information to victims and witnesses through a single point of contact and via their preferred means of contact; the consideration of victim and witness needs at the point of charge; and the strong awareness across agencies of their obligations under the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime”.

‘Report to Charge’ - The report to charge programme introduces the concept of Victim Focus Desks. The MPS currently has 4 Victim Focus Desks in Havering, Bexley, Lambeth and Southwark BOCUs. These units are currently contacting all victims of screened in crime and ensuring they are updated throughout the life of their case.

The National No Witness, No Justice Project Team visited both Lambeth and Southwark Victim Focus Desks. They concluded that “Both units were considered to be adding considerable value with additional contact being made with victims directly after the report of the crime and as soon as the case has been ‘screened in’ for further investigation. Additionally Southwark were undertaking needs assessment and ensuring access to support services in relevant cases. Support would also be given to victims whose cases were ‘screened out’, if a request was made to them.”

It is proposed that for future MPS wide roll out, these units will perform the dedicated role of keeping victims and witnesses updated as to the progress of their case, from the point of allegation through to completion or charge and will allow us to deliver the obligations of the Code, the Witness Charter and the Quality of Service Commitment (QoSC). In addition the units will enhance the level of service provided to victims and witnesses and conduct face to face meetings with victims where appropriate and relevant. The consistent employment of dedicated and trained customer service staff within Victim Focus Desks will improve the delivery of police services.

Appendix 5

Equality Impact Assessment Policy

Policy operational services: Equality Impact Assessment Policy
Publication scheme: Yes
Summary: This policy provides a framework for impact assessing the development of proposals.
Branch/ OCU: Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate (DCFD)
Review date: December 2009

Introduction

The Equality Impact Assessment Policy is a new policy, incorporating some existing practice and providing the framework and guidance for conducting such assessments during the development of proposals.

Application

This policy applies with immediate effect.

All police officers and police staff, including the extended police family and those working voluntarily or under contract to the MPA must be aware of, and are required to comply with, all relevant MPS policy and associated procedures. In particular, these SOPs apply particularly to officers and staff in the following roles:

• Members of Management Board and Senior Management Teams
• Members of the Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate
• Members of the MPS Strategy Unit
• Anyone engaged in writing proposals
• Anyone engaged in writing policy
• Operational planners
• Quality Assurance managers

All those involved in the commissioning, formulation, approval, publication, implementation or review of proposals (the definition of which is included within the Standard Operating Procedure).

N.B. This list is not intended to be exhaustive.

Purpose

The purpose of this policy is to:

• Comply with the requirements of legislation, e.g. Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, Disability Discrimination Act 1995, Equality Act 2006, etc.
• Establish clear accountability and corporate standards for the development of proposals

Scope

This policy provides the framework for measuring the adverse and positive impact of policing proposals on communities through a structured and transparent process. Proposals include corporate and local policies, corporate change, projects, procedures, functions, strategies, strategic decisions, pre-planned operations, policing plans and schemes. Impact assessment is an ongoing engagement, decision-making and risk assessment process, to be started early and continued throughout the development of proposals.

Policy statement

All proposals must be screened for impact and where they are relevant to equalities issues a full impact assessment must be conducted using the related form 6119A. The ten-point approach includes:

• Identification of the aim and purpose of the proposal
• Collection and consideration of information
• Consultation, which may be included at any part of the process
• Carrying out of the screening process for relevance to equalities
• Assessing for impact
• Consideration of changes, mitigation or alternatives to reflect the findings of the assessment
• Consideration of further research and consultation
• A decision on implementing the proposal
• Setting in place arrangements for monitoring and review
• Publishing the results of the impact assessment

Benefits

This policy will:

• Provide a corporate framework for impact assessing proposals, in lieu of previous disparate approaches where they have existed
• Manage the impact of proposals on the MPS and OCUs through appropriate consultation and inclusive decision-making
• Establish clear accountability and ownership
• Ensure proposals are developed in accordance with corporate and local priorities and concerns, taking into account a citizen-focused approach
• Provide a robust and defensible aid to decision-making
• Facilitate staff understanding of impact assessments and the positive outcomes sought
• Ensure legal compliance.

Responsibilities

• The policy is owned and will be reviewed by the Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate
• The policy will be implemented by all staff involved in the commissioning and development of proposals

Associated documents and policies

• MPS Equalities Scheme
• Equalities Impact Assessment Standard Operation Procedures
• Form 6119A
• Policy on the Management of Policy Development in the MPS
• Corporate Policy Workbook and Guide
• Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000
• Disability Discrimination Act 2005
• Equality Act 2006

Enquiries about this Policy should be directed to the Diversity Strategy and Co-ordination Unit, Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate.

Appendix 6

A Summary of the Police and Criminal Evidence (PACE) (1984) and accompanying codes of practice

The Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) and the PACE Codes of Practice provide the core framework of police powers and safeguards around stop and search, arrest, detention, investigation, identification and interviewing detainees.

PACE sets out to strike the right balance between the powers of the police and the rights and freedoms of the public. Maintaining that balance is a key element of PACE.

The eight separate codes each deals with a separate element:

• Code A deals with the exercise by police officers of statutory powers to search a person or a vehicle without first making an arrest. It also deals with the need for a police officer to make a record of a stop or encounter.
• Code B deals with police powers to search premises and to seize and retain property found on premises and persons.
• Code C sets out the requirements for the detention, treatment and questioning of suspects not related to terrorism in police custody by police officers.
• Code D concerns the main methods used by the police to identify people in connection with the investigation of offences and the keeping of accurate and reliable criminal records.
• Code E deals with the tape recording of interviews with suspects in the police station.
• Code F deals with the visual recording with sound of interviews with suspects.
• Code G deals with powers of arrest under section 24 the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 as amended by section 110 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.
• Code H sets out the requirements for the detention, treatment and questioning of suspects related to terrorism in police custody by police officers.

It is under this frame work that the Police operates, PACE is reviewed by the Home Office at regular interviews, but it is designed to protect individuals while giving the police appropriate powers, and it is because of the need to protect the individual that Code C restricts who can act as an appropriate adult, and selects who will need an appropriate adult, the Police have little or no options with regard to the Codes.

Appendix 7

Summary of the Beacon Project

This initiative aims to develop solutions for some of the custody capacity and processing problems in the short term through improvement of custody efficiencies whilst also introducing long-term projects, which will result in a safer, more efficient custody setting. This will enable the development and implementation of better staffing models and custody processes to be introduced into the new custody centres when they come on stream.

The proposed custody suite staffing model for Beacon is intended to improve the management of detainee care and make the custody processing system more efficient. This will involve the introduction of improved custody medical processes, Dedicated Detention Officers inputters to assist custody officers with administrative tasks and forensic staff in the custody suite.

Overall the objectives of the Beacon Project are to achieve best value, to increase efficiencies and timeliness and to create the safest environment possible for all persons in custody at all times.

A proposal arising from the Beacon Project to have a Case Progression Unit supervisor located within the custody suite, to ensure that the investigative process is managed more efficiently, has already been implemented by TP - Emerald Prosecution and Partnership team.

The Beacon Project Board was set up in July 2006 and is chaired by the head of the Custody Directorate, Detective Superintendent David Imroth. It is comprised of key stakeholders and representatives of the various MPS Directorates that will be involved in implementing these new initiatives.

Local focus groups of custody practitioners will be set up on the pilot boroughs to monitor implementation and feed back learning to the Beacon Project Board.

Appendix 8

Summary of Officer Safety Branch to Oversight Group

Officer Safety Branch submission to the MPA Disability Oversight Group 14 December 2005 on Recommendation 41.

'Officers be trained to take disabled persons into custody. Physical contact could place the disabled person at considerable risk’.

The MPS Officer safety Branch over a number of years has developed the concept of ‘officer safety’ to provide a system for the safety of the officer (or member of police staff), colleagues and members of the public with whom the officer engages.

Addressing this complex area is difficult and has been refined over the years to establish a system fit for purpose which looks to provides as safe a working environment as possible for all. The system revolves around the Officer Safety Model, which provides officers and staff with a generic model of approach to any given situation.

As part of the model users make a threat assessment which includes ‘impact factor’ (surrounding environment, time of day, others present, etc) it is at this stage that consideration would be given to the condition of the person being dealt with including any disability or medical issue.

During training officers and staff receive instruction on the medical implications of the encounter. Issues such as positional asphyxia the possibility of reaction to CS incapacitant spray on people with mental illness are areas that are regularly reinforced. More recently with the publication of the MPS Restraint Review following the death of Roger Sylvester, a DVD has been commissioned which among other points will alert MPS staff and officers on the issues of Acute Behaviour Disorder and will include coverage of de-escalation techniques.

Obviously the Officer Safety Model is a dynamic process and is subject to constant review. Dealing with disability is clearly a complex issue but as indicated above the Officer Safety Model is designed to take such issues into consideration and when confronted with such problems users will adjust their actions accordingly to accommodate the specific conditions presented by the particular disability.

As stated the Model is generic, enabling users to deal with all types of incidents. Obviously disability comes in all sorts of forms and it is the belief of the Officer Safety Branch that the Officer Safety Model can accommodate whatever might be confronted.

Officer Safety Branch would welcome suggestions on how the model could be improved, particularly on how the issue of disability and the breadth of its diversity can be best addressed and incorporated into our approach to safety.

