©Saima Afzal Solutions

West Midlands Police

Authority

Post Implementation

Review of

Project Champion

Recommendations

Review Team: Saima Afzal MBE, Mike Hughes, Paul Fitzgerald

June 2012

WEST MIDLANDS POLICE AUTHORITY

21 JUNE 2012

ITEM 13 APPENDIX 1

2

3

CONTENTS

Page No

Background

5

Report Summary

5

Review and Terms of Reference

6

Methodology

7

Scrutiny Areas 7 Review Findings and Recommendations

8

Leadership

8

Governance

10

Project and Programme Management

12

Performance And Service Delivery management

13

Training

14

Equality Impact Assessments

16

Human Rights Considerations

18

Communication Consultation & Community Engagement

19

Future Governance Landscape

20

Acknowledgements

22

Appendix A

23

Appendix B

24

Disclaimer

25

4

5

1. Background

1.1

West Midlands Police Authority (WMPA) has commissioned Saima Afzal Solutions (SAS) to

conduct a light touch external review to consider the steps taken to learn from the

experiences resulting from Project Champion: an abortive project to install CCTV and

Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras in two areas of Birmingham. The

areas where the cameras were to be located are associated with Counter Terrorism (CT)

investigations past and present, and have high Muslim populations. As such issues relating

to equality, human rights, trust and confidence have been given considerable attention

throughout the review process.

WMPA and West Midlands Police (WMP) acknowledged at the Authority meeting 25 October

2010 that „The communities who lived in the Project Champion scheme area felt stigmatized

and the very existence of the infrastructure that had grown up in the area to support the

scheme had become, and would remain, an emblem of that stigmatization.’

The purpose of the review is not to explore any perceived or actual failings that may have

resulted from the abortive project to install CCTV and ANPR cameras.

The primary purpose of the review is to provide external oversight and verification of the

adequacy and extent to which the key recommendations resulting from the Thames Valley

Police (TVP) and Birmingham City Council (BCC) reviews have been implemented and also

to provide commentary in relation to the extent to which WMPA have given adequate

diligence and due regard, specifically in relation to rebuilding public trust and confidence.

2. Report Summary

2.1

The TVP and BCC reviews of Project Champion identified a series of recommendations and

learning points. WMPA has taken a number of steps to address

- public confidence

- project management and

- equality, diversity and human rights related issues

The SAS review Team has wherever possible scrutinised the key steps taken by WMPA and

provided thorough commentary and recommendations where relevant to further assist

WMPA.

6

In response to the recommendations WMPA have

Amended the terms of reference of committees to include human rights

Strengthened the member competency and review process

Committed to audit equalities and human rights work

Changed their approach to delegations

Agreed to provide a public commentary in meeting agendas on decisions that are

taken in private

Improved liaison with local authorities

Turned Corporate Planning and Policy Working Group into a public meeting with

responsibility for oversight of major projects

Sought external support in the development of their approach to ensure

consideration of equalities and human rights

Written to the Policing Minister to express concerns at what WMPA observe to be the

uncertainties in the national and local governance of counter terrorism policing

The BCC review did not make recommendations directly to either WMP or WMPA. The key

action for WMPA arising from the BCC report was the urgent need to improve liaison with

the local authorities in the WMPA policing area. The review team have paid specific

cognisance to the latter recommendation arising out of the BCC review and have made

recommendations to enhance the positive progress that WMPA have made.

WMPA‟s commissioning of an external review is evidence of a willingness and openness to

demonstrate to the public the importance of rebuilding public trust and confidence. In

addition the external review provides an external verification of the implementation of the

recommendations resulting from the TVP and BCC reviews.

The SAS review team were overall impressed by WMPA‟s approach and manner in which

they acted upon the TVP and BCC recommendations. No concerns of a significant nature

have been identified and any recommendations included by the SAS review team are minor

in nature and if implemented will assist to enhance the significant and positive steps that

WMPA have already embarked upon.

3. Review and Terms of Reference

3.1 The specific terms of reference for the review as provided by WMPA are as stated below:

7

To consider the learning points arising from West Midlands Police Authority‟s

engagement in Project Champion, notably in the Thames Valley Police and

Birmingham City Council reviews

To consider and report on the extent to which the actions taken in response to

Project Champion are appropriate and successful

To make any further recommendations to WMPA related to issues arising from

Project Champion

To consider and make recommendations relating to how the lessons learned and

actions taken in relation to Project Champion may be applied to the transition to

PCCs and their ongoing support

4. Methodology

4.1

Provision of documentary evidence to the review team

Observation of the Protective Services Committee

Observations of WMPA meetings

Interviews with WMPA members and staff

Interview with BCC elected member and Scrutiny Officer

List of persons spoken with (not in order):

