PEEL: police effectiveness 2016 (8689)

Cause of concern

HMIC found that there is an unacceptable and poorly-understood variation in the extent to which forces assign to investigations the outcome type (see annex for further details): ‘Evidential difficulties: victim does not support police action’.

by 30 June 2017, submit to HMIC a report on the results of the comprehensive analysis of the use of this outcome type.

[on]3rd March 2017 [status]awaiting-review[/status][/on][on]7th March 2018 [comment]

Cause of concern HMIC found that there is an unacceptable and poorly-understood variation in the extent to which forces assign to investigations the outcome type (see annex for further details): ‘Evidential difficulties: victim does not support police action’. Recommendation 3 • Each force that has assigned to appreciably high levels of investigations (when compared with other forces) the outcome type (Cleveland Police, Kent Police, Hampshire Constabulary, Humberside Police, Warwickshire Police and West Mercia Police) ‘Evidential difficulties: victim does not support police action’ should:

by 30 June 2017, submit to HMIC a report on the results of the comprehensive analysis of the use of this outcome type.

[/comment][/on][on]9th April 2018 [status]being-progressed[/status][/on][on]2nd May 2018 [comment]

The Head of Crime has provided an overview of the alliance's response at its Performance Monitoring Group meeting of the 23rd April. A meeting with the Head of Crime is being scheduled and a further update on progress will be provided to HMICFRS in due course.

[/comment][/on][on]25th September 2018 [comment]

The Alliance have approached Hampshire Police to identify best practice from them and have also conducted a pilot survey in April, although the detail of the survey is unknown at this time. The Alliance Performance Management Group have this as a standing agenda item and are driving actions in this area. This DCC chaired meeting considers crime, satisfaction and confidence data alliance-wide. It oversees the 12 point DA tactical plan, all actions having owners and cross referencing to the Vulnerability & Safeguarding Departmental development plan. Action 5 in the plan is “Building the case for the victim (outcome 16)”

A DA audit report and Executive Summary have now been published internally, though HMICFRS are yet to have sight of a copy.

The force state that the audit report shows the outcome rate overall has remained relatively static over the past 18 months though there is an increase in respect of 'Action Taken.' This is the same for both Forces though there is a slightly higher increased rate for Action Taken in Warks compared to West Mercia.

The audit shows a higher percentage rate of crimes are subject to supervision review and direction in Warks than West Mercia though both forces have around 30% of crimes that do not detail a rationale for the victim withdrawing and outcome 16 being assigned.

It appears that there is around 85% compliance with applying Outcome 16 and a 15% error rate overall. When broken down into Local Policing Areas (LPA's) it suggests a lack of understanding, knowledge and interpretation of outcome codes.

To further understand audit findings, a staff survey has been written, using the Hampshire survey as a template. This will go out shortly to coincide with other pilot work in Worcester, the timing of the publication to coincide with another survey to maximise completion.

Work has been conducted within the Crime Bureau to assess the understanding of outcome codes by crime decision makers and understand the processes they adopt. This review has provided reassurance that they do understand their role and that there is no value in running a survey within the Bureau.

Another issue that was affecting outcome rates was that of the IMU (Investigations Management Unit) backlog. There were around 30% of outcome 'Action taken' crimes to be processed with the backlog which would have an impact on the overall outcome rate. This backlog in respect of 'outcomed 1 – 8 crimes' has since been reduced.

Due to this backlog, live investigations that need allocating are prioritised over those that need outcomes finalising. Until this backlog is removed the alliance cannot be sure that the outcome rates are wholly accurate.

Ongoing Work

• The audit findings will be scrutinised in more detail and recommendations tasked out to the Local Policing Area Superintendents.• Publish the staff survey which is directed at front line officers and supervisors.• Analysis of staff survey finding.• Continue to monitor the IMU backlogs• Continue to monitor the performance stats to understand the impact of the IPT's on outcomes. This is currently believed to be a positive impact, allowing more crimes to be ‘outcomed’ more promptly.• The alliance is developing a partnership database around Rape data and victim information to better understand the victim journey and where the partnership can provide additional support to improve satisfaction and victims supported through to court. This is being developed through the RASSO partnership group.

[/comment][/on]