The question remains as to where and how the curriculum can be enhanced through greater awareness of disability. For example, there are clearly some overt and obvious challenges that are presented when dealing with people who use wheelchairs at both the stage of initial arrest through to transportation, access and detention within custody suites. However, there are equally challenging scenarios where police encounter people with hidden disabilities, which could include mental illnesses, learning disabilities and brittle bones as well as hidden aids or medical supports such as prosthetic limbs, colostomy bags or catheters.

The question remains as to how and where to structure the appropriate input; is the officer safety curriculum capable of delivering input across the breadth of disability, or would this be better picked up through a broader based programmes such as exist under the Police Race and Diversity Learning and development programme? A medical model approach would focus on specific impairments based on their likelihood of being encountered and content of the curriculum prioritised accordingly. However, the social model is more difficult to conceptualise but would be a better approach to capture within the Officer Safety curriculum.

It is anticipated that a representative from Officer Safety Branch will attend the Oversight Group to assist with development of this recommendation.

Appendix 9

HR5 Recruiting submission to the MPA Disability Oversight Group 20 September 2006

Recruitment barrier review panels be configured to ensure disabled people are involved in the decision making process of progression and career structures for staff.

The report suggests that a typical recruitment/selection panel’s knowledge on disability is weak; confidence would be boosted if a disabled person were part of selection/promotion process review.

There is a need to guarantee to both disabled Police Officers and Police Staff a meaningful and constructive career. No 'blanket bans' on responsibilities and clear career path options.

HR5 only have influence over police promotion process up to ACPO as we do not own the internal selection guide/policy (Recruitment own this). Promotion processes are competence based and the 3-day assessor training is entirely focused on ensuring assessors judge only on the basis of evidence in relation to the competency framework. Assessors are made aware of all the relevant diversity legislation/issues via their training and subsequent briefings. We will approach the MPS Disabled Staff Association to remind members that anyone can apply to be an assessor (all reasonable adjustments will be made so that they can fulfil that role if necessary). All eligible staff can apply for promotion and there are many examples of where adjustments have been made for disabled people.
Composition of selection panels is a decision for local HR Managers – some guidance on disability awareness needs to be added to the internal selection guide. Education for line managers (i.e. those who sit on selection panels) on diversity issues is not within the scope of HR5, perhaps Diversity and Citizen Focus could produce something?

As far as explicitly involving disabled people in the processes, we do invite the Disabled Staff Association (and the other SAMURAI members) to come to focus groups or individually review our assessment center materials; sometimes they come, sometimes not.

HR5 also set up a 6 monthly meeting with the DSA to discuss promotion /selection issues. They came to one last summer but then did not respond to requests to attend a meeting scheduled for January'06 then re-scheduled for April.

We had the 'Key4Learning' report commissioned, which suggested that our intranet site requires some work but HR5 do not have anyone with the skills to do this work.

For every process we publish Guidelines (accessible - Ariel point 12). Within our guidelines we ask candidates who think they may need us to make reasonable adjustments to contact us as soon as possible so we can make them. We have made reasonable adjustments for a range of impairments. Whilst this is not a strategic built-in involvement, the important thing is that it directly involves the individual and therefore the adjustments are made on an individual case-by-case basis as required.

Recommendation 48

Review career paths and development opportunities for the disabled staff to create meaningful promotion opportunities.

The report mentions that the most significant barriers to continued employment for both police officers and police staff were prejudice and structural, especially outdated rules and regulations as well as a lack of opportunities for advancement.

HR5 will not be producing career paths but will have an advisory role for business groups/ OCUs who own them. We will include in our guidance that requirements for roles that are outdated or unnecessary (e.g. that would exclude disabled people) should not be attached to roles.
Development opportunities owned by HR5 are the IDP, Bursary scheme and the NVQ in business administration; selection for all of these is competency based i.e. people are selected on the basis of their skills and achievements only. We also own the corporate induction day; on the invitation we ask to be notified of any adjustments that may be necessary, several have been made for disabled people to date. Perhaps DTD should be contacted regarding all other training and development within the MPS?

Regarding career paths, it would be inappropriate to identify and or ring fence roles or careers for disabled people; work focuses instead on competency based assessment.

Can I also suggest that the work around career options is given to workforce planning who are directly responsible for postings/deployment? There is also a role for those who publish HR notices to ensure unnecessary requirements for a role are not included in job adverts.

Appendix 11

MPS Equalities Scheme – Objective D9

Objective D9

Deliver the policing elements of the GLA Disability Equality Scheme and Action Plan, including our response to Hate Crime.

Key elements

1. Crime against disabled people is bought to wider public attention through broadcast media and widely reported in the Londoner publication
2. A strategy will be developed with the GLA for dealing with Hate Crime against disabled people
3. The needs of disabled Londoners will be clarified through research and consultation and integrated into the domestic violence strategy
4. Easier and accessible solutions for reporting Hate Crime, including multiple discrimination-based incidents will be developed
5. Disability Liaison Officers appointed on each Borough
6. Disabled victims of crime are fully supported

Outcomes

The MPS works effectively with the GLA to ensure the policing elements of their Scheme are delivered – Disabled Londoners benefit as a result.