Bishop Derek Webley - Chair of WMPA Professor Ron Amman - Chair of Protective Services Committee Mr Roger Hughes - EDHR Lead Member Cllr Judy Foster - Vice-Chair of WMPA / EDHR Lead Member Ms Jackie Courtney - Chief Executive WMPA Mr Jonathan Jardine - WMPA Policy Manager Ms Claire Thomas - WMPA Policy Officer Ms Andrea Gabbitas - WMPA Policy Manager Ms Alethea Fuller - WMPA Policy Manager Cllr James Hutchings – Birmingham City Council Ms Benita Wishart - BCC Scrutiny Manager

5. Scrutiny Areas

5.1 All interviewed provided answers to questions relating to the areas scrutinised by the SAS

review team as stated below:

Governance

8

Leadership

Project and Programme Management

Performance and Service Delivery Management

Partnership working; for effective service delivery and EDHR compliance

Communication, Engagement, Involvement of key stakeholders, including the public

Community Equality Diversity and Human Rights (EDHR) Impact as a result of

implementing the Project Champion TVP and BCC recommendations

Training, capability, knowledge provided to WMPA Members / Officers and West

Midlands Police (WMP) staff and officers

Sustainability; future proofing for Police and Crime Commissioners (PCC‟s)

Local versus national project & performance management, particularly in relation to

effective service delivery and EDHR compliance

6. Recommendations from TVP and BCC reviews

6.1 For reader clarity and ease the recommendations from the TVP and BCC reviews are

included at Appendices A and B.

7. Review findings And Recommendations

7.1 N.B. Commentary is provided in plain text, recommendations are in bold text.

The areas scrutinised have been categorised into key thematic areas, commentary has been

provided in relation to each theme. Please note that there is a significant overlap between

many of the thematic areas, particularly in relation to EDHR and communications related

activity, subsequently overlap in relation to the commentary provided may occur.

8.1 Leadership

8.1.1

It was clear throughout the SAS review team pre-reading, and during the field visit, that the

Authority is led decisively and effectively by Bishop Derek Webley.

Bishop Webley had been in post as Chair for little over a year when concerns about Project

Champion thrust both the Authority and Chair very firmly into the public spotlight. However,

9

from documentation seen, and particularly from interviews with other Authority members, it is

clear that Bishop Webley was exercising clear leadership prior to Project Champion

becoming a public issue, not withstanding their lack of intervention into Project Champion

itself. An example of this earlier leadership is the clear expectations Bishop Webley set of

both himself and other authority members to move public meetings out of police premises

and into more accessible locations.

Whilst the Chair sets the tone, there was also evidence of similar activity by other authority

members. For instance, the review team were shown a working document authored by

Professor Ron Amman, dated 17 September 2009, entitled 'Review of Preventing Violent

Extremism - Submission by West Midlands Police Authority'. This included the following

paragraph, reflective of attempts at public engagement at that time around the Prevent

strand of Counter Terrorism activity

"Police authorities can also have direct oversight of local partnership working. For example,

at 1030 on 8 October 2009 the WMPA Community and Security Committee will be meeting

in public at the Drum Theatre in Aston, Birmingham. Following the meeting there will be a

question and answer session at which members of the public can quiz the committee

members and WMP Officers. On the agenda are a number of items, including a report on

NI35 in the WMP area (National Indicator on Building resilience to violent extremism, now

deleted); in essence the committee will be seeking an assessment of the effectiveness of the

Force’s engagement with partners, and the progress in achieving the objectives set out in

the Prevent Strategy. As a demonstration of the role police authorities can play in relation to

preventing violent extremism, we would warmly invite members of the Communities and

Local Government committee to attend this meeting and observe."

The review team were supplied with documentation that included an exchange of letters in

2010 between the Chair, Dr. Webley, and the Minister for Policing, Rt Hon Nick Herbert MP.

This correspondence suggested that at the inception of Project Champion, there was

uncertainty by the Authority regarding its right or license to question what they perceived as

a national counterterrorism project. Despite the leadership that the Authority had hitherto

shown in other areas, this inevitably led to a lack of clarity in this arena of very specialised

operations, particularly when ring-fenced funding was being provided by the Home Office on

the advice of ACPO TAM (Association of Chief Police Officers Committee on Terrorism and

Allied Matters). The letter from the Minister was helpful in establishing that an individual

Police Authority has the right, and indeed the duty, to exercise scrutiny when national

initiatives of this sort are carried out in their force area. This would also extend to acting

collectively with other Authorities when this applies on a regional basis or national basis.

10

Nationally there are a number of Counter Terrorism Units and Counter Terrorism Intelligence

Units situated across England and Wales. The Police Authorities for the forces in which

these units are situated convene as the Joint Counter Terrorism Oversight Group. The

intention of this Oversight Group was publicly quoted in 2009 as being 'oversight and

monitoring'. It was apparent to the Review Team that, certainly post-Champion, the role of

WMPA and other Police Authorities in this group has been strengthened, enabling it to better

carry out this stated intention.

When the nature and extent of Project Champion became public, the response from West

Midlands Police and WMPA was to decommission and remove all camera equipment in the

area, whether CCTV or Automatic Number Plate Recognition. In discussions around her

report, Thames Valley Chief Constable Sara Thornton questioned whether permanent covert

CCTV and ANPR cameras would ever be feasible, suggesting that the original operational

assumptions behind this part of the project were flawed. Given the level of public concern,

there was a natural desire for open engagement with the public about what had gone wrong.

There is evidence of this in various progress reports, such as the action plan for

Neighbourhood Inspectors to report back on discussions in this area. The WMPA action plan

addresses this at item 11, and the item is shown with a progress note that "The Authority

and Protective Services Committee have agreed work plans that continue to bring additional

information related to counterterrorism into the public domain, therefore informing public

debate in relation to these matters". This was discussed with members and officers during

the site visit. West Midlands are probably at the forefront of public debate in this arena.

A particularly strong example is the way in which members of the public with an interest in

the implementation of Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 are now being invited to

become part of a West Midlands Counter Terrorism Unit‟s external reference group.

To progress this, the Review Team agreed with some WMPA members' comments that the

way was still open for further realistic public debate about the exact nature of the threat and

risk, and what the public in both the specific neighbourhoods and the West Midlands as a

whole would want as a proportionate response.

Sensitivities relating to counter-terrorism policing remain significant in the West Midlands

and elsewhere, and facilitating public debate will remain a key issue for the Authority in its

remaining months until the official arrival of the PCC.

8.2 Governance

8.2.1.

11

One of the major failings highlighted in the TVP report was a lack of inquisitiveness on the

part of WMPA into a very specialised and sensitive area of operations. This must be taken in

context with other counterterrorism related governance by WMPA, such as the work on

radicalisation in 2009 described above. The history of the project shows that there was some

confusion about whether it should have been brought to a Strategic Board or remained, in

retrospect inappropriately, at a lower level Project Board.

It was clear however, that there was a gap in this important, if narrow and specialised, field.

The Review Team were encouraged by progress in this area. They met with the lead

member for Protective Services, Prof Ron Amman, and attended (as members of the public)

a meeting of the Protective Services Committee.

To deal first with the role of the lead member, it was apparent from the interview, and also

from interviews with other WMPA members, that Prof Amman has considerable professional

expertise. He is highly regarded for this, and is trusted by other WMPA members, and by

relevant senior police officers. Prof Amman holds regular meetings with Marcus Beale, the

Assistant Chief Constable who holds the protective services portfolio. Mr Jonathan Jardine

now also attends this meeting. Mr Jardine is the policy manager within WMPA, with suitable

experience and security clearance. This meeting is clearly built around, and relies on

effective and highly regarded individuals. The inclusion of a WMPA Policy Manager as well

as Lead Member is a considerable strength.

The regular meetings between lead members, policy support and ACC‟s should continue,

with thought given to how such arrangements could continue once the PCC is in office.

8.2.2.

The review team were mindful of the particular circumstances that enabled Project

Champion to progress as far as it did without triggering action at a sufficiently senior level.

They questioned the Lead Member and several other WMPA officers and members to

ascertain what reassurance might exist that similar circumstances would not prevail in the

future. They were given examples that tended to suggest sufficient governance was now in

place. One of these examples, which is noteworthy as a project of similar national standing,

concerns Project „Safe And Sound‟ (the Shot-Spotter Gunshot Location System). Another,

which was discussed at the Protective Services Committee, relates to Operation Plato

(tactics to counter a Mumbai style terrorist attack).

12

The Review Team found that there is no regular senior tripartite meeting between WMPA,

West Midlands Police and Birmingham City Council and see potential advantage for such an

arrangement once a PCC is elected.

There is a useful mechanism already in place, in hat a WMPA policy officer (Jonathan

Jardine) does attend a regular meeting of the BCC Scrutiny Board and can report back and

act as a link with the WMP / WMPA Protective Services Committee. Several persons

interviewed described this as an effective and mature arrangement. Some doubt was

expressed as to whether there were similarly mature high-level arrangements with other

local authorities in the West Midlands Police area.

Local Authorities are key partners in protective services policing, and robust ongoing

arrangements for dialogue and partnership working remain a key priority.

8.2.3.

The review team were able to attend the public part of one of the regular protective services

committees. It was clear and notable that WMPA members, not just the lead member, were

able to question senior police officers with knowledge and credibility. Specific examples

included

the grasp of detail on the number of Police Support Unit Serials being placed on

standby for mutual aid to other forces.

a detailed and subtle understanding of the performance data for police stop search

activity in specific locations, particularly questions about the relationship of numbers

searched for suspected drugs offences compared with numbers of offences brought

to justice.

From these examples and other commentary, the Review Team feel that there is now

sufficient governance in place, and a sufficient will to question from WMPA, to ensure

that the Authority will be sighted on, and have the opportunity to take action about,

any future proposals for similarly specialist projects.

There is further comment on governance of Projects and Programmes in the following

paragraphs.

8.3 Project and Programme Management

8.3.1

13

The Thames Valley report makes five recommendations regarding Project and Programme

Management. Two of these deal with

(i) A review of structures to oversee and manage projects to ensure that staff involved in

project management have suitable skills and support, particularly in the areas of equalities

and human rights.

(iii) A review of WMPA‟s role to provide governance to force projects. Also ensuring that

authority members have the right level of training and guidance to perform this role,

especially in the areas of equalities and human rights.

These areas were pursued in interviews on site. WMPA officers and members are confident

that they have the right level of engagement with the force. They stated that it was routine for

Authority members to sit on project and programme boards. The force carries out its own

project management training using a variety of methods, appropriately including LEAN,

6Sigma, PRINCE2 and combinations thereof. Given the comprehensive nature of these

arrangements, it is assumed that there is in place a system of arrangements which

determine the level of governance and oversight required, based on such criteria as finance,

change impact, and equalities impact. In addition, rightful emphasis has been placed on the

crucial role and appropriate seniority of projects' and programmes' Senior Responsible

Owners.

The number of specialist Equality Impact Assessment (EQIA) advisers to be in place by April

2012 is impressive by any measure and is a mark of real commitment to this important area.

8.4. Performance and Service Delivery Management

8.4.1

The debate about the removal of the cameras leads into a concern that was felt by the

review team prior to the visit. The concern was that there might now be a perception that the

affected areas had become „difficult‟ for the type of everyday CCTV coverage common in

most British towns and cities, and there might be a risk of a resultant performance gap. On

the contrary, during the visit the review team heard that performance in measurable crime

types had not suffered as a result of the actions taken post-Champion. In fact, it appeared

that the reverse was true, that crime rates and crime detection rates for crime types such as

robbery and violence were improving in the localities.

This could be due to a number of factors: more effective tactics, greater emphasis on

traditional policing, or even possibly (and paradoxically) that the positive response by the

14

Police, WMPA and Birmingham City Council to Champion had resulted in increased support

by the public for police / partnership actions and investigations.

There still exists a danger that despite current strong performance, ground might be lost in

the future, due to lack of infrastructure. Despite having been given reassurances regarding

signal crime types, the review team are also concerned about the potential for diminished

public safety in less obvious areas such as domestic abuse and safeguarding issues.

A number of those interviewed also spoke of apprehension, either now or historically, about

roads policing issues such as higher than average numbers of untaxed or uninsured

vehicles.

It was pointed out to the Review Team that some of the localities affected by Operation

Champion had been pioneers in the use of traditional, council controlled CCTV in the early

years of its development in the UK. This was due to worries of local residents at the time

regarding street offences. It was portrayed to the team that the general feeling of public

safety in the areas increased as result.

WMP and WMPA already have performance monitoring structures in place, which draw from

a wide variety of sources, including leading indicators. The review team felt it important that

the Authority‟s performance monitoring frameworks and indicators should be sufficiently

nuanced to allow early warning of impending problems and concerns.

8.5 Training

8.5.1

WMPA documentary evidence provided the review team with considerable confidence in

relation to the extent and quality of training provided to members of the Authority. Evidence

of training provided included a number of areas; ‘The Equality Act 2010: The Challenges

ahead’, ‘Human Rights and Policing’ and ‘Trust, Policing and Muslim Communities’.

As well as providing training, WMPA have also commissioned member development

opportunities that enable members to access feedback and further development directly with

the facilitators delivering any given training package. WMPA have additionally asked

facilitators to provide written feedback and evaluation of the training provided, ‘Equality and

Diversity training West Midland Police Authority’ was one such report which was

commissioned by WMPA and completed in April 2010.

The review team picked up a slight concern contained within the Harris Beider report which

highlighted that ‘Not all members attended the sessions and this was unfortunate and could

15

have been viewed as not prioritising equalities as being important’. From this and other

comments made in interviews, it would appear that despite the substantial amounts of

training that have been provided by WMPA, some members have not been able to attend.

The reasons for non-attendance are not apparent, and consideration may need to be given

to member commitment to other activities they are involved in. It is understood that not all

members will always be available for all training. Due to the current circumstances and

taking into consideration the limited time left available for the Authority to prepare for

transition to PCC governance, the review team feel that it would be inappropriate to

recommend that all members who have not undertaken EDHR training should now be fully

trained on all areas relating to EDHR and other issues that impact on under-represented

groups. However, this opinion of the review team should not detract from WMPA members

continuing to fulfil their duties as Independent or Elected members in all areas relating to

Police Authority governance requirements.

