Complaints management information

Report: 4
Date: 9 March 2006
By: Commissioner

Summary

This report includes data for the 12 months to February 2006. It focuses on the key changes or exceptions within the data, as trends are slow to change.

Workload

There has been an increase of 12% in the number of public complaint allegations being recorded over the past 12 months from a monthly average of 430 to 476. Much of the increase can be attributed to the inception of the IPCC and the Pro-Hunt protests in 2004 (418 allegations many of which still feature in the rolling averages).

There has been an increase of 5% in the number of conduct matter allegations recorded over the same period from a monthly average of 79 to 84.

Timeliness

The average number of days to complete a public complaint investigation remains well below the national benchmark of 120-days. It reduced by 34% from 119 days in February 2005 to 79 in January 2006.

The average number of days to complete an investigation into a conduct matter continues to improve and it also remains below the benchmark of 120-days. It reduced by 47%, from 148 days in February 2005 to 79 in January 2006.

The average number of days between the decision to hold a misconduct hearing or final disposal is considerably below the target of 120-days. It reduced by 20% from 119 days in February 2005 to 95 in January 2006.

A. Recommendations

Members note the report and the illustration of trends in the report and the Borough performance information contained in Appendices 1 and 2.

B. Supporting information

1 Appendix 1 contains data relating to Borough or Operational Command Unit performance.

2. Appendix 2 contains diversity information in respect of the Borough or Operational Command Units. The full diversity information will, as requested, appear again at the PSCC in May 2006.

MPS/DPS performance

Table 1: Allegations Recorded – Public complaints and conduct matters (see supporting material)

3. There has been an increase of 12% in the number of public complaint allegations being recorded over the past 12 months from a monthly average of 430 to 476. Much of the rise in complaints is attributable to the introduction of the IPCC and the Pro-Hunt demonstration last year, the latter generated an additional 418 allegations. The 12% overall average increase in the 12-months to February 2006 is not proportionate across all allegation categories.

4. Further attempts have been made to compare this years figure against last years using the percentage monthly variations but there is still too much disparity, month-on- month, to accurately assess individual increases or decreases at the allegation category level.

5. However, using the actual 12-month rolling average figures, it was possible to see that there was an upward trend for types. The most significant rises appear in Discriminatory Behaviour and Failures in Duty and to a lesser extent Incivility.

6. This rise in Discriminatory Behaviour can be traced back to the introduction of the IPCC when there was a widening of the definition of such allegations to include Religion, Gender and Sexuality etc. This category also incorporates the new type of allegations made about ‘Fairness and Impartiality’ bought in by the Commission in April 2004. It may also be true that people are more comfortable raising such allegations with the support of the IPCC.

7. Failure in Duty allegations also started to rise since April 2004 but more steeply since October 2004. In April 2004 an average of 97 such allegations were recorded each month against 137 recorded in January 2006. The majority of these appear in the ‘general’ category of failure in duty rather than anything specific relating such as breeches in PACE. Since the inception of the IPCC, DPS are investigating a higher proportion of failure in duty allegations that have come via the Commission. It is possible that, before the IPCC, some of these issues may not have been bought to the attention of DPS.

8. Incivility allegations have also risen since the inception of the IPCC in April 2004.

9. Oppressive Behaviour allegations that had previously risen significantly due to the ‘Pro-Hunt’ demonstrations now appear to be on the decline since September 2005 and have stabilised in the period October 2005 to January 2006. If this is maintained, the percentage of such allegations at year-end will have reduced when compared to 2004/05.

10. The plateau evident in recorded complaints, since the events of 7/7/2005, has been maintained over the period October 2005 to January 2006. Should it remain like this it is likely that, for 2005/06, actual recorded complaints will have increased by between 8-10%.

11. The following table illustrates the number of public complaints recorded over the period February 2005 to January 2005. It is also broken down by type, calculated per 100 officers and the period split into 3-month periods.

Table 2: Allegations Recorded – Public complaints and conduct matters (see supporting material)

12. Generally speaking the proportion of each allegation type remains consistent over the periods assessed. Period 2, May to July 2005, sees a rise in oppressive behaviour and other type allegations. This is in part due to additional Pro-Hunt cases being forwarded to the MPS, by the IPCC, in June 2005. Period 3 and 4, August 2005 to January 2006, shows the reduction in complaints witnessed since the events of July 2005.

13. The table below illustrates the numbers of allegations by type and whether a period is above the MPS period average in which case the figures will be in both blue and bold text. The MPS total number of allegations, per 100 officers, over the 12-month period is also shown for comparison.

Table 3: Numbers of allegations by type (see supporting material)

14. In general, the period totals accord with the period average notwithstanding rises evident in period 2 and the reduction in periods 3 and 4 for the reasons already commented upon.

15. Over the 12 months to January 2006, there has been an increase of 5% in the number of conduct matter allegations recorded, from 79 to 84 per month.

Timeliness - public complaints

Table 4: Average days taken to complete full investigation & all other results (see supporting material)

16. This chart has been enhanced to incorporate the month-on-month reduction in timeliness, expressed as a percentage, in addition to the average number of days taken to complete an investigation.

Meeting target: The average number of days to complete an investigation (79 days against a 120 day benchmark and a 1% decrease on the previous month)

17. The average number of days to complete a public complaint investigation continues to reduce and remains well below the 120-days benchmark. It reduced by 34% from 119 days in February 2005 to 79 in January 2006. This has been achieved a robust performance management regime within Internal Investigations Command (IIC).

Table 5: Percentage of cases over 120 days old – Public Complaints/Conduct Matters (see supporting material)

Missing expectation: A reduction in the percentage of public complaint cases over 120-days old.

18. Following the impact of the significant incidents in July there was an increase in the percentage of public complaint cases that are over 120 days old from 17% in June to 25% in January 2006. At the end of January there were 166 cases. This rise has negated the gains made since December 2004 and brings DPS back to the levels experienced last year but there is early evidence that the increase has been halted and has remained stable since November 2005.

Conduct matters

Meeting target: The average number of days to complete an investigation (79 against a 120 benchmark)

19. The average number of days to complete a conduct matter investigation remains well below the target of 120-days. It reduced by 47%, from 148 days in February 2005 to 79 in January 2006.

Missing expectation: A reduction in the percentage of conduct matter cases over 120-days old

20. Following the significant impact of the incidents in July 2005, Conduct matters over 120-days old have risen from 36% in June to 60% in November 2005. However, since then, the trend is downward and was at 50% in January 2006.

21. Overall, timeliness in respect of investigations into public complaints and conduct matters has improved due to the reviewing of processes and systems. For example, Specialist Investigations taking on the investigation of discriminatory type allegations in a proportionate but timely manner and a review of cases over two years old.

22. There has also been a drive for DPS to intervene at an early stage in compliant cases where it is possible to broker a prompt resolution, to the complainant’s satisfaction and maintain improvements to timeliness. This type of approach is being taken within the Internal Investigations SE unit where an ‘early intervention’ officer post is being piloted.

Misconduct

Table 6: Misconduct – Average number of days from decision to hearing or final disposal (see supporting material)

Meeting target: Average days to reach Misconduct decisions (95 against 120 target)

23. The average number of days between the decision to hold a misconduct hearing or reach a final disposal is considerably below the target of 120-days. It reduced by 20% from 119 days in February 2005 to 95 in January 2006.

24. The increases evident from July 2005 have been caused by a cancellation of boards, due to the events of that month. Since November 2005 the rise has been halted and has remained stable at an average of 95 days for three months running.

External Partners – CPS Decision making

Table 7: Misconduct – Average number of days from report to receipt of decision from CPS (see supporting material)

25. The chart has been enhanced to illustrate the timeliness of the CPS decision-making in respect of the Specialist Investigation work, such as Deaths Following Police Contact and Discharge of Police Firearms and the more routine complaint and conduct investigations of the Borough Support Units.

26. Performance of the CPS has remained fairly stable over the year to November 2005 ranging between 100 and 103 days. Early indications are that the decision-making being centralised at Ludgate Hill, for routine complaint and conduct cases, is improving timeliness. There has been a reduction to 94 days in January 2006. Because 12-month rolling averages are used it will be a while before the full impact of this change is illustrated in the figures.

27. Specialist Investigation cases are by contrast taking the longest to reach a decision on which is perhaps indicative of the nature of the investigations. At the end of January the average over the previous 12 months was 296 days.

External Partners – IPCC Decision making

Table 8: Average number of days from report submission to receipt of decision from IPCC (see supporting material)

28. The chart above reveals rises in the 12-month rolling averages in respect of decisions made by the IPCC in requesting either a Dispensation or Discontinuance.

29. It is acknowledged that represents only part of the decision-making responsibilities of the Commission. Following the anticipated introduction of the TRIBUNE database in early 2006 it will be possible for the DPS to include data relating to the IPCC appeal process. A meeting is to take place between DPS and IPCC to approve the counting rules and presentation of such data once TRIBUNE is embedded.

Outcome trends

Table 9: Public Complaints Finalised allegation by result (see supporting material)

30. The average percentage of local resolution is similar in the 12-month period to end February 2006 (35%) as it was up to February 2005 (36%). It still however remains below the target of 50%. This is likely to continue until BOCUs are able to take on more responsibility for the resolution of their own complaints and undertake lower level investigations.

31. The decline in Dispensations granted by the IPCC, from 22% to 15%, suggests DPS are conducting more appropriate investigations.

32. The number of allegations shown as not recorded as public complaints, under the Police Reform Act, has almost halved since DPS now register and deal with more minor issues raised by members of the public. This policy does however result in an increase in the total number of proportionate investigations that are carried out by the Directorate. The increase in such investigations has resulted in a 9% increase of cases being classified as unsubstantiated’. The outcome is that the public are getting more complaints investigated although the number of complaints substantiated remains unchanged at 2%.

Borough (BOCU) / Operational Command Unit (OCU) performance – public complaints: allegations and people

33. At each PSCC members will be presented with a comparative analysis of public complaint data relating to groups of (B)OCUs in relation to MPS professional standards matters.

34. The BOCU groupings are made using the Territorial Policing Performance Focus Meeting (TP PFM) cluster.

35. These families have been grouped together based on demographics and volume crime within the boroughs in question. Both of these factors are likely to affect complaints. By using these family groups and converting actual numbers of complaints recorded into a ‘per 100 officers’ figure enables more accurate comparisons to be made.

36. This information provides a benchmark against which the Authority will be able to judge DPS’s prevention and reduction capability in the future by looking for variations in performance from this report to the next occasion the same family group appears.

37. Variations in performance of each of the boroughs when compared to their peers are highlighted in both blue and bold text. Variations could be for any number of reasons such as a particular operation/initiative being run on the borough or environmental factors such as the number of licensed premises, entertainment venues or shopping centres. The demographics in relation to both the resident and transient population and the length of service and experience of the officers concerned will also be relevant factors.

38. It should be noted that, once the ‘per 100 officers’ element is introduced to the data, some of the numbers are small which makes it difficult to draw any significant conclusions from them.

39. Because a Borough is different from their peers does not automatically mean that they are worse.

40. Where significant variations are noted, DPS will work with the boroughs to discover the potential causes by drilling down into the data to establish the exact nature and likely cause of the variation. Where appropriate action will be taken by the borough in partnership with DPS to bring closer to them closer to the average of similar boroughs in their group.

41. The second group of boroughs under focus for January 2006 are from TP PFM family group 3 and include both North and South London boroughs. The data and associated analysis is presented in Appendix 1.

C. Race and equality impact

Appendix 2 includes MPS data in respect of diversity relating to both complainants and officers that is compared against the family of Boroughs or Operational Command Units in focus.

D. Financial implications

None

E. Background papers

None.

F. Contact details

Report author(s): Michael Clark, Higher Performance Analyst - Carl Bussey, Detective Chief Superintendent, MPS.

For more information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback