Public Document Pack
19 September 2017
To: Members of the Public Accountability Board
This matter is being dealt with by: Direct Line: email:
Dear Colleague
Public Accountability Board
You are invited to attend the next meeting of the Public Accountability Board which will be held on Tuesday 26th September 2017 at 2.00 pm at Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner, Carbrook House, Carbrook Hall Road, Sheffield S9 2EH.
The agenda and supporting papers are attached.
Car parking will be available.
Yours sincerely
Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner
Enc.
South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner Shaun Wright Email: [email protected] www.southyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk
South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner Shaun Wright 18 Regent Street Barnsley South Yorkshire S70 2HG Tel: 01226 774600 Email: [email protected] www.southyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner Shaun Wright Email: [email protected] www.southyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk
South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner Shaun Wright 18 Regent Street Barnsley South Yorkshire S70 2HG Tel: 01226 774600 Email: [email protected] www.southyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD
TUESDAY 26TH SEPTEMBER, 2017, 2.00 PM
OFFICE OF THE POLICE AND CRIME COMMISSIONER CARBROOK HOUSE, CARBROOK HALL ROAD, SHEFFIELD S9 2EH
AGENDA
Item Page
1 Welcome and Apologies Dr A Billings Verbal Update
2 Announcements Dr A Billings Verbal Update
3 Public Questions Dr A Billings Verbal Update
4 Urgent Items Dr A Billings Verbal Update
5 Items to be considered in the Absence of the Public Dr A Billings and Press
THAT, using the principles identified under section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business, on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as specified in the relevant paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act, as amended, or that they are otherwise operationally sensitive or would attract an exemption under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
6 Declarations of Interest Dr A Billings Verbal Update
7 Minutes of the meeting of the Public Accountability Dr A Billings 1 - 6 Board held on 29 August 2017
8 Matters Arising/Actions M Buttery 7 - 8
9 Performance Report (2017/18 Plan) - Reducing M Roberts 9 - 16 Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour
10 Budget Monitoring Report N Hiller 17 - 28
11 Report on CSE Activity (including progress against T Forber To Follow consolidated Action Plan & Operation Stovewood investigation progress and resourcing)
South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner Shaun Wright Email: [email protected] www.southyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk
South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner Shaun Wright 18 Regent Street Barnsley South Yorkshire S70 2HG Tel: 01226 774600 Email: [email protected] www.southyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk Item Page
12 Force's early indications of savings proposals for N Hiller To Follow balanced budget 2018/19 and beyond
13 Assurance Report - 101 Dr A Billings 29 - 32
14 Assurance Report - Quad Bikes Dr A Billings 33 - 42
15 IEP Exception Report A Lockley 43 - 54
16 JIAC Exception Report M Lunn 55 - 56
Exclusion of the Public and Press
17 Any Other Business - to be notified at the beginning of the meeting
18 Date and Time of Next Meeting
24 October 2017 at 10:00am, Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner, 5 Carbrook Hall Road, Carbrook, Sheffield, S9 2EH. Agenda Item 7
SOUTH YORKSHIRE’S POLICE AND CRIME COMMISSIONER
PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD
29 AUGUST 2017
PRESENT: Dr Alan Billings (Police and Crime Commissioner) Michelle Buttery (Chief Executive and Solicitor - OPCC) Stephen Watson (Chief Constable, SYP) Mark Roberts (Deputy Chief Constable, SYP) Alison Fletcher (Office Manager, SYP) Tim Forber (Assistant Chief Constable, SYP) David Hartley (Assistant Chief Constable, SYP) Nigel Hiller (Director of Finance, SYP) Sally Parkin (Business Manager, OPCC) Allan Rainford (Chief Financial and Commissioning Officer - OPCC) Erika Redfearn (Head of Governance, OPCC) Rob Winter (Head of Internal Audit) (Business Support Officer, OPCC)
PUBLIC There were three members of the public present.
1 WELCOME AND APOLOGIES
The Police and Crime Commissioner welcomed those present at the meeting.
Apologies for absence were received from: Carrie Goodwin, Andrew Lockley, Melvyn Lunn, Lauren Poultney, Sioned-Mair Richards, Sara Slater and Fiona Topliss.
2 ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were no announcements.
3 PUBLIC QUESTIONS
The following questions were submitted by members of the public:
Member of the Public “A” “We've been trying to follow developments on Neighbourhood Policing over the past few months - Where can we see an update on this welcome development, and details & dates on its implementation, especially in Sheffield ?” ACC Hartley reported that there would not be a big launch for the Neighbourhood Policing changes, as the transition will be undertaken in stages, however a soft launch date for Sheffield will take place on 11 September; and arrangements are being put in place for the launch.
Details of the Neighbourhood Policing Teams will be published on the website in due course. This information is currently being compiled in consultation with key stakeholders and partner agencies.
Page 1 OPPC Public Accountability Board 29/08/17
Member of the public “A” also asked:-
“Who are the partner agencies?”
Discussions took place at the Community Safety Partnerships Gold Group meetings, in Quarters 1 and 2, key stakeholders and partners were involved in these meetings.
Member of the public “B”
“When the new Policing model is in place would the Chief Constable assure Neighbourhood Watch that we will stop having to fight for recognition and being passed from one member of staff to another and become useful, valued and standard partners voluntarily within the Police Force.
As the biggest Volunteer group, we work hard for both Communities and to support the Police Force and it becomes disheartening to find that we have to keep promoting ourselves to the Force.”
ACC Hartley reported that Neighbourhood Watch was an integral part of Neighbourhood Policing. The Community Alert System is expected to go live at the end of September/early October and an event to launch this will be organised shortly.
The Senior Leadership Group is now in place providing the stability the Force requires and Neil Thomas had been appointed as Force lead. A meeting with Neighbourhood Watch had been arranged towards the end of this week.
4 URGENT ITEMS
There were no urgent items.
5 ITEMS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE ABSENCE OF THE PUBLIC AND PRESS
There were no items on the agenda.
6 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest.
7 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD HELD ON 19 JULY 2017
The minutes of the meeting held on 19 July 2017 were accepted as an accurate record, subject to the following change:-
Spit Guards It was noted that these were in use by a number of police forces in the UK. The IEP have considered their use by SYP and supported their introduction
Page 2 OPPC Public Accountability Board 29/08/17
in custody suites and prisoner transport vans. The IEP supported the decision by SYP not to issue guards as an item of personal kit to officers across SYP, and that they should only be used when officers are actually at risk. DCC Roberts confirmed that the issues raised had been taken into account.
Training will be progressed with a projected launch in early 2018.
It was noted that Spit Guards are made of fine mesh and are made by a company in Sheffield.
8 MATTERS ARISING/ACTIONS
The following matters arising/actions were outstanding:-
253 C Foster had started the collaboration work. J Wright is currently going through the collaboration agreements to ensure they are still ‘fit for purpose’ and will report back to the Joint Independent Audit Committee on 26 September 2017 – ITEM DISCHARGED. 256 Work on the Force Performance Framework is still ongoing – M Buttery and M Roberts to prepare a brief for the next meeting. 264 Findings of the Baseline Assessment - Tenders out and a decision is expected next week – M Buttery to discuss with F Topliss 265 Independent Advisory Groups – ACC Hartley to update CC Watson. 266 Research and Data Gathering report – A report will be presented to the IEP in September. 267 Force Crime Review – October PAB 268 MTFS – September PAB
9 PERFORMANCE REPORT (2017/18 PLAN)
DCC Roberts presented the Protecting Vulnerable People Report.
Updates were provided on Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE), Domestic Abuse, Mental Health, Missing Persons and Rape and Serious Sexual Offences.
The Commissioner appreciated the figures set out in the report relating to the number of active Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) cases. It provided a sense of where we are at present. The Commissioner asked how the conviction rates relating to child abuse and child abuse/rape compared with other forces nationally/regionally. It was not possible to compare nationally. However, the Force agreed to pull the regional comparisons together for the next meeting.
The Commissioner inquired about the low conviction rates under Domestic Abuse and made reference to Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) data which also recognises this. The Force accepted they are not where they wanted to be and reported that over the same timeframe last year they had recorded some improvements and that the current trend appears encouraging; work is continuing to improve the current picture. Page 3 OPPC Public Accountability Board 29/08/17
A discussion followed on postal requisitions and the need to work more closely with CPS to ensure the process runs more smoothly and that both agencies have what they require in a timely manner.
South Yorkshire Police are currently reviewing their use of postal requisitions, as they have been deemed (on occasion) to inappropriately use them. However, the processes have been enhanced and significant improvements are expected by mid-September.
CC Watson stated the ‘victims journey’ needs to be improved and work is to be undertaken on what this currently looks like by unpinning processes and identifying some neutral points.
A discussion followed on the mental health demand. Although the Force are fully utilising the triage and mental health nurses’ services - more facilities are required to deal with this demand. Vulnerability is an additional aspect to mental health and this is also adding to the demand. A Crisis Care Concordat is in place.
It was also noted that prison establishments are also under equipped to deal with mental health and that a broader public debate is to be had. Supt Dan Hope is leading this work for South Yorkshire Police.
The Home Office have requested that on-line mental health monitoring forms are submitted. This will enable the government to accurately capture and monitor mental health data.
South Yorkshire Police, with support from the Commissioner, would welcome a discussion with Local Authorities regarding repeat reports of missing children in looked after care. This will hopefully try to reduce such demand. A number of initiatives are underway such as the 3D model work and technology tags for dementia sufferers.
The Police and Crime Commissioner and Chief Constable had adopted different definitions for vulnerability, however, it was agreed that these definitions should be harmonised. South Yorkshire Police will adopt the College of Policing definition already used by the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner.
A brief discussion followed on best practice and lessons learnt from Operation Scorpio. Although prosecutions were unlikely to evolve from this case, it had been a successful safeguarding operation.
The Board requested that successful prosecutions that receive significant sentences are published on the website along with any positive news stories.
IT WAS AGREED THAT: South Yorkshire Police to pull together the regional comparative data of current conviction rates relating to child abuse and child abuse and rape South Yorkshire Police and the Police and Crime Commissioner to meet with Local Authority representatives regarding repeat reports of missing children
Page 4 OPPC Public Accountability Board 29/08/17
South Yorkshire Police to adopt the College of Policing’s vulnerability definition.