An interim solution would be to ensure members are adequately trained or briefed in relation

to their particular areas of activity and interest, or lead portfolio areas, rather than WMPA

attempting to commission full training for all members.

Recommendation 1

WMPA should ensure that members receive appropriate levels training, briefings and

discussion workshops based on their lead portfolio, or area of activity, in order for

them to adequately perform the duties allocated to them until transition to PCC.

8.5.2

The review team did not receive sufficient written documentary evidence to fully assess the

adequacy of WMPA Officer capacity building and training. Therefore training, succession

planning and capability needs were discussed in interviews. During the interview stage it

was demonstrated that WMPA Officers receive training on a variety of issues. WMPA takes

a lead role and is working via the Association of Police Authorities (APA) with the National

Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) to develop a training programme for Police Authority

staff that would help prepare them to work under a PCC structure and within the context of a

more „political‟ environment. However the training commissioned from the NPIA is primarily

designed for Chief Executives and Deputy Chief Executives. The review team feel that

national training should be available for all staff working under the current Authority

structures to ensure succession planning occurs. There is a risk that staff including Deputies

and Chief Executives of Police Authorities may exit the organisation unless they are

adequately equipped, and feel capable and competent to work under future PCC structures.

16

In the opinion of the review team, detailed succession planning is required to mitigate the

corporate loss of knowledge that will inevitably result as the Authority moves to a structure of

police governance with only a single elected figurehead. Member skills and knowledge

cannot be realistically transferred or acquired by one single person in all areas. The review

team feel it is necessary to transfer knowledge to the WMPA staff working to the PCC, who

must be equipped in advance with the necessary information. Assuming retention of all or

most WMPA staff into Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) existing staff

need to acquire or capture the skills that currently seventeen members of WMPA provide.

This is of course in addition to their current high commitment and significant workload. To

support this, work should be undertaken to map out existing Member skills and knowledge,

and ensure that all such areas can be picked up by WMPA officers and staff.

In wider debate rather than directly by WMPA members or staff, some concerns were

expressed that the political dimensions that the elected members of WMPA currently provide

will no longer be available „in-house‟ and WMPA staff will therefore need to be fully equipped

with the ability to understand the political landscape of their work.

This debate could even be interpreted to include some lack of confidence in relation to PCC

governance. The two key areas highlighted related specifically to (i) the level of „Policing‟

related knowledge a PCC may hold and (ii) the degree to which a PCC can be directly

involved in partnership meetings with Local Authorities. These comments were tempered by

a very positive regard for the current level of involvement by WMPA members and Officers

involved with BCC, who are seen to share knowledge and communicate issues of concern,

particularly at scrutiny officer level. Policy Manager Jonathan Jardine‟s involvement was

flagged up as exemplary; however the concern remained that under a future PCC regime

this involvement may not continue to the same degree.

The over-riding issue being expressed is that of; whether WMPA can ensure that its

successor body the OPCC will possess sufficient knowledge and capability as a standalone

organisation. If not, there is is a danger that the PCC will instead have to rely too heavily on

the Police directly, which may tend to weaken the independence of the PCC.

8.6 Equality Impact Assessments (EQIA’s)

8.6.1

Throughout the advance documents supplied, all papers explicitly stated that EQIA‟s had

been completed where relevant. The review team noted this as good practice. They were not

17

able to examine individual EQIA‟s to assess the quality; therefore the issue was explored

during the interview stage. Members assured the team that EQIA‟s are routinely conducted.

It was not clear if all EQIA's are available for dip sampling by members of the Authority, or

alternatively by an external reference group such as Independent Advisory Group (IAG)

members. It is not sufficient to state that an EQIA has been conducted if no (or limited)

check and balance via dip sampling exists for the Authority to assure itself of the quality of

an EQIA. It would therefore be good practice to ensure that dip sampling takes place in

future.

It would be advisable that such provisions do not rely on member involvement alone in order

to future proof them for transference into a PCC structure.

As part of governance for the PCC framework for commissioning of services, WMPA might

also consider satisfying themselves that service providers have themselves carried out

meaningful Community / Equality Impact Assessments.

The review team were told that WMPA had been informed that there was an EQIA in place

for Operation Champion, but it was not shared with the Authority either at the time or made

available after the event.

8.6.2

Another area of slight concern is the ability to demonstrate adequate levels of due regard as

required within the Single Equality Act 2010. From some documents provided, there did not

appear to be a fully coherent and consistent approach to the statutory Equality requirements

as stated in the Act. Some documents referred to previous legislation (specifically the Race

Relations and Disability Discrimination Acts).

As a general observation, any reference to the equality implications on formal WMPA papers

should be applied to all protected characteristics as stated under the Single Equality Act

2010; this will enable a corporate and consistent approach.

It was encouraging to see EIA‟s routinely referred to in documentation. When this was

pursued further in meetings with Authority members, the verbal feedback revealed a slight

concern that these “equalities paragraphs” might on occasions be an add-on rather than an

intrinsic part of the working document.

