Confidence
|
| Public, complainant and police confidence in complaints system
|
| C1 | Outcome | % of public with confidence
|
| C2 | Outcome | % of police officers and police staff with confidence
|
| C3 | Outcome | % complainant and subject with confidence
|
Learning |
| Lessons improve the complaints system
|
| L1 | Process | % of completed Local Resolutions and investigations resulting in appeals to the IPPC
|
| L2 | Process | % of appeals upheld
|
Lessons improve policing
|
| L4 | Process | Most common allegations in public complaints
|
| L5 | Process | Most common allegations in recordable conduct matters
|
| L6 | Process | Characteristics of those subject to a complaint
|
| L7 | Process | Characteristics of those subject to recordable a conduct case
|
Engagement |
| The public and police officers and staff are aware of the complaints system
|
| E1 | Outcome | % of public who are aware of the complaints system
|
| E2 | Outcome | % of police officers and police staff who are aware of the complaints system
|
Everyone can access the complaints system
|
| E3 | Process | Characteristics of complainants
|
| E4 | Outcome | % of complainants who found it "easy" to access and complain
|
Complainants, officers and police staff can engage with complaint processes
|
| E5 | Process | % of complaints withdrawn, dispensed and discontinued
|
| E6 | Outcome | Complainant and subject satisfaction with information and updates provided
|
| E7 | Outcome | Police officer and police staff confidence in capability to deal with complaints
|
Proportionality
|
| Balancing: the timeliness of resolution
|
| P1 | Outcome | A range of indicators measuring timeliness of the process (incident to final resolution).
|
Balancing: the quality of resolution
|
| P2 | Outcome | Customer (complainant and subject) satisfaction with process and outcome
|
| P3 | Process | Results of dip sampling quality assurance
|
Balancing: the cost of resolution
|
Accountability |
| Organisations within the system bring individuals to account for their conduct
|
| A1 | Outcome | Number of police officers and staff members who have resigned or retired while subject to gross misconduct investigation or criminal proceedings
|
| A2 | Process | % of completed investigations resulting in a referral to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)
|
| A3 | Outcome | % of finalised cases that have resulted in conviction following referral to the CPS
|
| A4 | Outcome | % of finalised cases that have resulted in disciplinary proceedings (and outcomes)
|
| A5 | Outcome | % of completed allegations that have resulted in a substantiated finding
|
| |
|
In June 2004, at the start of the IPCC, an IPCC Advisory
Board was established bringing together a range of IPCC stakeholders.
This was a continuation of a project board of IPCC stakeholders
used as a consultative group during the setting-up of the IPCC.
That project board mainly comprised police and statutory stakeholders;
the IPCC initiated an extension of the group to include more complainant
membership and converted the group into the IPCC Advisory Board.
The Advisory Board has met approximately four times a year.
It provides advice and feedback on the IPCC's policies and practices,
both existing and those in development. During the past year the
Advisory Board has been central to the development of the IPCC
Stock Take strategic proposals referred to in the NAO report.
PALG (Police Action Lawyers Group) is a network of lawyers
who act for complainants and bereaved individuals who wish to
take action against the police. In September 2004 the IPCC Chair
wrote to PALG inviting PALG to join the Advisory Board. As a result
two seats on the Advisory Board were given to two PALG members.
PALG members last attended in the spring of 2007. By a letter
dated 11 January 2008 PALG resigned from the Advisory Board reportedly
on the basis that they thought there was no further merit being
on the Advisory Board. Nick Hardwick, IPCC Chair replied by letter
dated 17th January 2007 in which he thanked PALG for having been
represented on the Advisory Board, commented on their observations,
offered bi-lateral meetings with PALG and repeating an offer from
Jane Furniss, IPCC Chief Executive, for PALG members to let her
know directly about any serious concerns they may have about specific
IPCC cases. A copy of both letters is appended.[1]
Relations with PALG have been re-established. PALG has been
included in policy consultation exercises and the responses from
PALG have helped shape IPCC policy and practice. During 2008 bi-lateral
conversations led to the IPCC meeting with PALG members on 18th
November. Future meetings will take place. In addition, PALG members
have taken up the offer from the IPCC Chief Executive to report
any serious concerns they have about the IPCC's handling of specific
cases so that they can be addressed and, if possible, resolved.
The IPCC intends to maintain and develop its relationship with
PALG members where the perspective is likely to add value to the
work of the IPCC.