10 ANY OTHER BUSINESS - TO BE NOTIFIED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING
None.
11 DATE AND TIME OF NEXT MEETING
26 September 2017 at 2pm, Officer of the Police and Crime Commissioner, 5 Carbrook Hall Road, Carbrook, Sheffield, S9 2EH.
CHAIR
Page 5 This page is intentionally left blank Date of Update Ref meeting Matter arising/action Owner Complete (Y/N) 253 25/04/2017 Information to be provided to the next JIAC, 20/06/2017 on 06/06/17 Staff Officer, Chris Foster is preparing the DCC M Roberts Y who the Force collaborates with , what governance information for JIAC. arrangements are and what the anticipated benefits are. 29/8/17 - J Wright is currently going through the collboration agreements to ensure they are still fit for purpose and will report back to the Joint Independent Audit Committee on 26 September 2017 - ITEM DISCHARGED 256 25/04/2017 Force Performance Framework to be presented at a future 06/06/17 Work is progressing and the report is due CC Watson meeting. shortly and will be presented to the Management Board. 29/8/17 M Buttery and M Roberts to prepare a briefing for the next meeting
264 06/06/2017 Findings of the Baseline Assessment of Public Trust and 29/8/17 - Update on Trust and Confidence on the ACC Hartley / Confidence in SYP to be presented to PAB in the Autumn. agenda for October S-M Richards
265 06/06/2017 Confirmation of Independent Advisory Groups (IAGs) F Topliss
Page 7 Page membership required. 266 19/07/2017 SYP to bring the report, requested by the IEP, on Research 12/9/17 - A report will be presented to PAB in October and Data Gathering to a future PAB Meeting. 267 19/07/2017 The Force Crime Review to be reported into PAB in October 29/8/17 - A report is being prepared for the October DCC Roberts 2017 (after it has been launched at the Strategic Change meeting Board in September 2017). 268 19/07/2017 MTFS - A further updated report - in narrative form - to be 29/8/17 - The MTFS will be brought to the September N Hiller brought to PAB in September 2017 meeting 269 29/08/2017 SYP to prepare a regional compariative data report on DCC Roberts conviction rates relating to child abuse and child rape 270 29/08/2017 SYP and PCC to meet with Local Authorities regarding DCC Roberts
repeat reports of missing children Agenda Item 8 271 29/08/2017 SYP to adopt the College of Policing's vulnerability definition T Forber This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 9
PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD
8th SEPTEMBER 2017
SOUTH YORKSHIRE POLICE PERFORMANCE AGAINST THE POLICE AND CRIME PLAN PRIORITIES AND REQUIREMENTS
THEME: TACKLING CRIME AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR (ASB)
REPORT OF THE CHIEF CONSTABLE
1 PURPOSE OF REPORT
To provide an update to the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) around progress to meet the requirements of the Police and Crime Plan 2017-2021 relating to the strategic priority ‘Tackling Crime and Antisocial Behaviour (ASB)’. These requirements are:-
Requirement 1: I require South Yorkshire Police to intervene earlier with vulnerable people to prevent them becoming repeat victims or victims of more harmful crime.
Requirement 2: I require South Yorkshire Police to tackle offenders that cause the most harm in the community.
Requirement 3: I require South Yorkshire Police to work with partners, other agencies and the community and voluntary sector to deliver a plan (to be developed over the next six months), that sets out how they will prevent and protect vulnerable people from further, more harmful crimes, including how they will address feelings of safety.
Requirement 6: I require South Yorkshire Police to demonstrate how they will respond to regional and national policing requirements detailed by the Home Secretary in the Strategic Policing Requirement.
Requirement 7: I require South Yorkshire Police to demonstrate effective prevention and action to tackle those areas of crime listed in the Strategic Intelligence Assessment that have been assessed as ‘Very High Risk’.
2 RECOMMENDATION(S) AND / OR DECISION(S) REQUIRED
The PCC is recommended to:-
a) Consider and discuss the contents of this report; and b) Consider whether further assurance is required in relation to the progress being made to meet the Plan requirements.
3 PERFORMANCE SUMMARY ASSESSMENT
Over the past 12-months, the demand on South Yorkshire Police has increased by approximately 15,000 incidents (3%), with the Force recording almost 490,000 incidents.
1 Page 9 Of the total demand (incidents recorded), 20% are crimes and 15% are antisocial behaviour incidents. The remainder consists of public safety incidents (42%), transport related incidents (9%) and administration related incidents (14%).
Increases in crime and demand are reflected nationally. From April 2016 to March 2017, the Office for National Statistics reported that an annual national rise of 10% was observed in recorded crime. Factors contributing to this 10% increase were likely to be improvements to crime recording and practices, expanded offence coverage and genuine increases in some crime types.
To compare annual trends, the Force recorded the following levels of crime (from August to the following July):
2013/14 – over 92,000 crimes 2014/15 – over 95,000 crimes 2015/16 – over 103,000 crimes 2016/17 – over 133,000 crimes
Antisocial Behaviour (ASB): Over the past 12 months, levels of antisocial behaviour in South Yorkshire have decreased by 11%, whereas recorded crime has increased by 12%. Antisocial behaviour demand is split between three broad categories, environmental (10%), nuisance (69%) and personal (21%). Following an internal crime data audit, the Force has improved its recognition of identifying previously missed crimes (mainly criminal damage, lower level violence, public order and harassment) contained within reports of personal antisocial behaviour contributing to some of these changes.
Crime: The highest volume increases in South Yorkshire were for violent crime, public order, residential burglary, robbery and sexual offences.
Burglary, Vehicle Crime, Criminal Damage and Arson: South Yorkshire Police consistently records levels of burglary, vehicle crime and criminal damage above its peer forces and the national picture. Increased reports of deliberate fires from the South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service (SYFRS) saw arson offences spike earlier in the year. Research has begun in order to understand the comparable reports of deliberate fires from SYFRS.
Hate Crime: Positive work to encourage reporting and support victims has seen the Force increase recording of hate crime in line with peer forces now, but less than the national average. Racial hate offences account for the majority of hate crimes. Following each of the terrorist attacks at Westminster, Manchester Arena, London Bridge and Finsbury Park Mosque, increases in hate crime reports were noticeable.
Personal Robbery: Nationally, personal robbery offences have risen with 39 out of 43 forces seeing rises including the seven other forces in our most similar group. However, South Yorkshire has seen the greatest rise when compared with peer forces. The Force recorded 465 more offences in 12 months, a 50% increase. District-based Priority Crime Teams actively investigate robbery offences and work with Integrated Offender Management (IOM) units to disrupt offending.
2 Page 10 Sexual Offences: Recorded levels of sexual offences are now closely aligned with peer forces, despite an increase in South Yorkshire equating to 500 more offences in the 12-month period up to June 2017. The National Crime Agency historic child sexual exploitation (CSE) investigation, Operation Stovewood, accounts for 249 crimes out of this increase of 500.
Violence: Increases in recorded violent crime in South Yorkshire Police are consistent with peer forces. Offences involving knives or sharp instruments have risen nationally by 20% (Office for National Statistics). Locally, each district has implemented bespoke plans to address their respective knife crime problem profiles, including targeted interventions and delivery of the “Guns and Knives Takes Lives” programme in schools. The Force also applies a robust approach to the management of licensed premises and associated disorder/violence with the use of appropriate and proportionate closure orders and licensing reviews. Under the Licensing Act 2003, premises closure orders can be made where there is an intelligence-based anticipation of serious alcohol fuelled disorder or where disorder is taking place, likely to break out or is imminent in licensed premises. The Force will always try to seek the co-operation of the licensee before resorting to statutory closures.
Crime Data Integrity (CDI): To enable the Force to identify areas for improvements in line with National Crime Recording Standards (NCRS) and Home Office Counting Rules (HOCR), the Audit and Governance Unit (AGU) now conduct internal audits commensurate with HMICFRS methods. This means that although internal audits take longer, they are more detailed (than those some forces conduct) and the increases in recorded crime can be taken into context with improvements made with respect to crime data integrity. The Crime Data Integrity Gold Group chaired by ACC Forber ensures Strategic Governance.
Repeat Demand Crime/ASB Locations: Each of the four Districts have problem solving plans in place to tackle their respective top 20 repeat demand locations. Generally, these relate to supermarkets/shops, hospitals, transport interchanges and fast food outlets, for antisocial behaviour, crime and public safety related issues. The Prevention and Demand Reduction Group chaired by ACC Hartley provides Strategic direction and oversight for this work. As part of the Safer South Yorkshire Programme, detailed demand analysis is being undertaken and will inform an operating model for the Force.
The top two repeat demand locations for each district and the numbers of incidents each has generated in 12 months are:-
Doncaster - Doncaster Royal Infirmary (756 incidents) and Asda Stores (699 incidents) Barnsley - Asda Stores (529 incidents) and Barnsley District General Hospital (491 incidents) Rotherham - Tesco Stores (618 incidents) and Rotherham District General Hospital (432 incidents) Sheffield – Northern General Hospital (1280 incidents) and Tesco Stores (1018 incidents)
‘What Works’ Problem-Solving and ASB Portal: The Force has developed and implemented a “What Works” IT based portal for local officers to assist them with problem-
3 Page 11 solving location-based crime, antisocial behaviour hotspots, repeat demand locations and supportive repeat/vulnerable victims plans. Development is underway to ensure that local officers draw in best practice and evidence based policing approaches, maximising efficient and effective use of resources and tactics.
4 FUTURE DIRECTION/DEVELOPMENT
Future development work includes the following aspects:-
Abandoned 101 Calls: Atlas Court are reviewing plans to address the number of abandoned calls from the public via the 101 non-emergency telephone system. Further analysis of why calls are abandoned is required because it is unclear whether the Force is missing opportunities to record crime and antisocial behaviour or if the public are trying to chase updates on incident attendance or progress with investigations. However, South Yorkshire Police is not alone with respect to abandoned 101 calls, national increases in demand are a factor and some calls do take significantly longer to deal with than others (e.g. missing person reports, vulnerable people, complex crime matters). The volume of 999 calls into Atlas Court has also increased and the answering of 999 emergency calls takes priority over the 101 calls. The volume of calls received by the Force has increased significantly over the last five years as illustrated by the table below.