Recognising and capitalising on excellent progress made to date around EQIA‟s; a potential

tactic might be to change the terminology to „Community Impact Assessment‟, which would

18

include a comment on equality, diversity and human rights where appropriate, or conversely

the rationale as to why there is no equality impact.

The Review Team felt that

(a) the community impact of policies, strategies or operations is likely to be wider than „just‟

Equality. As examples, it might include the effect on a community of high profile policing, or

even road closures for major events.

(b) this would help to mainstream and embed equality impact analysis as part of everyday

business rather than as an „add on‟.

Looking forward to Police Authority transition, such a move would add legitimacy to the

Police And Crime Commissioner, bearing in mind that the future governance landscape for

Commissioners will be based on this public accountability, of which this would be a good

exemplar.

One of the major responses to the Sara Thornton report has been to substantially increase

the capacity of West Midlands Police to undertake equality impact assessments.

Impressively, the force has a plan to imminently have 400 trained assessors in place.

The progress made and commitment shown by West Midlands Police in training this number

of assessors is remarkable and is to be applauded. However, it would appear that at least

some Authority members still require some reassurance on progress and effectiveness in

this area. A standard way to gauge progress in this area could be via Kirkpatrick‟s Four

Level Evaluation, which examines:

o Reaction to training

o Learning achieved

o Changes in behaviour

o Resultant measurable changes to organisational performance.

Recommendation 2

WMPA papers refer to a number of historic Equality Acts that now should be

incorporated into the Single Equality Act 2010. Any reference to the equality

implications on formal WMPA papers should now be applied to all protected

characteristics as stated under the Single Equality Act 2010; this enables a corporate

and consistent approach.

8.7 Human Rights Considerations

19

8.7.1

WMPA submitted significant documentary evidence relating both to correspondence and the

conduct of business at formal meetings. The evidence suggests there is robust management

and questioning of all matters relating to EDHR during such meetings. The documentary

evidence provided by WMP however does not on all occasions state explicitly the Human

Rights implications within each paper presented to the Authority.

A vast majority of the papers purely focus on the Equality requirements. Human Rights

requirements or implication will not be captured within an EQIA alone. However, moving to a

Community Impact Assessment model as advised under recommendations 9 would enable

the Human Rights considerations to be more explicitly explored.

Recommendation 3

Human Rights implications should be stated explicitly on committee papers and if risk

assessments have been completed the level of risk should be indicated.

8.8 Communication Consultation & Community Engagement

8.8.1

WMPA communication strategy for public engagement and consultation is exceptional and

ambitious. The separate Police Authority Communications Strategy provides for an important

check and balance, and recognises the possible limitation of reliance on WMP alone for

information relating to the public.

The commentary provided within the Leadership section of this report demonstrates a very

strong commitment of WMPA‟s desire to be open, honest and accountable. The review team

are extremely impressed that the Authority does not assume any complacency in relation to

its engagement and consultation processes with the public.

WMPA has innovatively taken a consultation approach that seeks to capture the views of the

silent majority and have engaged in „parallel dialogues‟ with the community figureheads and

leaders whilst at the same time WMPA have reached „beyond the obvious voices‟ to access

the „seldom heard voices‟. A number of very meaningful reports are cited below that provide

evidence and a demonstration of the commitment of WMPA to reach out „beyond the

obvious‟. The Ipsos Mori research on „Seldom Heard Communities’ and The Focus

Enterprises report, ‘Tell us your story’ relating to visually impaired groups are some

examples amongst many of the significant and demonstrable commitment WMPA has given

to reaching out to as many „seldom heard voices‟ as is realistically viable.

20

It is the view of the review team that although separate consultation ensures that the WMPA

guards against a reliance upon the West Midlands Police (WMP) in relation to public

engagement, there is still a slight danger that separate engagement occurs with the same

groups, i.e. the same community groups may be engaged with by WMPA on one occasion

and then on a separate occasion engaged with by WMP. This will result in ineffective

engagement, consultation fatigue from the respondents‟ point of view and ineffective use of

resources. It would therefore be advisable practice to have liaison between those in WMP

and those in WMPA responsible for such engagement, in order to ensure no duplication and

unnecessary overlap occurs. Conversely, on some occasions it will be necessary for both

WMPA and WMP to engage separately with the same groups.

8.8.2

The review team commend as good practice the degree to which WMPA has pushed nearly

all of its business into the public domain, with only very limited information being dealt with

as Part Two items.

This could be further enhanced by recognising the need to publish information about outputs / outcomes arising from public engagement.

This would not detract from the noted good practice that WMPA has already adopted and

should only serve to enhance the progress to date and create a positive stance of providing

the public with an assurance mechanism that displays how their views are being heard.

