PEEL: Nottinghamshire Police causes of concern
Contents
Print this document
Introduction
In our inspections, if we identify a more serious, critical or systemic shortcoming in a force or service’s practice, policy or performance, we will report it as a cause of concern. A cause of concern will always be accompanied by one or more recommendations. When we identify causes of concern during our inspections, we normally provide details in the subsequent force report.
In some cases, such as where we discover significant service failures or risks to public safety, we can report our concerns and recommendations earlier. This is called an accelerated cause of concern.
We have issued two accelerated causes of concern to Nottinghamshire Police as a result of its failure to:
- sufficiently manage and carry out effective investigations and support victims; and
- have adequate governance arrangements in place.
Cause of concern
The force needs to improve how it manages, supervises and carries out effective investigations, and make sure that victims get the support they need.
Recommendations
The force should immediately:
- review how it manages crimes and make sure that supervisors understand how to use its crime management systems;
- review all crimes which appear to have inadequate supervision, to identify suspects and assess the level of risk to the public they pose;
- review all crimes where victims haven’t received a regular update to assess their needs; and
- allocate those crimes for investigation on the basis of seriousness and level of risk.
By 30 September 2024, the force should make sure:
- supervisors review investigations effectively to reduce delays and make sure that officers and staff pursue all reasonable investigative opportunities;
- it creates investigation plans where applicable;
- it uses outcome types appropriately, in accordance with force and national policies, which lead to satisfactory results for victims; and
- officers and staff carry out a victim needs assessment where appropriate.
During fieldwork, we found that the way the force used Power BI and Niche meant that it managed crimes ineffectively. We found a substantial number of crimes that hadn’t been reviewed by supervisors and where victims hadn’t been updated. Although there was some uncertainty about the total number of affected crimes, there were too many crimes not receiving a regular review or not being reviewed at all. The lack of supervisor reviews and victim updates can put victims at risk. We brought these crimes to the force’s attention at the time of our inspection. As a result, the force made changes to the system to allow supervisors to review these crimes more effectively.
We found evidence of effective supervision in only 47 out of 79 cases we reviewed. Supervisors told us they didn’t have the skills or capacity to supervise and review investigations properly because of a lack of guidance and up-to-date training. Supervisors told us they were managing large caseloads of crimes because there weren’t enough qualified investigators available.
In our victim service assessment, we found that 38 out of 58 cases had investigation plans in place. Investigation plans, outlined in the College of Policing’s authorised professional practice, support investigators to make the most of all available opportunities to gather evidence.
When cases were finalised, the force applied the correct outcome type in only 66 out of 91 cases. Of the 25 cases with an incorrect outcome type, 9 were for outcome 18 (Investigation complete – no suspect identified) and 5 were for outcome 16 (evidential difficulties – suspect identified, victim not supporting police action). The incorrect use of outcome 18 is concerning as this outcome type represents 48 percent of all those applied by the force. The force didn’t always record a clear rationale for the outcome type, and sometimes it closed investigations inappropriately without informing victims. Investigators should:
- record a clear rationale for why they have applied an outcome type;
- involve victims when decisions are made;
- update them about the decision; and
- where applicable, explain it to them.
We found the force didn’t routinely audit and scrutinise the outcome types that it had assigned to cases. This means leaders can’t be confident that they understand what leads to some outcome types, whether they are appropriate and what improvements might be needed to give victims better justice.
The force didn’t always comply with the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime, and it completed a victim needs assessment in only 26 out of 59 cases. As a result, victims may disengage with investigations, withdraw their support for prosecutions and lose faith in the criminal justice process.
Cause of concern
The force doesn’t have adequate processes, planning or governance arrangements in place to monitor performance effectively or identify areas where improvement is required.
Recommendations
With immediate effect, the force should develop:
- its workforce plan to make sure it has effective processes in place and enough officers and staff to help it manage current and future demand.
By 30 September 2024, the force should make sure that:
- governance arrangements for programmes for change are effective and that project teams have the capacity to run change projects efficiently, such as the need to review its operating model; and
- senior leaders have access to accurate data and analysis to identify areas where performance needs to improve.
In our 2022 inspection, we had identified the force’s operating model as an area for improvement. During this year’s inspection, we found the force had made limited progress on reviewing its operating model and had hired external consultants to help it to review demand. Despite this, the force still needs to develop a new operating model that can achieve the improvements in performance that it needs to make.
The force’s failure to make satisfactory progress to review its operating model and address some other areas for improvement from our previous inspection continues to adversely affect its performance and the service it provides.
The force needs to make sure it has effective governance processes in place to oversee its major programme of change. It also needs to allocate enough resources and people with expertise to these programmes. This will help to make sure staff have the right skills and experience to progress change projects efficiently, and it communicates changes to its workforce effectively.
The force’s use of data to inform its understanding of performance and decision-making isn’t effective. The force needs to improve the quality of information it provides to senior leaders so they can identify areas that are underperforming and make improvements. At the time of our inspection, the force had significant backlogs in officers and staff carrying out secondary risk assessments for domestic abuse incidents. It had 609 incidents waiting to be triaged and shared with safeguarding partner organisations. The force has no formal process to address this backlog in a timely and effective way. The force needs to assure itself that it has enough officers and staff, and effective processes in place, to meet both current and future demand.
We also found that the force didn’t have adequate oversight of a significant number of crimes. This means senior leaders aren’t effectively overseeing some areas of performance that are essential to providing the community with an effective police service.
The force needs to review its data and assure itself that it can achieve its current plans. This failure to plan effectively could result in the force failing to provide the standard of service that the community, including its most vulnerable people, expects and deserves.
This notification of a cause of concern constitutes a report under section 54, Police Act 1996. As it also contains recommendations, the local policing body is required to respond under section 55, Police Act 1996.