Year 999 Received 101 Non-emergency received Total calls received (999+101)
2012 204,202 351,750 555,952 2013 200,564 361,865 562,429 2014 201,276 623,408 824,684 2015 207,370 658,380 865,750 2016 220,755 630,646 851,401
CONNECT IT System Training: A significant training programme for the whole Force commences early September in preparation for the new IT solution, called CONNECT, and will represent substantial positive changes to the current way in which the Force conducts business in the core areas of investigation, intelligence, case file preparation and custody. CONNECT will be formally launched in December 2017, with the new communications contact management IT system, called Smart Contact following in March 2018
Crime Management Hub: To reduce demand on operational officers and assist the Force in managing the increases in crime reports, implementation of a Crime Management Hub will commence in September 2017. The hub will manage and conduct investigations into crimes, provide investigative direction to officers and complete Victim’s Code of Practice (VCOP) requirements. As well as providing a better service to members of the public, this has the potential to provide a more efficient way of working equivalent to saving the time of 100 officers.
Cyber Crime: The Cyber and Digital Team will continue to develop capability to manage digital investigations and intelligence. This is necessary in view of current and projected increases in cyber related crimes. In May 2017, a Home Office led data reconciliation required the Force to review 602 crimes that could have a cyber-crime element (due to the
4 Page 12 wide-ranging keywords contained within crime reports that constitute identification of cyber- crime) and 490 existing crime reports were then updated to reflect a cyber-crime element. The Force has introduced “kiosk” devices, to enable specially trained digital forensic officers to examine electronic devices used in Cyber Crime and will improve the Force’s investigative capability.
Forensic Policy: The Force is reviewing current service level agreements with the Regionalised Scientific Support Services to achieve the best possible service in order to maximise the recovery of forensic evidence from crime scenes with a drive to detect crimes and convict offenders.
Neighbourhood Policing Update: Requirement 3 from the PCC Police and Crime Plan:
South Yorkshire Police is fully committed to delivering Neighbourhood Policing as a key aspect of the Safer South Yorkshire Programme. The Strategic Change Board is responsible for the strategic direction of this programme. The new operating model has been subject to extensive public consultation.
In April 2017, Barnsley was the first district to introduce dedicated area based teams where police officers and PCSOs work in partnership with other agencies. The remaining three districts Sheffield, Rotherham and Doncaster commenced implementation of their initial Neighbourhood Policing structures in September 2017. Naturally, their structures will mature in due course. Police Now graduate recruits will join South Yorkshire Police from September 2017 and be based in high demand communities across the force. Appropriate Neighbourhood Policing management and supervisory structures are in place at each district.
Barnsley There are two area based neighbourhood policing teams comprising police officers, PCSOs, children and young person officers working in partnership with local authority community safety staff, housing and environment officers, victim and witness support and a private sector housing management and environment officer. A centrally based hub in the town centre has a an additional partnership working structure to include staff from housing, tenancy support, case management, engagement (licensing, crime reduction, gypsy/traveller, asylum/migration, cohesion/Prevent), homelessness, housing advisory, welfare rights, planning enforcement, environmental and private sector housing licensing.
Sheffield Sheffield is introducing eleven locally based neighbourhood policing teams comprising police officers, PCSOs and also Immigration staff in areas of such need. A support hub has a wider partnership based aspect consisting of local authority safer neighbourhood staff and wardens, enforcement and Prevent officers, the LIFE Team, mental health, children and young person officers, antisocial behaviour, hate crime and missing person officers.
Rotherham
5 Page 13 Rotherham has three area based neighbourhood policing teams comprising police officers, PCSOs, children and young person officers. The support hub has a small antisocial behaviour team.
Doncaster Doncaster has three area based neighbourhood policing teams consisting of police officers and PCSOs. The support hub has licensing, children and young person, youth offending and antisocial behaviour officers.
5 COMMUNICATION PLANS / CONSIDERATIONS
Formal internal and external media releases have been published where South Yorkshire Police have secured convictions for serious criminal offences and premises closure orders for antisocial behaviour occurring within South Yorkshire obtained. These will continue as criminal investigations reach conclusions at Court and where South Yorkshire Police and relevant partners work together with Legal Services to obtain premises closure orders.
Recent examples of closure orders obtained:-
Rotherham – A residential address was closed for three months, including eviction of the tenants due to drug dealing activity.
Doncaster - A public house was closed following a drive-by shooting and the closure extended by Magistrates due to specific concerns that another attack may be imminent. The Closure Notice was subsequently lifted once the risk subsided.
Sheffield – A residential address was closed for three months, prohibiting access to anybody other than the habitual resident and Sheffield City Council, due to drug dealing activity.
Barnsley – Peel Parade Car Park was subject to a closure notice except for legitimate users of the car park due to persistent antisocial behaviour.
A “#DroptheKnife” campaign was launched, to raise awareness and educate those carrying knives of the serious consequences they could face such as prison, injury or death. Over 50 knives and bladed weapons were recovered during the force-wide knife surrender in July 2017.
The “Hate Hurts” campaign continued in August to raise awareness and understanding of hate crime and how the Force can work with victims to better identify and record their perceptions around the motivation behind the crime or incident.
The Neighbourhood Policing survey results from consultation events held in communities across the Force by members of the Senior Leadership Team, face-to-face engagement and public surveys are depicted in Appendix One.
6 Page 14 6 EXCEPTION REPORTING
Enabling Fair Treatment – Your Voice Counts (YVC) Neighbourhood Survey: The Trust and Confidence Steering Group will look to consider aspects of the recent public Your Voice Counts survey results. Increased confidence and feelings of safety would positively be influenced by effective problem solving, visible actions and the use of restorative justice especially where low-level offenders can be seen carrying out unpaid community work. The public are often uncertain of who the most appropriate agency is to contact to report certain issues to and this may contribute to why some of the 80% of all South Yorkshire Police demand is not crime related or a statutory function. Being able to effectively signpost the public to the correct agency will reduce unnecessary demand.
Chief Officer Lead: Deputy Chief Constable Mark Roberts
Report Author: Chief Inspector Darren Starkey END
7 Page 15 Appendix One – Neighbourhood Policing Survey Infographic
8 Page 16 Agenda Item 10
PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD
Date: 26 September 2017
Joint Report of the Chief Finance & Commissioning Officer and the Director of Finance
Budget Monitoring Report 2017/18: Position as at 31 July 2017
Purpose of the report
1. This report has been submitted to the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) to provide information relating to the financial position for 2017/18 as at 31 July 2017.
Recommendation
2. To note the overall financial forecast for 2017/18.
Background
3. On 15 February 2017 the PCC approved a revenue budget of £250.078m. The net revenue budget, after the use of reserves is £242.287m, which is the amount financed by government grant and Council Tax income.
4. The PCC also approved a capital programme of £12.8m for 2017/18. However, at the end of the 2016/17 financial year the budget was increased to £16m as a result of slippage on some programmes.
5. There have been no further revisions to the revenue budget since last reported to PAB on 19 July 2017. The table below shows the position:
£'000 £'000 Approved Expenditure budget 250,078
CC Approved Changes Redundancy Change -1,950 C/F Revenue Grant Exp 3 -1,947
Revised Expenditure budget 248,131 Contribution from Reserves -5,844 Net Budget Requirement 242,287
Overall Revenue Position at 31 July 2017
6. The current forecast level of expenditure to the year-end, when compared to the revised budget is projecting an overall overspend of £0.3m (excluding legacy) an increase of £0.1m since last reported. The previous budget Page 17 monitoring report included an overspend on legacy costs of £1.2m relating to Operation Stovewood and the potential increase of the National Crime Agency (NCA) costs for 2017/18. However, the increased level of expenditure the NCA are proposing has been put on hold until the business case has been reviewed by HMIC and special grant funding from the Home Office has been obtained.
7. The table below shows the forecast position with an analysis between the Chief Constable’s budget, the PCC and OPCC’s budget and legacy issue costs. Further details of the variations and reasons for the variations in the Force outturn position are included at Appendix 1.
Summary Forecast as at 31 July 2017
Revised Forecast Budget Outturn Variation £'000 £'000 £'000
Chief Constable Budget 238,887 238,959 -72
PCC and OPCC Budget 2,066 2,145 -79 Partnerships & Commissioning 3,745 3,745 0 Capital Financing 3,961 3,961 0 External Funding -5,702 -5,583 -119
Contribution from Reserves -1,953 -2,223 270
Total Net Expenditure 241,004 241,004 0
Legacy Issues Operation Stovewood Costs 1,000 1,000 0 Potential Compensation Claims 4,400 4,400 0 Contributions from Reserves -4,117 -4,117 0
Total Legacy Issues 1,283 1,283 0
Total Net Expenditure 242,287 242,287 0
Explanation of variations
Chief Constable budget
8. Overall, the force projection is a small overspend of £0.2m (£0.01m excluding external funding). It is assumed that the net costs of the legacy issues by 31 March 2018 will be equal to the budget provisions. Page 18 Whilst the force currently has unachieved savings, the current forecast suggests that these can be contained in this financial year if spending continues as projected. This does not allow any flexibility for any unplanned spending and if savings targets are not achieved this will have a significant adverse effect on future years.
9. The most significant variances to note are within police pay, projecting an underspend of £1.6m which offsets an overspend on police overtime of £1.3m. Police staff pay is projecting an underspend of £1.6m which is helping to offset a £1.5m overspend on other employee expenses mainly due to increased officer ill health retirements of £0.8m. Further explanations on variances can be found at Appendix 1.
10. There are number of emerging risks which may potentially affect the outturn:
Current medical retirements are projected to exceed the budget (25 compared to 15) at an additional cost of £0.8m. Consideration should be given to increasing the budget in future years.
Officer overtime is projected to overspend by £1.3m and this has increased by £0.5m since last month. Although this is currently offset by a police officer pay underspend of £1.6m, if overtime continues to rise this will take the force into an increased overspend position.
The current workforce plan projects that the force will be over on officer strength by approximately 35 at the end of the financial year. A recent decision has been made to change the planned recruitment to reduce the overestablishment. This change will be made to the August report.