8.9 Future Governance Landscape

8.9.1

Any considerations or observations regarding future governance for policing can only be

presented with the caveat that recommendations relating to the PCC or OPCC are

dependant on those who hold the latter office.

Those aspects of the review that refer to the PCC or the OPCC are intended therefore to

explore possible good practice, and aim to guard against any potential gaps that may result

in governance as a result of transition to PCC‟s.

WMPA has in place a very robust Transition Programme that the Chief Executive Jackie

Courtney has developed both locally and nationally via the Association of Police Authority

Chief Executives (APACE). There are no significant concerns that require any additional

actions relating to WMPA. Issues relating to capacity, training and staff being able to function

under a PCC have been captured in the Training and Capability sections of the report.

21

The review team are confident that robust lines of communication exist with BCC. However

there is less certainty about their being sufficiently high levels of communications across all

the seven local authority areas in the West Midlands policing area.

Project Champion has highlighted the dangers of nationally agreed activity and the local

impact it may have. During the field visit and interview phase, the review team were acutely

aware of the creation of the National Crime Agency (NCA), and that the relationships

between NCA and PCC have not yet been defined. However it is clear that the NCA have no

specific requirement to report operational matters to any future PCC, only a requirement to

report to the relevant Chief Constable. This causes some concern where; as Project

Champion highlighted, that national decisions may have a significant and negative impact on

local communities. This is currently a matter of debate and an issue for WMPA to further

consider.

An area for potential development could be the establishment of communication protocols

with the Chief Constable, the NCA and WMPA that can be transferred into the PCC

structure. Such a protocol could also potentially be extended to capture and monitor

proactive strategic and tactical activity in relation to regional and national criminality.

8.9.2

Post-Transition the Police and Crime Panel (PCP) will be responsible for scrutiny of the

PCC. This will be particularly pertinent regarding high impact issues. It is hoped that some of

the current strong practices and principles of communications, and briefings that are

currently being provided by WMPA members and staff can be transferred across to the new

framework, whereby a PCP primarily made up of elected members is fully sighted and

briefed on all issues relating to communities. Project Champion is a singular example of how

failing to brief and / or communicate with key individuals can lead to mistrust and loss of

confidence.

Wherever viable and reasonable WMPA should make local links with the various authorities

and strengthen the communication links across all seven Local Authority areas.

In many ways it may be easier to make those links in the future as a result of the presence of

the PCP, as the PCP is very likely to want information about local policing from the OPCC.

There is however a potential risk that complex and / or hidden issues will lose out to a

localised populist agenda, with an added risk of loss of scrutiny and governance from a PCC

in relation to regional, cross border or more complex policing issues in favour of more local

issues issues. However the review team are genuinely of the opinion that this is unlikely to

22

occur in the West Midlands, not least because of the lessons learnt from Project Champion,

its aftermath, and the subsequent issues raised in both the TVP and the BCC review.

Additionally, the future PCC will benefit from the activity that has been conducted so far with

ACPO TAM, and also notably the activity of lead members and the protective services

committee. This activity can be mapped and logged for the easy access of the future PCC,

thus ensuring that as one governance regime ends, the subsequent structure is able to

effectively and efficiently pick up those issues that can potentially create a significantly high

and adverse impact, particularly on communities that are already marginalised or perceived

to be disenfranchised.

These observations are not designed to impact upon the operational independence of WMP

or the NCA; rather it is an attempt at recognising that regional and national activity sitting

under the remit of the NCA is only successfully managed with a commitment to

neighbourhood policing which in turn clearly sits under the remit of a PCC. Therefore it

seems essential for the NCA and the OPCC to have agreed communication protocols,

attempts should be made to agree ‘best dialogue practice’ even if that is on a localised basis

as a starting point.

Effective communication and engagement with the NCA will ensure joined up policing from

the local, to the regional, to the national and vice versa. Clear lines of accountability and

demarcation must be drawn between the various structures under the future landscape. This

should help define as well as is reasonably viable where ultimate responsibility lies for any

given activity when it is nationally instructed.

_____________________________

Acknowledgements and Review Team comment

West Midlands Police Authority could have easily chosen to attempt to lay responsibility for

errors in the governance of Operation Champion at the door of West Midlands Police.

Equally, they could have attempted to do so with ACPO TAM or the Home Office. Instead

they chose to take responsibility for some of the project management and governance gaps

that were identified by Project Champion.

It is clear, even from fact that WMPA have commissioned this review, that they are keen to

ensure that the recommendations made by Chief Constable Thornton are implemented, and

that lessons learned are embedded.

23

The review team have been particularly impressed by the openness shown by West

Midlands Police Authority members with whom they have come into contact during the

course of this review. This extends equally to the WMPA policy officers, to other WMPA

staff, and to BCC staff and Elected members who have been involved.

