Report on progress of Strand 3 of the MPS Professional Standards Strategy

Report: 8
Date: 14 December 2006
By: T/AC Yates on behalf of the Commissioner

Summary

Strand 3 of the MPS Professional Standards Strategy (Enforcement) is progressing successfully and on time. The timeliness of DPS investigations has shown a consistent improvement, to the extent that a more demanding 90 day target for the average number of days to complete public complaints has recently been introduced, and is being met.

A Project Board has been formed to drive forward the Taylor Recommendations, the details of which are outlined in this report.

An interim assessment was conducted on 23 November 2006 of the implementation of the DPS review and restructuring and a fuller review will take place in April 2007. The broad strategy was fully endorsed, whilst some tactical areas will be further assessed.

A. Recommendations

That members note the progress made under Strand 3.

B. Supporting information

Oversight/supervision of investigations

1. The MPA PSCC has received papers for some 2 years demonstrating a consistent improvement in the timeliness of DPS Investigations. This performance has been sustained through a robust management framework, which also addresses proportionality and fairness.

2. Investigating Officers (IOs) and Senior Investigating Officers (SIOs) record their decisions and the rationale for them in decision/progress logs, which are supervised by line managers and are disclosable documents. Operational update meetings are held every week by SIOs and bi-weekly by Ops Superintendents, to review and scrutinise the progress of investigations specifically to assess their priority, resourcing and disposal options. Commander DPS also receives bi-weekly briefings on high profile investigations in order to ensure operational grip.

3. The Oversight and Tasking meeting is also held on a bi-weekly basis and Chaired by Commander DPS or, in her absence, DCS Intelligence Command. Representatives from the three DPS Commands - Intelligence, Investigations and Prevention and Organisational Learning attend and again operations are discussed, prioritised, resources allocated and disposal options discussed. Judy Clements from the IPCC also attends to ensure transparency and to assess whether operations should be formally referred to the IPCC.

4. Operations of significant risk are identified and when investigations are defined as Critical Incidents, Gold Groups are utilised to manage organisational risks and include all relevant stakeholders. Independent Advisory Group members will invariably be included to add value, transparency and independence.

5. Additionally, the high volume public complaint and conduct matters are all recorded on Tribune, and workloads are monitored and outcomes measured by two software packages, IOWA (Investigating Officer Workload Analysis) and IOTA (Investigating Officer Throughput Analysis). Monthly performance figures are published by the Performance Analysis Unit (PAU) and utilised by line managers to monitor performance in such areas as “public complaints over 90 days” or “Average number of days to complete Public Complaints”.

6. The timeliness and proportionality of all covert operations are also underpinned by Directed Surveillance Authorities being authorised by Superintendents independent from the Investigations Command, without responsibility for the outcome of the operation. This ensures a greater degree of independence and oversight when considering RIPA legislation, in compliance with the Human Rights Act. All intrusive authorities are further scrutinised by ACPO authorising officers before being forwarded to the independent Surveillance Commissioners for final authorisation.

7. A monthly Tactical Assessment is produced by the Intelligence Development Unit (IDG), which monitors the degree of intrusiveness of Operations, providing figures of the number of Directed Surveillance Authorities authorised and the type of covert asset used to monitor levels of intrusiveness and proportionality. Through exception reporting it also identifies the length of time covert operations have been running, highlighting long running operations so that management interventions are made when necessary.

8. In addition to all of the above the DPS Review Unit now has a proactive capability and on a monthly basis will dip sample different areas within the Investigations Command and identify areas of best practice or areas where performance could be improved, in particular with reference to timeliness and proportionality issues.

9. Under the IPCC Statutory Guidance protocols, all appropriate investigations are referred for independent oversight.

Misconduct

10. The Misconduct Unit, which is responsible for presenting all misconduct cases to an ACPO chaired panel, has recently been moved into the Investigations Command. A representative from the unit attends the tasking meeting and new operations are allocated to a Misconduct case officer so that early liaison is in place between IOs. This ensures that the discipline and criminal investigations can be run in parallel so that when a criminal case is not pursued the relevant discipline investigation can be instigated in a timely fashion without unnecessary delays.

11. Improvement in the time taken to bring a case before a misconduct board has been evidenced in the bi-monthly reports to the MPA.

12. The new misconduct procedures, resulting from the Taylor recommendations, are likely to become effective, subject to sufficient Parliamentary time being made available to pass the relevant legislation, in July 2007. The legislation will place considerable onus on local managers to deal promptly and efficiently with misconduct issues. In anticipation of the impact on MPS resources, in terms of training and development of staff outside of DPS, a project has been established under the leadership of T/DCS Campbell from the Prevention and Organisational Command.

13. The strategic direction for the project, as agreed by the Command Team, has now been defined and will incorporate the following principles.

14. Borough Support Units will be retained to provide guidance and support to local decision makers on B/OCUs, and ensure consistency of decision-making. In addition, they will supply the necessary additional investigative asset when local investigations require significant resources.

15. The Reception Desk will be the focal point for both internal and external DPS customers and the primary decision maker when allocating complaint investigations, either Gross Misconduct – to DPS, or more minor complaints to local B/OCU managers. This will ensure that decisions are taken at the appropriate level and there is a consistent approach across the MPS.

16. The emphasis will be on early local resolution, with the majority of complaints being resolved at source. However, the pace of implementation will be measured and incremental.

17. A Management Board paper will be prepared for 6 February 2007, to coincide with the final publication of the Home Office proposals and Parliamentary approval of the Criminal Justice Bill. The presentation to Management Board will ensure organisational support from the very top and enable the phased approach to the new procedures commencing in July 2007 to begin.

18. A Strand lead has been identified to develop training packages and coordinate training delivery. Comments on the National training envisaged will also be invited from Centrex. The training need for local managers will need to be identified, when it is clear precisely what is expected of them but is likely to include: diversity and proportionality issues and further training on local resolution, Level 1 hearings and local investigations identified as misconduct only.

19. Early indications suggest that as the emphasis for dealing with complaints shifts initially from DPS Borough Support Units to B/OCUs there may be some early reduction in timeliness as local managers familiarise themselves with the processes. This situation is being closely monitored so that appropriate support and training is provided. The temptation to take work back onto BSUs to ensure timeliness targets are met will be resisted, as it will undermine the longer-term objective.

20. DPS will actively support Brent Borough, as a 'pilot site' by placing an officer on the Borough to assist in handling complaints locally. The IPCC have also indicated they wish to give further instruction and guidance to a ‘pilot’ borough and it is hoped that this can be coordinated on Brent too. An assessment will then be made of the sustainability of this approach and lessons learned.

Summary

21. In summary Strand 3 Enforcement is being progressed successfully and on schedule. Implementation will continue to be monitored and evaluated. An interim review was held at a Command Team Meeting on 23.11.06. At that review, the broad strategy was fully endorsed. Some tactical issues, however, remain subject of continued debate and analysis:

1. whether the Reception Desk, is most effectively managed within the Intelligence Command or the Investigations Command,
2. whether the Anti Corruption Teams are most effective situated within the Intelligence or Investigations Command and
3. whether the Misconduct Unit should remain within the Investigations Command or Prevention and Organisational Learning.

A full review will be conducted in April 2007 when these issues can be more fully assessed.

C. Race and equality impact

1. The DPS are very conscious of the need to monitor the representation of black and minority ethnic officers within the professional standards arena and have measures in place to do so.

2. Taylor recommends local intervention at an early stage and whilst the MPS is thoroughly supportive of the proposal, we also need to ensure consistency across the 32 Boroughs and 30 plus Operational Command Units. This is a major factor in our approach to the implementation of Taylor. We need to ensure all managers and supervisors have the confidence to deal directly with misconduct issues taking account of the equality and diversity implications of individuals and the wider MPS.

D. Financial implications

There will be financial implications associated with the training requirement for Taylor, but at this stage they have not been quantified. All other costs associated with Strand 3 are absorbed within existing budgets.

E. Background papers

None.

F. Contact details

Report author(s): Detective Chief Superintendent Briggs, 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