Complaints recording audit
Central Scotland Police November 2011
Dumfries & Galloway Constabulary
Fife Constabulary
Grampian Police
Lothian & Borders Police
Northern Constabulary
Strathclyde Police
Tayside Police Central Scotland Police
Contents
Summary and key findings page 1
Summary of recommendations page 1
Commissioner’s role page 2
Introduction and scope page 2
Background page 3
Methodology page 3‐4
Findings and recommendations page 4‐6
Conclusion page 6
Summary and key findings
Three Complaint About the Police cases were identified from the period audited 2010 – 11 as not having been recorded. This represents 0.6 % (3/510) of the total sample size examined and as such is the non – recording rate of complaints about the police in respect of Central Scotland Police.
Reflecting the audit findings an overall assurance level has been applied to the initial recording of complaints about the police by Central Scotland Police as follows:
Substantial Assurance
This is because the initial recording of complaints about the police was considered to be generally robust, supported by sophisticated procedures for the handling of correspondence and well trained staff. However, the lack of a formal audit process to ensure consistency in recording practices is viewed as a weakness. The recommendations made provide an opportunity for the force to enhance confidence in their overall recording practices.
Assurance level Definition
Sound system of control designed to achieve the system FULL objectives. Essentially a sound system but with weaknesses that put SUBSTANTIAL some system objectives at risk. Weaknesses in the system of controls put system LIMITED objectives at risk. Control is weak leaving the system open to significant NIL error or abuse.
Summary of recommendations
• That the three complaints are recorded on the force police complaints database.
• It is recommended that the force considers introducing procedures to establish an audit regime for correspondence received by the force, to further enhance their confidence that complaints about the police are captured and recorded.
1 Commissioner’s role
Section 42 of the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006 gives the Commissioner the power to secure that suitable arrangements are maintained (and adhered to) for the handling of relevant complaints within Scottish police bodies.
He must ensure that these arrangements are effective, efficient and contain an appropriate degree of independence and can make recommendations and give advice on their modification and practice. This report is issued in line with this power.
Introduction and scope
In his Statutory Guidance published in March 20111, the Commissioner stated: “accurate and consistent recording of complaints about the police will help ensure public confidence in the system.” This will also “contribute to a strong evidence base from which to assist the development of future policy.” To support this, the Commissioner is working with the Scottish police service to develop a consistent approach to recording complaints.
The Commissioner also commented in his publication Police Complaints: Statistics for Scotland 2010 – 112 on variations in recording levels inconsistent with the size of forces. This issue was also identified recently by Audit Scotland and HMICS during a best value inspection of Strathclyde Police3. This audit of complaint recording practices carried out in Central Scotland Police during November 2011 is therefore intended to assist in explaining these variations, while providing assurance in respect of initial complaint recording.
It is not intended to be an audit of all aspects of complaint recording. For example, work is already being undertaken by the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland following a recommendation by the Commissioner to develop rules and conventions around categorisation and finalisation of complaints and the individual allegations that are identified.
Training in the new six‐stage complaint system is also being developed by the Scottish Police College; this will include recording and assessment. It is intended to ensure that when a member of the public contacts the police, by whatever method, to make a complaint that it is formally recorded as such, whatever action follows thereafter.
1 http://www.pcc‐scotland.org/quality_assurance/2011reports/statutory_guidance‐from_sanctions_to_solutions 2 http://www.pcc‐scotland.org/quality_assurance/statistics/police_complaints_statistics_for_scotland_2010‐11 3 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Justice/public‐safety/Police/local/15403/publications/BVStrathclydePolice
2 Background
A complaint about the police is defined as “a written statement expressing dissatisfaction about an act or omission by a police authority, by a joint police board, by a police force, by the Authority, by the Agency or by a person who, at the time of the act or omission, was a person serving with the police". Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006.
The PCCS Statutory Guidance notes that ‘Complaints about the police in Scotland are made through a variety of media: by letter, email, telephone or face‐to‐face to various departments. Complaints are also received by telephone in any department or service centre.’ The Guidance goes on to comment that ‘Although the definition of a complaint is a written expression of dissatisfaction, there is a need for the police complaints system to be user‐focused. The individual needs of all complainers or potential complainers must be identified and accommodated. Therefore, when a complaint is made by telephone or face to face, a written record should be made by the person receiving the complaint. …. The Commissioner is content that such a record amounts to a written expression of dissatisfaction.’