Appendix A - Project Champion Recommendations made by Chief Constable

Thames Valley Police

1. Decisions about service delivery and policy should take account of the EHRC‟s

Equality Impact Assessment Guidance and policy writers and decision makers

should clearly set out how those considerations along with the principles of the

Human Rights Act have been applied. Those decisions should support the Equality,

Diversity and Human Rights Strategy for the Police Service.

2. All force projects must consider any relevant local and national guidance at the

earliest possible stage. Consideration should be given to a formal procedure to

examine and „sign off‟ compliance within any project methodology which is being

used, whether or not it is PRINCE2.

3. West Midlands Police should review the structures it has in places to oversee and

manage projects. They should ensure those involved in managing force projects are

suitably skilled and supported to carry out the role expected of them. This is of

particular importance in the areas of equalities and human rights.

4. West Midlands Police Authority should review the important role it plays in providing

governance for force projects. Consideration should be given to providing Police

Authority members with the right level of support, training and guidance to ensure

they can perform their role as effectively as possible. Specific guidance should be

considered which covers members‟ duties and obligations. This is of particular

importance in the areas of equalities and human rights.

5. West Midlands Police should ensure that the key role the Senior Responsible Owner

(SRO) plays in ensuring projects deliver what they set out to achieve is understood

by senior officers. The force should ensure that Senior Responsible Owners are

suitably experienced, qualified and supported.

6. West Midlands Police should ensure that genuine engagement with stakeholders is a

key consideration within every project, and that it is seen as central to the successful

management of projects rather than something which is added on as an afterthought.

24

7. Use the opportunity presented by the development of the refreshed Critical Incident

Policy to ensure that all officers and staff recognise potential Critical Incidents and

that they flag those incidents up so they are considered at an early stage and

proportionate action taken.

8. West Midlands Police and Police Authority need to ensure that well intentioned

strategies on public consultation are followed.

9. Consultation needs to be seen as a key aspect of every project rather than as an

adjunct. It should be included within any formal project methodology, such as

PRINCE2, that is being used.

Appendix B - Project Champion Recommendations made by Birmingham City

Council

1. That all partners of the Safer Birmingham Partnership agree to the principles of

• A lead organisation being responsible for consultation on each project

• Consulting on community safety projects and strategies with Councillors and

communities; and

• Consultation being based on as accurate and complete information as is available;

all partners should confirm that relevant community engagement strategies reflect

these principles.

2. That the City Council‟s Police Authority representatives inform, discuss and feedback

to the Cabinet Member for Local Services and Community Safety on all relevant

Police Authority business.

3. That the City Council ensure that there is a Lead Officer representing the City

Council‟s interests on community safety issues.

4. That the Deputy Leader revisits reporting responsibilities to ensure that there are

clear lines of accountability within the City Council in relation to community safety

and counter terrorism matters.

5. That the Cabinet Member for Transportation & Regeneration establish a mechanism

to ensure the Cabinet Member for Local Services and Community Safety is alerted to

surveillance installations in the future (other than those for solely traffic monitoring

purposes).

6. That the Safer Birmingham Partnership review and strengthen reporting mechanisms

to the Cabinet Member and ensure appropriate accountability for all decision-making.

7. That the Safer Birmingham Partnership revise and embed the Closed Circuit

Television (CCTV) strategy to be relevant to Automatic Number Plate Recognition

25

(ANPR) (other than those used solely for traffic monitoring purposes) plus other

emerging technologies such as facial recognition and voice recording and perhaps

aerial reconnaissance.

8. That the Cabinet Member for Local Services and Community Safety writes to the

Home Secretary to request Government to

• Recommend that intensive surveillance schemes in residential area are not

supported elsewhere;

• Establish guidelines to assist achieving the correct balance between human rights

and freedom from surveillance; and

• Ask that the constitutional position of the Association of Chief Police Officers be

considered.

9. That the Cabinet Member for Local Services and Community Safety reports progress

towards achievement of these recommendations to the Local Services and

Community Safety Overview and Scrutiny Committee in June 2011. Subsequent

progress reports will be scheduled by the Committee thereafter, until all

recommendations are

implemented.

DISCLAIMER

This report is compiled based on

- information furnished by WMPA

- the responses made by officers and staff either in person or in written response to

questions

- face-to-face interviews

- observation of meetings, specifically (but not restricted to) the Protective Services

Committee.

As such it is a limited snapshot based on time and information available. It represents the

views and professional judgement of the members of the review team, who will stand by

their findings, but is necessarily restricted due to the time available and scope of the terms of

reference.

This review was commissioned by, and is the property of, West Midlands Police

Authority. The intellectual property rights therein similarly reside with West Midlands

Police Authority rather than with Saima Afzal Solutions or any of the individual

contributors.

This report is in draft form until accepted by West Midlands Police Authority

Saima Afzal Solutions

TEL: 07801704851 E-MAIL: saimaafzal@sasolutions.info

WEB: www.sasolutions.info www.facebook.com/SaimaAfzalSolutions