Revised performance indicators

Report: 6
Date: 13 July 2006
By: Commissioner

Summary

At the request of the PSCC chair, this report sets out the work that has been undertaken to address the need to revise the performance indicators relevant to complaints handling.

Between December 2002 and May 2006 considerable improvements have already been made to the timeliness of complaints handling from investigations through to the discipline process. These improvements have seen the actual performance, for all the key indicators, drop below the 120-day targets since the middle of 2005.

The improvements to date have been achieved through changes to business processes and these are reflected in new policy/procedures e.g. Misconduct Investigation Guide (MIG).

A meeting took place in March 2006 to consider redefining the performance indicators and the timetable for implementation. The options considered are contained in this report. A decision was made at this time to postpone any changes to indicators to allow for the review of the revised DPS structure to be undertaken and the introduction of the MPS Quality of Service Commitment.

The performance indicators and targets used by DPS will be the same as those reflected in the Quality of Service Commitment because it is clear that the work of the directorate has wider implications in relation to the trust and confidence of the community and police employees.

A. Recommendations

That members review the options proposed, namely:

1. Leave the performance indicators as existing; or
2. Change the performance indicators
   1. Implement changes immediately or
   2. Delay implementation of changes

B. Supporting information

Members consider the following recommendations

1. It is recommended that the performance indicators remain as they are until the review of the new DPS structure in Sept/October 2006. Thereafter the following is suggested (Appendix 3 illustrates performance trends to date against proposed revised targets).

2. Public complaints: public complaint timeliness, based on outcome, is measured separately with targets for each, split into:

• Full investigations (120 day target)
• Dispensations/discontinuances (60 day target)
• Local resolutions (60 day target for conclusion)
• Local resolutions [1] (50% of all complaints resolved as such).

3. Conduct matters: conduct matter timeliness includes ‘full investigations’ only by excluding investigations conducted locally at B/OCU such as written warnings. A threshold should be adopted for misconduct hearings, set closer to current performance, e.g. 90 days.

4. Misconduct hearings: a threshold should be adopted for misconduct hearings, set closer to current performance, e.g. 100 days.

5. Appendix 1 illustrates timeliness trends in the current key performance indicators.

6. Appendix 2 contains the key performance indicators from ‘most similar forces’.

7. Appendix 3 illustrates the trends against the proposed key performance indicators.

Background

8. Since December 2002, considerable improvements have been made to the timeliness of complaints handling from investigations through to the discipline process. From the middle of 2005 the performance for all indicators dropped below the 120-day targets and have been sustained since then.

9. Appendix 1 illustrates the performance trends to date against current targets. In summary, against the target of 120 days, Public Complaints investigations have reduced by 39% from 131 days to 80 days, Conduct Matters investigations have reduced by 67% from 246 days to 82 days and Misconduct Hearings (from decision to hold a hearing to hearing itself) have reduced by 60% from 228 days to 91 days.

10. More recently there has been a stabilisation in the figures and it is possible that a plateau has now been reached and this needs to be taken into account within discussions about revisions to the indicators and targets.

11. The improvements have been made through changes to business processes and practices. These have been reflected in new policy/procedures e.g. Misconduct Investigation Guide (MIG) and are managed through the performance management framework within the Investigations Command.

12. The improvements have been achieved against a backdrop of an increasing workload. Since December 2002 the number of recorded complaint allegations has risen by 32% from a monthly average of 391 to 572 as at the end of May 2006. Similarly, over the same period, conduct matters have risen on average by 29% per month from 60 to 85.

Review of performance indicators

13. The Investigations Command met in March, prior to the DPS review and restructuring of the directorate where a number of options for revising the performance indicators were explored to see whether they were relevant, whether changes were required and finally when to implement any changes.

14. The options considered were as follows:

1. Leave the performance indicators as existing
2. Change the performance indicators
   1. Implement changes immediately
   2. Delay implementation of changes

15. In essence, the indicators were considered relevant in demonstrating to the public and police officers that DPS was committed to ensuring any complaints or conduct matter were resolved in a timely and proportionate manner and in doing so, ensuring confidence and satisfaction in the complaints handling process.

16. At that meeting a decision was made to retain the existing performance indicators and targets but delay a revision and implementation until the DPS reorganisation was reviewed in September/October 2006. However, as an interim measure, a chart was introduced into the Public Complaints Management Information report that illustrated percentage month-on-month reduction achieved in the investigation of public complaints.

17. This delay also allowed for the implementation of TRIBUNE, the new complaints system, to occur and in doing so provide for improved data capture e.g. IPCC Appeals.

Similar police services

18. The forces most similar to the MPS (Greater Manchester, Merseyside, West Midlands & West Yorkshire) have been contacted to ascertain their performance indicators and current performance against them. The details of their responses appear in Appendix 2.

19. In summary each force sets it own indicator and although the indicators themselves are broadly similar, the targets differ as do the method of calculation. For example, the MPS start the investigation ‘clock’ from when a complaint is received whereas other start it from when it is recorded.

Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) expectations

20. The IPCC are currently in discussion with interested parties about a national performance management framework and associated indicators with a view to achieving uniformity within England & Wales. The meetings are in their early stages and involve representatives from the IPCC, Association of Police Authorities, Home Office, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and the Police Service (including the Association of Chief Police Officers). To date there has been no specific discussion around investigation times. The IPCC expect to present the framework by spring or early summer 2007.

Quality of service commitment

21. The ‘Quality of Service Commitment’ (QoSC), for the MPS is being written as part of the Citizen Focus Agenda. The section of public complaints is currently being created in consultation with DPS.

22. Presently, the targets within this document reflect that the target for conclusion of investigations is 120 days, which accords with the current practice. However, any changes to the targets can be altered in the QoSC to reflect the final version following the Performance Indicator review.

23. Linking the revised performance management measures with QoSC ensures that the performance indicators and targets used by DPS will be the same as those reflected in the Quality of Service Commitment because it is clear that the work of the directorate has wider implications in relation to the trust and confidence of the community and police service. As a public document, it visibly demonstrates our commitment to being responsive to the needs of complainants & police employees alike.

C. Race and equality impact

1. The investigation of public complaints and conduct matters and any subsequent misconduct hearing is conducted based on the requirements of the case and the diverse needs of the individual(s) concerned. These are considered as part of the investigative strategy.

2. The proposed changes to the performance targets and any subsequent improvements to timeliness will be of benefit to all concerned and are not envisaged to impact adversely on any particular group of people or section of the community.

D. Financial implications

None

E. Background papers

None.

F. Contact details

Report author(s): Michael Clark, Higher Performance Analyst, 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