For 2010 – 11, Central Scotland Police recorded 211 Complaint About the Police cases from members of the public. Within each case there may be one or more allegations. As indicated this audit focuses on the robustness of initial recording not analysis/disposal of the case once recorded.
MethodologyMethodology
The audit consisted of two elements. During pre‐visit, the PCCS audit and 510 pieces of correspondence information was sought regarding the force’s were examined by PCCS. Statistical matters are correspondence procedures and volumes to assist in discussed in more detail later in this report, but it was understanding how and where complaints might be accepted that 510 pieces of correspondence would communicated to the force by the public. The force was also be examined in Central Scotland Police. asked to provide appropriate supporting documentation such as Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), for the Falkirk Area Command, in Falkirk, was visited first and handling of correspondence, if they existed. staff there provided PCCS with correspondence which had been received addressed to the Area Commander. The force has a comprehensive SOP for the handling This area command covers a number of stations of mail and uses a document handling system known including Falkirk, Grangemouth, Larbert, Denny and as Laserfiche. This is currently being reviewed and a Maddiston. new SOP entitled Mail Management will be issued in 2012. It was explained that correspondence addressed to the Superintendent or Area Commander was not At the heart of these procedures is the use of the subject to Laserfiche, on the grounds of Laserfiche Document Management System, which is confidentiality, and was opened by the used to capture, record, forward and track, the Superintendent’s personal assistant. PCCS majority of correspondence received by the force. All concentrated on mail received from members of the correspondence addressed to Central Scotland Police, public, councillors, MPs and MSPs. It was apparent is forwarded to the Business Support Unit at Falkirk, that the level of correspondence received was fairly where it is opened and processed using Laserfiche. low and documents covering the period 1 July 2010 to There are some exceptions to this and mail which is 31 March 2011, were examined. considered to be sensitive or confidential would not be subject to Laserfiche. PCCS then visited the Business Support Unit (BSU) at Falkirk and were able to examine correspondence The force provided PCCS with an extract of all 211 received across the force and which had been recorded complaint cases in 2010‐2011 to allow captured and retained on the Laserfiche system. All verification checks to be made from sampled correspondence addressed to Central Scotland Police, “correspondence” including letters, emails and with some exemptions, is forwarded to the BSU for incident logs. processing. In addition, emails received by the force Command and Control Centre and forwarded to the The second element consisted of a 2 day visit to the Business Support Unit were examined. Force. Fife Constabulary acted as the pilot force for
3 Methodology continued
On the second day of the audit PCCS visited the resulting in a minimum sample size per audit of 456 Complaints and Conduct Unit and were given records applying the same confidence and accuracy access to the force Command and Control levels. For the purposes of this audit 510 records were system, STORM, and examined a wide range of examined recorded incidents. In order to examine a sufficient number of records in In developing the audit methodology, advice this case the audit concentrated on the period 1 and guidance on sampling was taken from the January 2011 to 31 March 2011, with the exception of Scottish Government, Office of the Chief the correspondence received by the Area Commander Statistician (OCS). Using a standard statistical and correspondence identified by staff in the BSU as confidence interval formula the size of sample complaints which covered the whole of the financial to be audited was calculated in order to give year 2010 ‐ 2011. results accurate to +/‐ 2% with a 95% confidence level. The higher the non‐ recording the greater the sample size required to reach The advice from the Scottish Government’s +/‐ 2% confidence. Prior to carrying out this Office of the Chief Statistician, subsequent to exercise PCCS did not have a figure across all the Fife pilot audit, was to choose a random forces of non‐ recording. week or number of weeks and examine all records across a Police Force within that time It is our opinion that if a figure of 3% or over period. This would increase the coverage was found, PCCS would have concerns with across offices and will help improve regard to a forces complaint recording representativeness. practices. Erring on the side of caution PCCS assumed a potential 5% non ‐ recording
Findings and recommendations
The table below shows details of those records examined during the audit:
Location Records examined Unrecorded complaints
Falkirk Area Command, addressed 46 0 to Area Commander
Business Support Unit, Falkirk, 90 0 general correspondence received.
Business Support Unit, Falkirk, 23 0 Roads Policing correspondence
Business Support Unit, 38 3 correspondence identified as complaints about the police
Emails received at Force 23 0 Command and Control Centre
STORM Command and Control 290 0 Incidents Totals 510 3 (0.6)
4 Findings and recommendations continued
The force has a comprehensive correspondence SOP, which is currently being reviewed and will be replaced by a new SOP entitled Mail Management in 2012. At the heart of these procedures is the Laserfiche Document Management System. This is a sophisticated system which is used to capture, record, scan, forward and track the majority of correspondence received by the force. All correspondence addressed to Central Scotland Police is forwarded to the BSU at Falkirk, where it is opened and processed using Laserfiche. There are some exceptions to this and mail which is considered to be sensitive or confidential would not be subject to Laserfiche.
Good Practice The force has invested in a sophisticated document handling system known as Laserfiche. The system allows the force to capture, retrieve and manage correspondence and has the potential to be used as a valuable audit tool. The corporate approach adopted by the force and its investment in technology provides the force with confidence in its overall recording practices.
It was evident that the staff within the BSU had very clear guidance as to what constituted a complaint about the police (CAP). During 2010/2011 they recorded 38 pieces of correspondence on Laserfiche which in their view constituted a CAP. Thirty five of these had been captured by the force and recorded on its complaints database.
A member of the public had written to the force regarding the issuing of a fixed penalty notice. Within the letter it was alleged the officer issuing the ticket had acted in a bullying fashion and had abused his powers. Staff within the BSU considered this to be a complaint and forwarded it to the relevant Area Command for action. The Area Command overlooked the complaint and provided a response which dealt with the appeal, but not the attitude of the officer.
A member of the public wrote to the force complaining about the competency of an officer in recording a road traffic accident involving the complainer. Staff within the BSU considered this to be a complaint and forwarded it to the relevant Area Command for action. A Superintendent subsequently wrote a letter containing a full response and included an apology.
Finally, a solicitor wrote to the force on behalf of a client complaining that CID Officers had failed to carry out a thorough investigation by refusing to take possession of CCTV evidence. Staff within the BSU considered this to be a complaint and forwarded it to the relevant Department for action. The force replied to the solicitors with a full explanation as to what had happened.
The Complaints and Conduct Unit was unaware of the above correspondence and consequently complaints had not been recorded. The force did respond in an appropriate fashion to these matters, but accepts that they are CAPs and should have been recorded on the force complaints database.
Recommendation That the three complaints are recorded on the force police complaints database
Good Practice Evidence was provided that staff within the Business Support Unit were very clear as to what constituted a CAP and had correctly followed procedures in forwarding complaints to Area Commands and Departments.
5 Findings and recommendations continued
In subsequent discussions with the Head of Professional Standards it was evident that this weakness had been identified and indeed the Complaints and Conduct Unit had issued further guidance to the BSU on 1 November 2011, requesting that they be copied into all correspondence identified as a CAP. This new guidance was issued with a view to eliminating anomalies, such as those identified during the PCCS audit.
Recommendation It is recommended that the force considers introducing procedures to establish an audit regime for correspondence received by the force, to further enhance their confidence that complaints about the police are captured and recorded.
PCCS was given access to the force Command and Control system known as STORM. Central Scotland Police do not use a code to record CAPs. A total of 290 incidents covering the period 1 February 2011 to 31 March 2011, including those entitled “General Advice Given” and “Police Non Attendance”, were examined. None of these incidents contained a complaint.
PCCS would like to express its thanks to the force for the assistance provided during the audit and in particular to the BSU Admin Officer at Falkirk and the Head of Professional Standards and staff.
Conclusion
The three complaints identified represent a non‐recording level of 0.6%. The PCCS does not consider this to be of concern. As well as good recording practices, the PCCS audit identified good practice in relation to the use of the Laserfiche Document Management System and training of the staff in the Business Support Unit.
Reflecting the audit findings an overall assurance level has been applied to the initial recording of complaints about the police by Central Scotland Police as follows:
Substantial Assurance
This is because the initial recording of complaints about the police was considered to be generally robust, supported by sophisticated procedures for the handling of correspondence and well trained staff. However, the lack of a formal audit process to ensure consistency in recording practices is viewed as a weakness. The recommendations made provide an opportunity for the force to enhance confidence in its overall recording practices.
Assurance level Definition
FULL Sound system of control designed to achieve the system objectives. Essentially a sound system but with weaknesses that put some system SUBSTANTIAL objectives at risk. LIMITED Weaknesses in the system of controls put system objectives at risk.
NIL Control is weak leaving the system open to significant error or abuse.
6 Complaints recording audit Published: January 2012