PCC and OPCC budgets
11. The PCC and OPCC’s current forecast position is an overspend of £79k. This is due mainly to additional legal costs.
Legacy Issue Costs
12. There has been no change to the forecasts with regards to Hillsborough Civil Claims and the CSE Civil Claims since last reported.
13. As stated in paragraph 6 above, the potential increase in costs of Operation Stovewood reported as at 31 May 2017 have now been put on hold pending the review by HMIC of the NCA forecasts and the decision from the Home Office with regards to the special grant application that has been submitted.
Capital Outturn Position at 31 July 2017
14. The original capital programme for 2017/18 was £12.8m, however due to slippage at the end of 2016/17 this increased to £16m. There has been a further increase of £41k relating to PCC capital projects for the South Yorkshire Sexual Assault Referral Centre (SARC), which will be funded from the PCC Commissioning Earmarked Reserve. Page 19 15. The forecast outturn as at 31 July 2017 shows total capital expenditure of £14.8m for 2017/18, which is to be financed as follows:
Budget Forecast Capital Budget 2017/18 Outturn £'000 £'000
Government Grants 1,100 1,100 Capital Receipts 1,913 1,913 External Funding 0 134 Revenue Contribution 0 41 Contribution from Capital Reserves 3,742 3,742 Borrowing 9,355 7,924 Overall Total 16,110 14,854
16. The forecast outturn includes slippage of £1.2m which relates to the following projects:
Rotherham Boiler - £0.5m – This project is currently on hold.
Unified Communications - £0.3m – this project has been re-phased and the slippage is mainly due to the cloud based PABX telephone migration.
ESMCP ESN - £0.4m – This is a national programme to replace the Airwaves Radios. Nationally agreed changes to the ‘go live’ dates has resulted in slippage.
17. The forecast outturn for capital receipts is still being projected in line with the budget, however as at 31 July 2017 no sales of assets have been completed. This will be reviewed in further detail for the next budget monitoring report.
Reserves Position at 31 July 2017
18. As at 31 July 2017 the overall level of revenue reserves, estimated to be available at 31 March 2018 is £32.3m. This includes general reserves of £11.3m and earmarked reserves of £21m as shown in the table below:
Page 20 Actual Budgeted Forecast Balance Movement balance at at 31/3/17 in year 31/3/18
£'000 £'000 £'000
General Reserves 17,633 -6,323 11,310
Earmarked Reserves 21,273 -270 21,003
TOTAL REVENUE RESERVES 38,906 -6,593 32,313
19. The only change to the reserves usage since the last budget monitoring report is the funding from the PCC Commissioning Earmarked Reserve for the SARC capital projects of £41k.
20. During the year if expenditure varies to budget this will impact on the level of resources available. Until any corrective management action is known or taken the current projected overall overspend of £0.3m has not been included in the above forecast.
21. The earmarked reserve consists of a number of balances set aside for specific purposes to meet any known or predicted future liabilities. The main earmarked reserves are:
Insurance Reserve of £10.7m: resources have been set aside to meet the costs of potential liabilities under the current ‘self-insurance’ arrangements. It is too early in the year to predict any movement in this reserves for 2017/18, and
Legacy Issue Reserve of £6.3m: resources have been set aside from 2016/17 to provide for the potential future costs of civil claims (Hillsborough and CSE) and potential Operation Stovewood expenditure.
Name: Sara Slater Position: Finance Manager, OPCC Contact number: 0114 2964148 Name: Debbie Carrington Position: Management Accountant, South Yorkshire Police Contact number: 0114 2523554
Page 21 APPENDIX 1 Force Forecast Outturn as at 31 July 2017
Full Year Forecast Forecast Budget Outturn Variance £'000 £'000 £'000 POLICE OFFICER PAY 124,892 123,309 1,583 POLICE OFFICER OVERTIME 5,100 6,443 -1,343 PCSO PAY 7,519 7,576 -57 PCSO OVERTIME 32 49 -17 POLICE STAFF PAY 58,183 56,588 1,595 POLICE STAFF OVERTIME 987 1,163 -176 OTHER EMPLOYEE EXPENSES 6,829 8,338 -1,509 EMPLOYEE INT RECHARGES -133 -100 -33 TOTAL PAY AND EMPLOYMENT 203,409 203,366 43
PREMISES RELATED EXPENDITURE 7,253 7,126 127 TRANSPORT RELATED EXPENDITURE 3,895 4,162 -267 SUPPLIES AND SERVICES 15,642 15,319 323 AGENCY 13,341 13,576 -235 TOTAL OVERHEADS 40,131 40,183 -52 INCOME -9,785 -9,915 130 SPECIFIC GRANT FUNDING -583 -271 -312 DEBT CHARGES 41 41 0 GRANT FUNDED EXPENDITURE 3 3 0
TOTAL GRANT, TRADING & REIMB. INCOME -10,324 -10,142 -182
SUBTOTAL FORCE EXP. BEFORE LEGACY 233,216 233,407 -191
EXT. FUNDING 5,672 5,553 119 TOTAL FORCE EXP. BEFORE LEGACY 238,888 238,960 -72
PCC AND OPCC 2,066 2,145 -79 PARTNERSHIP & COMMISSIONING 3,745 3,745 0 CAPITAL FINANCING 3,961 3,961 0 EXTERNAL FUNDING -5,702 -5,583 -119 TOTAL OPCC EXP. BEFORE LEGACY 4,070 4,268 -198
POTENTIAL COMPENSATION CLAIMS 4,400 4,400 0 STOVEWOOD ENQUIRY 1,000 1,000 0 TOTAL LEGACY COSTS 5,400 5,400 0
TOTAL SERVICE NET EXPENDITURE 248,358 248,628 (270)
Page 22 The Force’s expenditure is currently forecasting an overspend of £0.2m. The significant variations are explained as follows:
Police Officers Pay & Pension - £1.6m underspend Actual leavers under the voluntary exit scheme (VES) are 33.48fte in April and 42.98fte projected in October, compared to the 100 budgeted. Retirements and other leavers although slightly lower than projected in the first four months, are expected to continue in line with budget, resulting in the projected strength being approximately 35 officers in excess of funded posts at 31 March 2018 (see table below):
Month Established Projected Strength Posts (excluding grant Projected (excluding funded) Variance grant funded) FTE FTE FTE Mar-17 2,400.00 2,361.90 (38.10) Apr-17 2,380.00 2,310.32 (69.68) May-17 2,380.00 2,326.32 (53.68) Jun-17 2,380.00 2,338.32 (41.68) Jul-17 2,360.00 2,348.32 (11.68) Aug-17 2,360.00 2,341.32 (18.68) Sep-17 2,360.00 2,349.32 (10.68) Oct-17 2,310.00 2,289.34 (20.66) Nov-17 2,310.00 2,314.34 4.34 Dec-17 2,310.00 2,297.34 (12.66) Jan-18 2,310.00 2,319.34 9.34 Feb-18 2,310.00 2,319.34 9.34 Mar-18 2,310.00 2,345.34 35.34
The table below analyses the police pay underspend.
Full Year Projected Full Year Budget Outturn Variance £m £m £m Basic Pay, National Insurance 120.87 120.08 0.79 and Pension Unsocial Hours 1.99 1.80 0.19 Non Devolved Allowances 1.20 0.98 0.22 JSO(U) – Police Pay Recharge 0.39 0.00 0.39 Other 0.44 0.45 (0.01) 124.89 123.31 1.58
The projected underspend on Basic Pay and oncosts has increased by £0.3m since last month because of three additional VES leavers and an increase of £0.14m to the budget for six temporary funded constables.to work on the IS Contact Management and Criminal Justice Projects.
Page 23 Police Officer Overtime - £1.3m overspend The main areas contributing to the overspend on police Overtime are JSOU £0.4m, SCS £0.3m, Districts £0.4m, Atlas Communications £0.1m and Contingencies £0.1m. For JSO(U) SYP only police overtime costs are projected to be overspent by £0.2m, £0.1m of this has been incurred in relation to Operation Product (raised threat level following recent attacks) for which there is no budget, £0.01m relates to the net cost for the Kell Brook fight and £0.05m relates to football.
JSOU Collaboration year to date police overtime is overspent, based on these levels continuing, SYP will incur a £0.2m share of the projected overspend. The year to date overspends include Specialist Support Teams, Firearms Planning and Public Order Training. In SCS Police overtime is forecast to overspend by £0.3m which is mainly due to an overspend within the PPU, this relates to vacancies and high demand in this area. Additionally there has been an overspend in Intel and Operations, which includes an unbudgeted overspend on Op Zeus.
Since June’s report the projected overspend on Police overtime has increased by £0.5m. The majority of this increase is in districts, the projections now reflect a continuation of the level of overtime incurred in the first four months of the year.
PCSO’s - £0.06m overspend As at 2 August 2017 the strength was 211.75 compared to 225 funded posts (including 9 grant funded posts in Barnsley). The projection is based on 18 leavers over the course of the year and an intake of 20 in October 2017.
The overspend assumes that the PCC is funding the 10 Sheffield PCSOs and reflects the vacancies during the year, net of the 4.5% vacancy factor. Average vacancies are projected to be 8, an average of 10 would be required to be within budget. The expected strength at the end of the year is approximately 220.
Month Established Projected Projected Posts Strength FTE Variance FTE Apr-17 225.00 213.38 (11.62) May-17 225.00 211.72 (13.28) Jun-17 225.00 207.13 (17.87) Jul-17 225.00 211.75 (13.25) Aug-17 225.00 210.46 (14.54) Sep-17 225.00 208.46 (16.54) Oct-17 225.00 226.46 1.46 Nov-17 225.00 225.42 0.42 Dec-17 225.00 223.42 (1.58) Jan-18 225.00 222.42 (2.58) Feb-18 225.00 221.42 (3.58) Mar-18 225.00 219.76 (5.24)
Page 24 Police Staff - £1.6m underspend Staff projections are based on current strength, adjusted for known leavers and projected recruitment. The table below analyses the police staff underspend:
Full Year Projected Full Year Budget Outturn Variance £m £m £m Contingencies – Unachieved (1.00) - (1.00) Savings Contingencies – Modernisation 0.43 - 0.43 Posts Contingencies – Contact - 0.33 (0.33) Management Contingencies – Other 0.32 - 0.32 Contingencies Atlas Communications 14.21 14.13 0.08 Information Systems 3.51 3.03 0.48 Facilities Management 2.61 2.42 0.19 SCS 8.54 7.88 0.66 Other 29.56 28.80 0.76 58.18 56.59 1.59
The following are unachieved staff savings as at the end of July:
£m Apprenticeship Savings (0.4) Other Staff (0.3) Force Change Performance Savings (0.2) Criminal Justice (0.2) Unachieved Staff Savings (1.1) Other Achieved Staff Savings 0.1 (1.0)
A budget of £1.25m was set in contingency for 40 staff posts to be created within SCS from the modernisation of 40 officer posts. 25 staff have been recruited and the budget has been transferred in July to reflect this which leaves £0.43m remaining.
The budget for 30 posts on the Contact Management Project is included within the IS budget. A provision has been included within the contingency projection for these posts to be filled from 1st October 2017, hence the projected overspend of £0.3m.
£0.3m remains in contingency budget for Duty Management System posts.
The staff contingency reported as an underspend in June has been utilised to fund the Atlas Comms vacancy factor in 2017/18 on a non recurrent basis. The MTRS has been updated to remove the vacancy factor from 2018/19 onwards.
The underspend within Information Systems (IS) is largely due to an underspend of £0.33m on the Contact Management Project and £0.17m on the Criminal Page 25 Justice Project. The Contact Management underspend is as a result of vacant Solution Support Team posts that require the approval of the PCC. In January the PCC requested that the force look at cheaper options and a report is currently being prepared.
The SCS projected underspend of £0.7m is as a result of vacancies within the department, some of which are the 15 workforce modernisation posts still to be recruited to.
A number of vacant posts exist within Facilities Management and recruitment is actively taking place for Cleaners and Handypersons. Other underspends are spread across the force.
Police Staff Overtime - £0.2m overspend Atlas Comms staff overtime is projecting to overspend by £0.1m. This is after an additional budget from the devolved budget reserve of £0.2m has been provided to cover the cost of Operation Summer, required to secure appropriate cover during the summer months.
Other Employee Expenses - £1.5m overspend £3.9m was originally included in the 2017/18 budget for officer voluntary exit. Accounting rules required a provision to be made in the 2016/17 accounts, for the 33.48 officers leaving in April 2017 so the budget has been reduced by £1.95m. This has a nil effect as this was funded from reserves which have been reduced accordingly.
There is a projected overspend of £0.17m on the October VES, after part of the £1.95m budget has been used to fund additional recruitment and training costs within HR. A further 3.41 VES leavers have been included in the projections this month.
The overspend is largely due to ill health retirements. The budget was set for 15 and there are currently 25 projected, at an overspend of £0.8m. Agency staff is projected to overspend by £0.33m, the majority being in Information Systems where agency staff are being used to back fill vacant posts.
Transport - £0.27m overspend The overspend is because of unachieved savings targets. The majority of savings for Dashcams and business mileage have been achieved and the Telematics saving has slipped to 2018/19.
£m Telematics (Transport Element) (0.26) RPG Vehicles/Fuel –SCP (0.25) Business Mileage (0.01) Unachieved Transport Savings (0.52)
This is offset by fuel underspends of £0.2m projected in districts and departments some of which are required to realign the vehicle recharges budget and the remaining will be cashed in as a saving.
Page 26 Supplies and Services - £0.3m underspend Included within contingency is an unachieved saving of £0.5m for Procurement Contract savings. This is offset by an underspend on mobile phones of £0.35m, the majority being a saving from the reduction in the number of data sharers from 2 to 1 of £0.2m. There is also a balance of £0.08m left from the centralisation of mobile phone costs after funding the recurrent costs of the Mobile Stage 2 project. This will be reviewed and potentially removed as a budget saving.
For IS SYP only, there are significant underspends projected within supplies and services totalling £0.7m, including:
Network Support and Maintenance £0.1m Telephones £0.2m Airwave/Radio equipment £0.2m Airwave Charges £0.1m Other IT Cost £0.1m
An overspend of £0.3m has been projected for compensation as a result of an employment tribunal settlement.
Support & Agency - £0.2m overspend This is largely due to unachieved regional savings of £0.25m and unbudgeted mutual aid for football matches £0.1m. These are offset by a contingency of £0.1m which is no longer required.
Specific Grant Funding - £0.3m underachievement The original approved budget assumed that funding would be received from Sheffield City Council to fund 10 PCSOs.
Stovewood Enquiry – Nil Variance The budget for the cost of Operation Stovewood was set at £1m based on the assumption the Home Office will continue to fund 85% of the costs. The projection has been changed since last month’s report to reflect the request to the National Crime Agency (NCA) to restrict costs to the original estimate. If Special Grant rules are applied rather than the current 15% this could increase to £2.4m.
Page 27 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 13
PCC’s Notification of Concerns / Request for Force Assurance Report
Date: 18 July 2017
Subject: 101 – Sheffield City Council Withdrawal
Purpose of the report
This notification has been prompted by a meeting between the PCC and Members and Officers of Sheffield City Council (SCC). The meeting briefed the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) on plans by SCC to bring responsibility for all calls relating to SCC back into the Council from partners and contractors – including the 101 service.
SCC has insourced KIER Services and created an Out of Hours Service (based at Manor Lane) in April 2017.
The additional services currently operating telephony services are:
Adult Services Adult Provider Services (STIT Children’s Services team) Homelessness Services Highways Services Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) City Wide Care Alarms
Phase 2 is to transfer responsibility from SYP back to SCC for calls relating to Adult, Children and Homelessness services by November 2017.
Phase 3 is to transfer responsibility for ASB calls (non-emergency) from SYP back to SCC in April 2018.
Phase 4 is to review Highways and City Wide Care alarms contracts with an aim to transfer responsibility for these calls to AMEY and Tunstall back to SCC in April 2019
Questions to the Chief Constable
1. How will the withdrawal of SCC affect staffing numbers at Atlas Court?
a. Which staff, if any, will go to SCC as part of this ‘bringing back in house’? b. What if staff members want to go? We could well be left with demotivated/disgruntled staff which has its own issues for SYP. c. Has a view from legal on TUPE been provided?
Page 29 d. What selection methodology will be used to allocate staff between the two services? e. Will there be a managerial/HR resource implication in terms of any process that has to be followed?
2. What will be the non-financial benefits to the 101 service?
3. Will there be any training requirements for staff at Atlas Court as to what core business will be post split? (this will have a time, cost and resource implication)
4. Does the proposed phased plan suit SYP’s needs? This seems a proposal considering SCC’s needs. It may be SYP would prefer a ‘clean break’ or a re- ordering of the phases?
5. What hours of service will the SCC calls service keep? Is there potential of failed demand? What implications will this have on public perception/trust/confidence with the police?
6. What plans do you have for a public and partner awareness campaign?
7. What plans are there for an internal awareness campaign?
8. Is there any other information in relation to this subject that the PCC ought to be aware of?
9. Is there any other information in relation to this subject that the PCC ought to be aware of?
South Yorkshire Police response (with author, and chief officer endorsement)
Author – Supt. Bob Chapman – Head of Force Communications
I am able to answer the questions posed to the Chief Constable above, as follows:-
1) How will the withdrawal of SCC affect staffing numbers at Atlas Court
The withdrawal of SCC from this partnership will not affect staffing numbers at Atlas. Under the current agreement, SCC pay SYP £285k p/a to take their calls. We use this to fund 8 extra staff. These staff have always been SYP staff and will remain call / dispatch handlers, within SYP. There are no HR resource implications. TUPE does not apply in the termination of this particular partnership agreement.
Page 30 2) What will be the non-financial benefits to the 101 service
SYP Atlas communications centre will see a reduction in demand, particularly around Adults, Children and Homeless, which often take up large amounts of time to resolve. This will free up more time for the SYP operators to tackle other 101 calls. SCC intend to have Social workers sat in their call handling centre and will be able to offer a more in depth service.
3) Will there be any training requirements for staff at Atlas Court as to what core business will be post-split?
There will be no training implications for SYP, however, I am keen to build a strong relationship with SCC and their in house call handling facility, to ensure calls that we receive via 101 and passed between the two organisations, are dealt with as quickly and efficiently as possible
4) Does the proposed phased plan suit SYP needs? This seems a proposal considering SCC needs. It may be SYP would prefer a ‘clean break’ or a reordering of the phases?
The current 101 partnership seems to be unique, in that every other force I have had contact with, does not have such an arrangement. My feeling is that an end to the partnership as it stands is inevitable.
SCC originally wanted a two phase handover, namely Adults/Children/Homeless by December 2017 and the rest by March 2018. However, this week, I was informed that to do this would mean that they operated the new service at a loss, until they had the second phase complete. The new SCC position is that they would like one complete handover. This will mean that I am unable to hand over before March 2018, as SYP have to be assured that SCC have their processes in place and that they are able to properly meet demand. From what I have seen so far, I think that will be the case by March.
5) What hours of service will the SCC calls service keep? Is there potential for failed demand. What implications will this have on public perception/trust/confidence with the police?
SCC will take all calls 24/7 that relate to their areas of business. The starting point of a 101 call will always be into Atlas and SYP. SCC in conjunction with SYP are formulating flow charts of call journey for each area eg. Abandoned cars / noise nuisance etc. There is potential for failed demand and obviously this will fall to SYP as a fail- safe, which is why SYP have to be sure that SCC have safe guards in place, prior to hand over. However, there will need to be clear communication with
Page 31 the public prior to hand over, to ensure they have an understanding of the process.
6) What plans do you have for a public partnership awareness campaign?
Both organisations meet regularly to discuss implementation, part of the plan is to ensure the changes are full communicated to the public via the respective web sites of both organisations and a joint communications plan and strategy (to be drafted).
7) What Plans are there for an internal awareness campaign?
All SYP Atlas staff will be fully briefed as to any new arrangements. The wider SYP staff will be made aware via force Intranet.
8) Is there any other information in relation to this subject, that the PCC ought to be aware of?
Not at present, but I will update as we go along.
The PCC’s comments on the assurance provided
To be given at the meeting.
Page 32 Agenda Item 14
PCC’s Notification of Concerns / Request for Force Assurance Report
Date: 20 July 2017
Subject: Off Road Quad Bikes
Purpose of the report
This Notification has been prompted by members of the public raising this issue directly with the PCC in a public meeting (Warmsworth), and by an increase in the amount of correspondence being received in the OPCC relating to this matter.
Since January 2017, we have received 14 complaints / emails expressing dissatisfaction. These have been from all 4 districts. However, over the course of the last 3 months, correspondence has related to Sheffield East and Sheffield North East predominately (Manor and Prince of Wales Road). Historically, the majority of complaints have derived from Doncaster due to the availability of open / rural spaces, and from Rotherham North.
In September last year, residents in Goldthorpe raised significant issues with quad bikes occurring, particularly on King Street, causing ‘untold misery’ for the local community. Around 50 residents attended the PACT meeting to express their concerns.
Questions to the Chief Constable
1. What is the problem, is it growing, is it in certain places or widespread? 2. What is the role of the police, local authority and others? What liaison has occurred with other agencies on this issue and to what effect? 3. What is the legal position, what powers do the police and other have, what are the limitations to dealing with this? 4. What has the Force been doing to address this matter and what are they proposing to do? 5. Has the Force explored all options for addressing / resolving the issue long term? (Correspondence from members of the public suggests that it appears on face value that many of the penalties only address the problem in the short term i.e. seizure of vehicles). 6. Can the Force improve their post reporting system to address this? (Identifying individuals with assistance from members of the public and dealing with them at a later point?).
Page 33 South Yorkshire Police response (with author, and chief officer endorsement)
Questions to the Chief Constable
1. What is the problem, is it growing, is it in certain places or widespread?
BCU Breakdown by Day of Week.
FORCE A B C K OTHERS COUNT COUNT COUNT COUNT COUNT COUNT MONDAY 40 6 5 4 25 - TUESDAY 39 7 6 6 19 1 WEDNESDAY 42 8 3 8 22 1 THURSDAY 67 12 9 9 37 - FRIDAY 55 13 10 2 29 1 SATURDAY 84 20 16 13 33 2 SUNDAY 76 22 16 6 31 1 Grand Total 403 88 65 48 196 6 22% 16% 12% 49%
Difference from May’s totals:
FORCE A B C K OTHERS MAY 425 94 54 61 212 4 JUNE 403 88 65 48 196 6 DIFFERENCE -22 -6 11 -13 -16 2 % -5% -6% 20% -21% -8% 50% DIFFERENCE
Highest Car Beats by BCU :
CAR % BCU BCU LOCATION BEAT TOTAL A AB Doncaster West 45% B BB Barnsley East 66% C CB Rotherham East 40% K KB Sheffield East 32%
Page 34 Incident Time Profile :
Suggested Patrols :
Map showing suggested patrols and areas of increased or decreased activity compared to May :
Page 35 BARNSLEY PATROL AREA : PLATTS COMMON.
Sheffield Patrols : ECCLESFIELD.
Page 36 PARSONS CROSS.
MANOR / DARNALL / WYBOURN.
Page 37 ARBOURTHORNE / GLEADLESS VALLEY.
Page 38 HANDSWORTH / RICHMOND.
Summary :
Force activity appears to be slightly down (-5%) in June compared to May. Sheffield still dominates incident demand (49%). Weekends dominate the profile (40%). Weekend peak demand is between 12:00 – 20:00. Wednesday / Thursday / Friday sees demand from 18:00 – 20:00. Activity levels in the previously high areas continues (i.e CASTLEBECK), however, increased levels are seen around this main area of Sheffield (Handsworth / Richmond) which may indicate some spatial displacement.
2. What is the role of the police, local authority and others? What liaison has occurred with other agencies on this issue and to what effect?
In February 2016, Inspector Darren Johnson approached all four councils with regards to each council providing funding, allowing SYP to purchase 4 x new off road motorcycles as we currently only had 2.
Doncaster funded 2 x motorcycles and Rotherham and Sheffield funded 1 x each. Barnsley did not participate.
Since that date JSO(U) have trained 2 x riders per shift and 3 x riders per Doncaster, Rotherham Sheffield.
Page 39 SYP currently deploy 2 x JSOU riders per weekend, (Minimum staffing levels and tasking permitting) and then Doncaster, Sheffield and Rotherham SPOCs request specific operations. These are mainly monthly. These operations are mainly joint operations with motorcyclists and PCSO’s, where we can deploy up to 7 x off road bikes.
An off-road generic operation order has been completed and incorporates the use of HoSTyDS (stop sticks for bikes) on offending vehicles, as have the Risk Assessments. We are waiting legal wording for some signs that have to be displayed prior to HoSTyDS deployment to be sanctioned.
3. What is the legal position, what powers do the police and other have, what are the limitations to dealing with this?
Both police and partners have a range of powers available to deal with off-roads bikes, ranging from ASB legislation, Road Traffic Legislation, Noise Abatement and tenancy enforcement. One limitation relates to bikers who fail to stop for officers. Below is an excerpt of the Authorised Professional Practice for Pursuit Management.
2.4.1 Off-road pursuits These are managed in exactly the same way as any other pursuit, and are subject to the same dynamic risk assessment and communication requirements. Officers are advised to consider the issue of proportionality and the likelihood of damage to vehicles before embarking on an off-road pursuit.
2.4.2 Quad bikes and motorcycles Engagement with quad bikes and motorcycles presents additional challenges to those involved in pursuit management. The acceleration and maneuverability of these vehicles make it difficult for officers to engage with the subject vehicle for sufficient time to develop and implement tactics. Furthermore, given the lack of physical protection provided by the vehicle, the vulnerability of the rider is a serious consideration. Motorcycle and quad bike pursuits clearly present higher risks for suspects than conventional vehicle pursuit. Only trained and authorised staff should engage in motorcycle and quad bike pursuits and tactics. Where possible, it is preferable to use pre-emptive tactics to prevent motorcycle and quad bike pursuits. The use of tactics given in the tactics directory, including tyre deflation devices may be proportionate and necessary to mitigate risk to the public, officers and subjects. It is accepted that the pre-emptive use of tactics carries
Page 40 some risk to rider(s), however, this risk is likely to be significantly lower than allowing the vehicle to be driven at speeds to avoid capture, regardless of the intention of the police to engage in a pursuit. There may be a public interest in engaging motorcycles and quads in pursuits. Where such vehicles are used to facilitate serious crime or used repeatedly as the mode of transport for organised crime groups then, to minimise risk to the public from criminality and to secure public confidence in policing, a pursuit may be justified. Careful consideration must be given to the risks involved and the NDM must be applied in the decision making process. A plan must be developed to resolve the pursuit using tactics set out in the tactics directory.
4. What has the Force been doing to address this matter and what are they proposing to do?
SYP has introduced the new off road teams and increase of motorcycles from 2 to 6.
Since the 19th March 2017, the following number of operations have been run: Sheffield – 7 Barnsley – 2 (Op Pout in conjunction with Rotherham) Rotherham – 3 Doncaster – 3
Results: Written warning (ADM 171) Sheffield – 11 Roth – 4 Doncaster – 11 Barns – 0
Total bikes seized: 14
5. Has the Force explored all options for addressing / resolving the issue long term? (Correspondence from members of the public suggests that it appears on face value that many of the penalties only address the problem in the short term i.e. seizure of vehicles).
SYP have worked extremely close with Trail Riders Association (TRF) who are a national civilian led organisation with regards to educating their members. This has allowed SYP a positive image with regards to how we deal with these “offenders”.
Page 41 SYP are using social media and have recently carried out a presentation with Crimewatch Roadshow.
Local officers have also been advised to visit petrol stations in their areas to remind them of their responsibility and legislation.
The district riders have also been instructed to identify the complainants who reside in their areas and visit them explaining what options we have and the fact we are taking these matters seriously as a force.
6. Can the Force improve their post reporting system to address this? (Identifying individuals with assistance from members of the public and dealing with them at a later point?).
SYP are planning a number of high profile operations in which we have identified where some of these motorcycles are being stored and have obtained warrants so we can recover them. Media and councils will be in attendance
The PCC’s comments on the assurance provided
To be given at the meeting.
Page 42 Agenda Item 15
Independent Ethics Panel Exception Report
Exception Report Report Author
Chair of the Independent Ethics Panel Independent Ethics Panel Date of the Report
19 September 2017
Urgent: No Restricted: No
Level of assurance 1 Significant gaps / weaknesses exist or controls non-effective (generally non compliant) 2 Some gaps / weaknesses exist or controls only partly effective (partial compliance) 3 Some minor gaps / weaknesses exist but generally strengths outweigh weaknesses and controls are generally effective (generally compliant) 4 Very few or no gaps / weaknesses exist and controls are effective (fully compliant)
Exceptions
The Independent Ethics Panel assists the Commissioner in understanding the progress being made in delivering the ‘Fair Treatment’ strategic priority of his Police and Crime Plan.
The Panel last met on 12 September 2017. A number of reports were discussed resulting in the Panel giving an overall assurance of Level 3 to the PCC.
Reports to the Independent Ethics Panel – exceptions for noting
Supporting a positive culture in SYP The PCC presented some preliminary observations and suggested some hallmarks of an organisation that has a positive culture. Listening and learning feature strongly. He asked the IEP to undertake a ‘culture’ project.
The Chief Constable identified inhibitors to the desired cultural norms, and suggested 3 areas of SYP’s culture on which the Panel might focus: 1. Defensiveness 2. Workforce perceptions of organisational unfairness 3. A perceived lack of clarity in expectations of individuals’ values, standards and performance, which may result from a previous target-driven focus.
A new strategic focus has been communicated through the ‘Plan on a Page’, and is being delivered through the ‘Safer South Yorkshire‘ programme. The CC invites IEP to be
Page 43 Independent Ethics Panel Exception Report
practical in its approach and outputs; to allow the Force to ‘hold a mirror up to itself’. The PCC supports that approach.
It would be wrong to give the impression that the Force is coming from a standing start. The organisation is not standing still, but the Panel must start somewhere to gain a sense of where the Force is on its cultural journey. It was therefore agreed that the Durham survey of the SYP workforce will be circulated, together with the Force’s ‘You said, we did’ document which describes the way the Force interpreted the findings and the activity taking place to address those findings. This will produce a baseline.
A repeat of activity to “take the temperature” again may help to measure progress. The timing of this repeat exercise needs to take account of where the Force is on its change journey. Nobody wants a further monitoring system that adds unnecessary bureaucracy.
It was agreed that a ‘Task & Finish Group’ should be formed by the IEP for work lasting between 4-6 months, with project management support from the OPCC. The Group would include SYP members. A work plan is being devised but it seems sensible for the Group to examine whether the staff survey findings and resulting activity “hit” all the areas which the PCC has covered in his paper on a positive culture. The significance of any gaps can be further discussed by the IEP, which should not feel limited by either the PCC’s analysis or the CC’s identified inhibitors.
It is envisaged that a key method of working will be by interviews carried out by members of the IEP, using the model successfully adopted recently for discussions with sergeants at each of the four Districts. In that work, the interviewers were very impressed overall with the level of consciousness and motivation. A number of themes had emerged which linked into the discussion around culture.
Hate Crime A Hate Crime update report was provided to the Panel. Nationally, hate crime and hate incidents have been steadily increasing over a number of years, but hate crimes reported to both police and hate crime monitoring organisations increased dramatically post the EU Referendum vote on 23rd June 2016. This is believed to indicate an increase in both confidence in reporting and actual incidents of hate. There was also an increase in hate crime following the terrorist attacks earlier this year.
Reported hate crime and hate incidents in South Yorkshire had largely followed the national picture over the last 6 years, with steady increases reported year-on-year until 2015/16 when there was a larger year-on-year increase of 29%. This was followed by a further 62% increase in 2016/17. Whilst it is very difficult to ascertain the exact causes, it is believed that the EU Referendum, numerous terrorist attacks across Europe and international politics all played a part. The Panel accepts that ongoing Force engagement
Page 44 Independent Ethics Panel Exception Report
activity, increased victim confidence to report and improved crime-recording standards are all likely to be contributory factors.
The Panel noted that an increase in public satisfaction rates about the handling of hate crime has been recorded in South Yorkshire, but acknowledged that improvements are still needed; particularly in terms of follow-up across all crime types.
A matter of concern in recent statistics is an increase in the number of offences where there was a named suspect, but the victim did not support police action. It would appear that frequently victims do not support police action and this is inhibiting the Force’s ability to bring offenders to justice.
Imam Ismail praised the Force’s response to recent hate incidents involving local mosques.
Complaints Performance Update DS Barraclough provided the Panel with its six-monthly data on the number of complaints and conduct allegations recorded; an employee overview of complaints and conduct; comparison data with most similar forces, and lessons learnt.
Between July 2016 and June 2017 there were 586 complaints by members of the public (1344 allegations recorded). These figures represent decreases of 49 and 186 respectively from 2015/16. Among most similar forces, SYP is the second lowest.
There were 115 conduct allegations recorded, which is the lowest the Force has had for 5 years. BME staff are still more likely to attract a complaint, or a conduct allegation. PSD is working with other departments within the Force to address this.
DS Barraclough reassured the Panel that at present, he had no concerns regarding the percentage of complaints recorded within 10 working days; the average number of days taken for local resolution of allegations; the average number of days to finalise allegations by local investigation; or the average number of days to finalise complaints cases.
The Panel also noted information on lessons which had been learnt from complaints – cascade to the Force as a whole.
Use of Force At its last meeting the Panel was briefed on the new Home Office reporting system relating to the use of force. At this meeting, the Panel considered an overview on the use of force within SYP relating to vulnerable people and BME groups.
Between 1 January 2017 and 30 June 2017 the total number of use of force reports submitted was 3865. 46% of the reports submitted involved people who were classed as having a vulnerability, with 37% of all those on whom force was used being categorised as vulnerable because of mental health or mental disability. A discussion took place around the main ‘impact factors’ with 78% the result of alcohol or drugs.
Page 45 Independent Ethics Panel Exception Report
A working group focussing on the use of force has been established and is chaired by ACC Forber on a quarterly basis. The group will examine data/trends and will gain a valuable insight into how officers are using force. It will also be an opportunity to analyse whether individuals or communities are potentially being repeatedly or disproportionally affected.
The Panel requested a further update report on the overall use of force in 12 months’ time, which will allow for the Home Office annual data return to be published.
The Panel’s second annual report is attached at Appendix A.
Recommendations
The Commissioner is recommended to consider and comment on the exceptions and levels of assurance provided by the Independent Ethics Panel.
Report author details Andrew Lockley, Chair of the Independent Ethics Panel Sally Parkin, Business Manager
Contact details: OPCC, 0114 2964137 Signed: Date: A Lockley 19 September 2017
Page 46 Appendix A
South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner
Independent Ethics Panel
Second Annual Report April 2016 - March 2017
Dear Commissioner
‘I need a group of people who are independent of both me and the police who can tackle some of these big ethical concerns and follow them through and give some wise counsel in a timely and appropriate fashion. Overall, however, the panel’s objective is to give me assurance that measures are in place so that never again can South Yorkshire Police (‘SYP’) lose the trust of citizens’.
These were your words when you explained to local authority leaders why you had established the Independent Ethics Panel.
We began our work in January 2015. This is our second annual report to you, and it covers the period April 2016 to March 2017.
We have been encouraged during the year, in all the projects which we have undertaken, by the Force’s willingness to be open. We are not aware of any occasion on which information has been kept back from us. We can only do the job which you have set us up to do, if we can engage in frank and open exchanges with decision-makers. That has been achieved throughout the year, despite the turnover in the Force’s senior leadership, and of staff at other levels.
As we undertake another year’s work, we will continue to act as ‘critical friends’. We could not do our work without your encouragement and the support of your Office, for which we are very grateful.
With all good wishes
Andrew Lockley
Chair, Independent Ethics Panel
August 2017.
Page 47 South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner
Independent Ethics Panel
Second Annual Report April 2016 - March 2017
INTRODUCTION
The focus of the Independent Ethics Panel (IEP) is on the present and the future, and not on the past . The Force which we are working with today is unrecognisable from the headlines generated by investigations into past failures. Specifically, we do not recognise the description used by one politician during the year, in the heat of the Hillsborough Inquests verdict, of a Force ‘rotten to the core’.
A Force which is willing to be self-critical, and to welcome outside scrutiny, is not a Force which is ‘rotten to the core’. In our experience, South Yorkshire Police (SYP) is both of those.
This police force is only too aware of the burden it carries of past events such as the Hillsborough tragedy, the failure to deal adequately with child sex exploitation in Rotherham (a failure accepted also to have been the responsibility of the local Council), and the policing of the 1984/5 miners’ strike. These tarnished public trust and confidence far beyond the borders of South Yorkshire.
The other part of the burden is that of restoring public trust and confidence. A central plank in that restoration is the process of embedding ethical policing so that it imbues the culture in South Yorkshire. The IEP provides external scrutiny and assurance of that process.
ETHICAL POLICING
Fortunately, there is a reference point for ethical practice - the national Code of Ethics, to which all forces have signed up. The Code of Ethics should be in the DNA of every officer and employee of SYP. That is not to say that the ‘right’ decision is always obvious; the National Decision-making model requires officers to weigh up the pros and cons of different courses of action, even when none of the options is completely ‘right’. In the policing context, the choice between different options may have to be made in a split second, for example where a member of public – or indeed the officer him or herself – is in danger.
How would we know that ethics is in the DNA?
One way of gaining assurance that ethical practice is in the DNA of individuals is to monitor ethical input into training Two members of the IEP – Linda Christon and Michael Lewis -
Page 48 have observed training of new recruits during the year. After many hours of observation, they concluded that ethical standards are integrated into all aspects of training, and in particular:
There is a constant and heavy emphasis on the ethos of serving the public; There is repeated attention to attitudes and values; The need to prevent significant harm, and to support victims of crime, features prominently; There is a stress on personal responsibility for good, reasoned and lawful decision- making.
The panel members expressed concern, however, that civilian trainers without a background in policing would lack credibility with the recruits. They also questioned whether the Force provides sufficient support to trainees – and indeed serving officers – exposed to emotionally demanding and distressing situations. There is a perception that officers have been expected to ‘man-up’. The Chair raised this with senior officers and is satisfied that the need to provide sufficient support is now recognised. This is a subject to which the Panel will no doubt return.
Are new recruits able to put their training into practice?
The observers also carried out a limited series of discussions with ‘rookie’ serving officers to find out what their most positive experiences have been since completing training, and also their greatest challenges.
It would be misleading to imply that the new officers spoke with one voice, but what came over to the observers above all, was a very strong public service ethic. This for many was all the more important because of the burden of SYP’s legacy. The newly trained officers had experienced the intense pressure on police teams from the challenging workload, while being aware from their training that they should ‘do things right’ and not cut corners. Poor and inadequate IT equipment came in for criticism, however. Work is ongoing to test these and other views with a larger group.
POLICING ACTIVITY
Much of the IEP’s work is in fields of policing activity in which policy or practice raises ethical questions. It is to those that we now turn.
Use of tasers
Some police functions require particular scrutiny because they have the potential to arouse public concern. Near the top of anybody’s list would be the use of force by police officers. Is the use of force justified (i.e only used where there is no other way of restoring order, detaining a suspect or protecting others or the officer from a threat of severe violence)? And is the use proportionate (i.e at the lowest level necessary to fulfil its intended
Page 49 purpose)? Guidance on how to assess the risk is given by the police’s National Decision- Making model.
The IEP has begun to monitor the use of force. During the year, it looked at figures on the use of tasers in South Yorkshire. Tasers work by firing barbs attached by wires to batteries, causing the victim to be stunned, or temporarily paralysed. Officers have to be authorised to carry tasers.
We found that the total usage of tasers by SYP was below the national average during 2015 (the last year for which statistics were then available). However, when a comparison with the group of most similar forces (MSFs) was made, a more subtle picture emerged. SYP officers took out their tasers 102 times during the year. This was well below Lancashire, West Yorkshire, Kent and (highest of the MSFs, at over three times the figure for SYP) South Wales. On two thirds of those occasions in South Yorkshire, the taser was not discharged; on 34% of occasions it was fired. At 66%, the non-discharge proportion is the lowest for MSFs; at 34%, the discharge figure is the highest. One interpretation of those figures is that SYP officers tended to bring out tasers only there was a good chance that they would need to be discharged.
If that interpretation is correct, that tends to shows sound judgement as to the use of tasers, but one year’s statistics are not enough to form a concluded view. During next year, this scrutiny will be extended to SYP’s use of force more generally.
Stop and search
The use of stop and search powers by police has long been controversial, to the extent that in 2014, the then Home Secretary, Theresa May, launched an initiative to curb its use across all forces.
During the year, we reviewed progress in South Yorkshire. The number of stops and searches carried out by SYP dropped from over 22000 in 2013, to 2580 in 2016. At the same time, the proportion of searches resulting in further action (arrest, summons or penalty notice) has risen, and in 2016, stood at 36%. The comparable proportions for 2014 were 24% and 33% respectively. The IEP believes that the increase in the proportion of ‘further action’ cases on a much reduced number of searches should be seen as a success. It suggests that the power to stop and search is being better targeted. If so, this is a more effective use of police time, and also reduces the damage to relations with the public which follows from searches carried out without good reason.
However, statistics show that a significantly higher proportion of searches have been of people from ethnic minorities. In 2016 in South Yorkshire, black, Asian and other visible ethnic minority citizens were 3.4 times more likely to be stopped and searched, (an increase from 2.3 in 2015). The chances of a ‘further action’ outcome, however, were about the same for all ethnicities.
Page 50 There is clearly further work to be done to understand what is happening here.
In the meantime, however, SYP has established a system of monthly scrutiny panels, in which a sample of stops and searches is examined in detail. Lay people, including those who have been wrongly stopped, are invited to these. IEP members have also attended and been impressed by the scrutiny process. We commend this excellent example of seeking to improve practice by reflecting on past experience.
Body-worn videos
There are many aspects of modern policing that present ethical dilemmas and choices. Sometimes, the Force asks the IEP to advise on tricky issues before it takes a decision. One such matter during the last year was body-worn videos (BWV). These are video cameras worn on the officer’s body – usually the head – which can record his or her activity in relation to members of the public. BWV have been introduced by a number of forces across the UK, but not yet in South Yorkshire. Their use has proved controversial in some areas.
A sub-group of the IEP, led by Professor Ann Macaskill, reviewed the ethical issues which would be raised if SYP introduced BWV. As a result of this review, the following ethical issues were identified:
Officers need clarity on when recordings can not be made; Constant recording would probably amount to an invasion of privacy of members of the public and other officers; An officer’s discretion to trigger recording must be clearly defined; There must be clarity about when informed consent is required for recording. How might this be obtained? Even if informed consent is not required, individuals must know when they are being filmed.
BWV could prove particularly useful in sensitive situations such as where force is used, or where the officer attends a ‘domestic’. The Force will need to prepare clear guidance on these issues and carry out training before BWV is introduced in South Yorkshire.
COMPLAINTS AND PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS
The IEP has a particular responsibility for monitoring SYP’s handling of complaints. We review this every six months, and have suggested a number of improvements to the Force complaints report, eg to analyse complaints by gender, ethnicity and disability. This is now being done, but we have also asked for further work to be done to clarify lessons learnt from complaints trends, which was still awaited at the end of the year under review.
ADVISORY PANEL ON POLICING PROTESTS
Page 51 During the year, a new advisory panel, formed partly from the Independent Ethics Panel, and with the same Chair, began work. Its establishment was one of a number of recommendations made by two members of the IEP (the Chair and Imam Mohammad Ismail) who were asked by the PCC to report on events which had occurred during a far-right protest and local community counter-protest in Rotherham on 5 September 2015.
The APPP’s task is to provide independent support and challenge to SYP in its policing of protests and marches. The advisory panel is believed to be the first of its kind on the British mainland. It does not have the legal powers of the Parades Commission of Northern Ireland (for example, it can not specify a route for marchers to follow). SYP has a difficult balance to strike between protecting the right to protest and limiting the impact of those protests on local communities, and consults the APPP when a protest event is notified.
EQUALITY & DIVERSITY
The PCC has asked the Panel to advise him on the Force’s progress towards equality and diversity objectives. The proportion of police recruits from minority ethnic communities in South Yorkshire does not yet match the proportions in the community as a whole. This requires further work.
The Panel advised that one of the Force’s equality objectives for the next year should be to develop positive action activity to encourage greater representation of ethnic minority and female candidates among candidates for recruitment, applications for promotion and a reduction in leavers in those groups.
MEETINGS & AGENDAS
The IEP is supported by the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) and we record our thanks to its staff, particularly Erika Redfearn, Sally Parkin and June Renwick, who have taken on the additional burdens of making the IEP work smoothly when they have much else to do. Senior officers of SYP also attend the Panel to deal with particular issues, and they are always led by either the Chief Constable or his Deputy. We express our appreciation of the openness of SYP in their reports and in discussion.
We have had five full meetings in the report period, but we also work on particular projects in smaller groups. The OPCC publishes the agendas and minutes of the meetings on its website, and reference should be made to those for a full picture of the matters which the Panel has considered.
CONCLUSION
South Yorkshire is one of a very few areas of the country to have an independent policing ethics panel. Given the historical context, that independent scrutiny is crucial for public confidence, and gives not only the PCC, but also the Force itself, assurance of the progress that is being made.
Page 52 As we move into the third year of the IEP’s work, one of our projects will be to do more work on the Force’s internal culture. Chief Constable Stephen Watson has distilled the main themes of Force activity and values into what he has called ‘The Plan on a Page’. Taking The Plan on a Page as a starting-point, the IEP will monitor the implementation of the Plan through behaviour and attitudes, in its role as a ‘critical friend’ of the Force.
Appendix 1: The Members of the Panel
The Panel was established by the PCC, with the full support of SYP, to provide independent and effective challenge about the integrity, standards and ethics of decision-making in policing. All members of the Panel reside in South Yorkshire.
The Chair of the Panel is Andrew Lockley, a Sheffield-based solicitor with a wide range of experience in professional standards, policing issues and public policy. In the year under review, he has also been a part-time tribunal judge, a panel chair for the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service of the General Medical Council, and a non-executive board member of the Legal Aid Agency.
The other panel members each contribute their background and expertise.
Linda Christon has had a career in public service with experience in housing and social care in senior roles in local government and in a regulator. She is now also a non-executive director of both St Leger Housing, and Yorkshire Housing.
Imam Mohammad Ismail is a theologian, and the Muslim chaplain at the University of Sheffield, also having expertise in safeguarding in education, and in preventing extremism.
Michael Lewis has been headteacher of a large and culturally diverse comprehensive school in Sheffield. He now serves as a lay member of Employment Tribunals, and as a panel member of the Professional Conduct Panel of the National College of Teaching and Leadership, and is involved in independent custody visiting and restorative justice.
Ann Macaskill is Professor of Health Psychology at Sheffield Hallam University and Chair of its Research Ethics Committee. She has written on forgiveness, grudge holding and revenge, among many other interests.
Appendix 2
The Panel’s terms of reference
Page 53 Page 54 Agenda Item 16
Joint Independent Audit Committee Exception Report Exception Report Report Author Chair of the Joint Independent Audit Joint Independent Audit Committee Date of the Report Committee 22 August (for PAB on 26 September 2017)
Urgent: No Where “Yes”, the Chair of the Joint Independent Audit Committee should immediately notify the Commissioner of the matter considered urgent and set out in this section the reason(s) for such urgency. Restricted: No The Chair of the Joint Independent Audit Committee should indicate which, if any, aspects of the report should be restricted, along with the associated rationale. Level of assurance A narrative summarising the level of overall assurance from the Chair should be provided in this section. The content of the following table should guide the report author in offering a level of assurance:
Level of Assessment Assurance 1 Significant gaps / weaknesses exist or controls non-effective (generally non compliant) 2 Some gaps / weaknesses exist or controls only partly effective (partial compliance) 3 Some minor gaps / weaknesses exist but generally strengths outweigh weaknesses and controls are generally effective (generally compliant) 4 Very few or no gaps / weaknesses exist and controls are effective (fully compliant) Updates and Exceptions
The Committee assists the PCC in discharging his statutory responsibilities around holding the Force to account which contributes towards enhancing public trust and confidence in the governance of the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) and South Yorkshire Police (SYP).
The Joint Independent Audit Committee met on the 26 July 2017.
The following reports were discussed resulting in the Committee giving an overall assurance of level 2 to the PCC. Level 2 indicates some gaps / weaknesses exist or controls only partly effective (partial compliance).
Final Annual Governance Statement – OPCC and SYP
Page 55 Joint Independent Audit Committee Exception Report
Final Statement of Accounts Treasury Management – End of Year Review Internal Audit Annual Report
Exceptions for noting:-
1. Members received the revised Head of Internal Audit Opinion in the narrative form suggested at the previous JIAC and welcomed the additional information on how the situation had progressed throughout the year in terms of the internal control environment, risk management and governance. It was pleasing to see that the current position is adequate in relation to the internal control environment but recognised that the historic problem in implementing audit recommendations had not been adequate.
2. Subject to an additional note in respect of the Judicial Review, the members were happy with the content of both Annual Governance Statements (AGSs) and reaffirmed their appreciation of the work done on the documents to streamline them.
3. The members were extremely disappointed that, given the excellent work done by the Force and OPCC to prepare the accounts early in anticipation of the accounts timetable coming forward a month next year, KPMG had not finished their work to the same timetable such that they were unable to report on the accounts and give an audit opinion at the meeting. This has necessitated a further conference call meeting with members in late August before the accounts are signed so that the committee can discharge its duty to advise the PCC and CC on its response to the external auditor’s report to those charged with governance on issues arising from the audit.
4. Members were also disappointed that the list of long standing audit recommendations had still not been updated. As a result members asked that the officers responsible for ensuring implementation of the three recommendations where there had been three revisions of the agree date, attend the next JIAC to report on the current position and the reason for the delays.
Recommendations The Commissioner is recommended to consider and comment on the exceptions and overall level of assurance provided by the Joint Independent Audit Committee.
Report author details Name: Melvyn Lunn, Chair of the Joint Independent Audit Committee Sally Parkin, Business Manager 0114 2964137 Signed: M Lunn Date: 22 August 2017
Page 56