Indicators

• Satisfaction Survey results in relation to public trust and confidence in the MPS, amongst disabled people
• The level of take-up of ‘Third Party’ reporting mechanisms.

Lead

Assistant Commissioner Territorial Policing

Target date

December 2008

Appendix 12

Project Umbra

Project Umbra is a response to the recognition of the pervasive effects of domestic violence on society and the need for an inter-agency response across London.

The Project aims to improve service delivery across all sectors involved in domestic violence by co-ordinating a range of options available to both victims and perpetrators.

Under 5 themes, it aims to improve in a number of areas including police performance, data sharing, advocacy and support, integrated courts, early assessment and problem solving for perpetrators and targeting prolific and persistent offenders. This is a major project that will fundamentally change the way police deal with domestic violence. For it to succeed it will require signup from statutory and non-statutory partner agencies including GLDVP, Women's Aid, Home Office, CDRPs, Prison and Probation Service and more.

It will lead to improvement in police response, hold more offenders accountable, provide holistic support to victims, prevent serious violence and ultimately save lives.

Appendix 13

Glossary of terms

ACPO

Association of Chief Police Officers

AGM

Annual General Meeting

ASB

Anti-Social Behaviour

BAME

Black Asian Minority Ethnic

BCU

 Borough Command Unit

BME

Black and Minority Ethnic

BOCU

Borough Operational Command Unit

BPLO

Borough Press Liaison Officer

BSL

British Sign Language

CDRPs

Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships

CO (as in CO11)

Central Operations

CRIS

Crime Reporting Information System

CS (CS incapacitant spray) 2

chlorobenzalmalononitrile

 D&CFD

Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate

DDA

Disability Discrimination Act 1995

DET

Disability Equality Training

DIAG

Disability Independent Advisory Group

DOG

Disability Oversight Group

DPS

Directorate of Professional Standards

DTD

Directorate of Training and Development

DTI

Department of Trade and Industry

DV

Domestic Violence

DVD

Digital Versatile Disc

EU

European Union

EIA

Equality Impact Assessment

EPIC

Enforcement Prevention Intelligence and Communication

EU & EC

European Union/Community

EVAs

Environmental Visual Audits

FME

Forensic Medical Examiner

FPA

Familiar Personal Assistant

GLA

Greater London Authority

GLAD

Greater London Action on Disability

GLDVP

Greater London Domestic Violence Project

HAD

Havering Association for Disabilities

HAFAD

Hammersmith and Fulham Action on Disability

HR

Human Resources

IAG

Independent Advisory Group

IDP

Independent Development Plan

IGG

Custody Independence Guidance Group

IPCC

Independent Police Complaints Commission

ITT

Invitation To Tender

JARD

Joint Asset Recovery Data Base

KINS

Key Individual Networks

LGBT

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender

MIS

Management Information System

MPA

Metropolitan Police Authority

MPS

Metropolitan Police Services

NAAN

National Appropriate Adult Network

NH

Panels Neighbourhoods Panels

NVQ

National Vocation Qualification

NWNJ

No Witness No Justice

OCU

Operational Command Unit

Operation Emerald

Part of MPS Custody Directorate

PACE

Police and Criminal Evidence

PCSO

Police Community Support Officers

P2P

Purchase-to-Pay

PDR

Performance Development Review

PIB

Performance Information Bureau

PNS

Performance Needs Analysis

PS

Procurement Services also Police Sergeant

PSD

Property Services Directorate

Q

Question

QoSC

Quality of Service Commitment

RES

Race Equality Scheme

SAMURAI

Staff Associations Meeting Up Regularly And Interacting

SMEs

Small/Medium Enterprise

SMT

Senior Management Team

SNs

Safer Neighbourhoods

SNTs

Safer Neighbourhood Teams

SOPs

Standard Operating Procedures

TNS

Training Needs Analysis

TP

Territorial Policing

UK

United Kingdom

VIW

Victim/Informant/Witness

WCO

Witness Care Officer

YOT

Youth Offender Team

Appendix 14

List of Staff Associations (SAMURAI)

• Association of Muslim Police
• Police Anglo Italian Staff Association
• Christian Police Association (London Branch)
• Association of Senior Female Police Staff
• Catholic Police Guild
• Chinese & South East Asian Staff Association
• Jewish Police association
• Disabled Staff Association
• British Association for Women in Policing
• Emerald Society
• Turkish and Turkish Cypriote Association
• Association of Senior Woman Officers
• Metropolitan Police Hindu Association
• Black Police Association
• Gay Police Association
• Metropolitan Police Sikh Association
• Greek Police Staff Association

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback