Proposed process for reporting on DPS performance and development projects

Report: 15
Date: 11 October 2001
By: Commissioner

Summary

This paper proposes a process for the Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) to report to the MPA on: 

• The timeliness, quality and proportionality of complaints investigations and misconduct procedures. 
• Progress on implementing the DPS Best Value action plan. 
• Progress on the DPS 3 year development plan.
• Progress on issues raised in the 2000/01 HMIC Inspection of the MPS. 

The MPA would receive summaries of key performance indicators, and would be able to hold DPS to account three times a year on its progress on complaints investigation, and three times a year on its progress on preventing complaints and strengthening integrity.

A. Recommendations

That

1. Each meeting of the Committee receive a report on ‘Investigative performance and misconduct procedures’. This would include a summary of key performance indicators, with supporting information accounting for exceptionally good or poor performance. It would replace the current quarterly reports to the MPA. Around June of each year it would be supplemented by a report on the previous year’s performance and annual trends.
2. Alternate meetings receive reports on best value, DPS development work and HMIC recommendations, grouped around the themes of Investigation (‘Best value and progress on improving DPS investigative processes and outcomes’) and Prevention (‘Progress on reducing complaints and strengthening integrity’).

B. Supporting information

Investigative performance and misconduct procedures

1. The DPS has developed management information and performance indicators at Directorate level for many aspects of complaints investigation, internal investigations, patterns of complaints, and DPS support services. These are published monthly as the DPS Monthly Management Report. In addition, DPS produces a Borough Support management information package. This includes information at MPS and Borough level on subjects such as: officers with multiple complaints; complaints about stop and search related or officer safety equipment; written warnings; and informal resolution.

2. The DPS also provides the MPA with information on the timeliness and proportionality of complaints investigations and misconduct procedures. Though this information is largely drawn from the same database (the complaints and discipline system), it is compiled in a different format to that used by the DPS. Thus there are avoidable costs in the production of the information, and an opportunity for the DPS to report to the MPA by aggregating and summarising information already produced for internal management purposes.

3. It is thus proposed that the regular report to the MPA include a 2-page summary, drawing key performance indicators from the existing DPS management information packages. This summary would be refined in the light of Members’ comments and any detailed discussion with MPA officers. When a key performance indicator shows exceptionally good or poor performance, the report would account for the reasons, and where appropriate an action plan may be attached to show DPS intends to remedy any weaknesses.

4. Three issues from the HMIC Inspection would be included in this table, with exception reports as needed. These are the reduction in number of suspended officers (HMIC Report para. 7.7); DPS staff vacancy factor (para. 7.20) and the increase in allegations of racially discriminatory behaviour (para 7.6).

Best value and progress on improving DPS investigative processes and outcomes

5. This report would be produced for alternate Professional Standards and performance monitoring Committee (PSPM) meetings, and describe how DPS is using the findings of the Best Value review to improve investigative processes and outcomes. It would report progress on the best value implementation plan, the strands of the DPS 3 year development plan that relate to investigation, and associated recommendations from the 2001 HMIC Inspection of the MPS.

6. The first of these reports is submitted for the October 2001 PSPM meeting. It consists of a report outlining the first year progress on implementing the findings of the best value review, supported by numerous annexes.

7. The second of these reports would be submitted to the February 2002 meeting. It would show second year progress on the best value implementation plan, linked to performance indicators on the timeliness, quality and proportionality of investigations. Work is underway on the costing of investigations, and information on this would be included when available.

The report would include the following components of the DPS 3 Year Development Plan:

• Component 1
  Appropriate prioritisation is applied to work being undertaken by DPS through a rigorous tasking system.
• Component 2
  Resources are applied to prioritised work.
• Component 5
  Ensure early action on high profile complaints. (Investigation of mandatory referrals).
• Component 6
  Decisions are made at the most appropriate level.
• Component 7
  Decisions are based on timely, relevant and accurate information and intelligence.
• Component 8
  Duplication of DPS effort is prevented.
• Component 11
  To continue to develop the intelligence system.

9. It would also report progress on the associated issues raised in the HMIC Inspection. Some of these are HMIC recommendations, while other issues were subject to praise by HMIC and are thus likely to be examined further in the next inspection.

• Para 7.2
  Develop protocol for MPA to monitor complaints.
• Para 7.2
  MPA become partners in Learning Lab.
• Para 7.11
  Measure and improve timeliness of service of Regulation 9 notices to officers under investigation.
• Para 7.11
  Improve timeliness of investigations.
• Para 7.12
  ‘Learning Lab’ initiative to streamline and improve investigation procedures.
• Para 7.14
  Increase informal resolutions.
• Para 7.16
  Process to monitor time lapse between submission of IO’s report and hearing.
• Para 7.17
  Proposal to introduce pre-trial hearings to deal with points of law before cases begin.

10. The last part of the DPS 3 Year Development Plan relates to how the Directorate is managed internally, including strands on personnel, training, communication, performance management, and finance. It is not proposed to report regularly on these strands, but to include progress on them when it is relevant to those strands relating to service delivery.

Progress on reducing complaints and strengthening integrity

11. The first of these reports would be produced for the December 2001 PSPM meeting. It would cover topics such as the Officer of Concern Programme, Integrity Strengthening Programme and Repeat Complaint Reduction Strategy.

12. The report would include the following components of the DPS 3 Year Development Plan:

• Component 3
  Unnecessary referrals to DPS from Boroughs and other OCUs are reduced.
• Component 4
  Effort and resources are redirected to prevention activities.
• Component 9
  Ensuring that there is a real fear and threat of detection and the consequences thereof.
• Component 10
  Focus on individuals of concern rather than the ‘complaint’.
• Component 12
  Proactive work is aimed at early identification of individuals of concern.
• Component 13
  Effort and resources are redirected to support Boroughs and other OCUs in dealing with individuals of concern.
• Component 14
  The identification and application of innovative, creative, lawful and ethical ways of dealing with those individuals of concern.

13. It would also report progress on the following issues raised in the HMIC Inspection:

• Para 7.3
  Good practice in reducing self-harm by persons in custody through innovative cell design.
• Para 7.6
  Understand and respond to increased allegations of racially discriminatory behaviour.
• Para 7.9
  Enhance approach to tackling corruption through implementation of DIPPC information system.
• Para 7.18
  More corporate approach to civil claims, with innovations in policy, training and procedures.
• Para 7.19
  Civil actions - acknowledge failings and learn
• Para 7.20
  Resource allocation formula to help determine resources for complaints investigations.
• Para 7.21
  MI as part of local complaints reduction strategies.

C. Financial implications

There could be minor opportunity cost savings in the production, analysis and dissemination of management information. Any such savings would be applied to more focused analysis of issues of concern.

D. Background papers

None

E. Contact details

Report author: DAC Andy Hayman 020 7230 4271

For information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback