Oversight Board 14th October - 2b MPS Victim and Witness Care Paper

Report by: Deputy Assistant Commissioner Barbara Gray on behalf of the Commissioner

Purpose of this Paper The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of the Witness Care Unit Review outlining progress made, works in progress, and any blockers to advancement.

2. Recommendations – that the Oversight Board:

a) Note the progress made by the task and finish group.

b) Aid in discussion with National CPS regarding upgrading the Witness Management System and the availability of performance data.

3. Witness Care Review: Background

3.1. Following issues raised via the Victims’ Commissioner it was agreed that a review of core functions within Witness Care Units (WCU) was required.

3.2. This was not a full systematic review of the full range of functions within the WCUs, but a targeted focus on core aspects.

3.3. A collaborative Task and Finish Group (TFG) was established to progress this work, comprised of representatives from MOPAC (Victims Commissioner’s office, and Performance and Insights Team) and the MPS. The group would decide collectively if a more in depth review would be required.

3.4. The overarching aim was to identify and address key issues regarding communications, engagement, and responsibilities between the WCU and OICs, as well as address administration issues caused by letter templates and email, to ensure victims and witnesses receive the most appropriate support, engagement, and the best possible service.

4. Witness Care Review: Scope & Governance

4.1. Agreed areas of focus were as follows:

4.1.1. NPCC Victim’s Code of Practice (VCoP) letter templates: Review all, understanding the impact of key messages that need to be managed and delivered in a tailored communication. Make recommendations on new/revised product.

4.1.2. Restorative Justice (RJ): Review and make recommendations on how best to meet requirements regarding the publicity of RJ in a case by case process rather than generic approach.

4.1.3. Feedback Mechanisms: Review and make recommendations regarding the most appropriate feedback process for victims, incorporating the existing email inbox and establishing whether it’s fit for purpose.

4.1.4. Governance of key victim updates in cases involving SOITs: Review and identify a process and policy to meet the needs of the victim and deliver key updates in the most appropriate way.

4.1.5. Challenges impacting on WCU Culture: Explore potential challenges impacting on WCU Culture, i.e. demand, training, and identify solutions.

4.1.6. Performance Data: Explore limitations of performance information that supports improvement in victim care.

4.2. TFG Membership & Governance

4.2.1. Strategic Oversight: DAC Barbara Gray. Senior Responsible Officer (SRO): Cmdr. Nick John. Lead Responsible Officer (LRO): Sara Lewis.

4.2.2. Support is provided from a range of areas, including but not limited to: • MOPAC / Victims’ Commissioner’s Office • Head of Profession: Investigations • Head of Profession: Public Protection • Met Prosecutions (MO10)

5. Progress made & works ongoing:

5.1. NPCC Victims letter templates: NPCC Witness/Victim letter templates are available via the CPS built Witness Management System (WMS). There are 31 existing templates to update victims and witnesses throughout their Criminal Justice journey, which forces can amend accordingly. The MPS WCOs use these templates (amended) and an additional three selfgenerated letter templates (Letters to victim/witness employers; Referral to the National Probation Service Victim Contact Scheme; Letters sent to OICs and SOITs progressing RASSO cases signposting victims to various support services). The MPS WCOs also utilise a template containing three separate paragraphs of text to copy and paste into letters where relevant (one for use in case finalisation letters thanking the victim/witness, requesting feedback, signposting to information to London Victim and Witness Services (LVWS), and giving an explanation on restorative Justice; One signposting to LVWS; One signposting to Citizens Advice Witness Service for non-London residents). Issues highlighted by service users via the Victim’s Commissioner, WCOs, and the Task and Finish Group via this review, indicated a need for review and improvement. Specifically regarding the use of convoluted, confusing language and content, dated and inconsistent branding, and misplaced promotion of restorative justice.

Progress:

5.1.1. Review of letters currently used by MPS WCOs completed by focus group of SMEs, focusing on content, language, tone, content, and style. Subsequently shared and reviewed by TFG.

5.1.2. Content streamlined, clarity enhanced and branding/style updated and applied across all documents.

5.1.3. Information box added, highlighting relevant, available services and information hubs. This includes information on Restorative Justice which has been removed from the main body of the letters [links into 5.2].

Next Steps:

5.1.4. A sample of these letters (below) will be presented to Victim’s Board on 10th October for final review/QC: • General Case Update • Letter to employers • Witness availability • Witness Warning (Magistrates) • Witness Warning (Crown Court) • Conviction after trial (Guardian) • Not guilty after trial

5.1.5. Share learning with NPCC for National implementation.

5.2. Restorative Justice (RJ): The Victims Code of Practice (VCoP) creates a requirement for Police to provide victims with information about RJ shortly after reporting, and a requirement for all services providers to consider if a victim would benefit from such information at any stage of the criminal justice process. To assist with VCoP compliance WCOs add information on RJ and associated services to the main body of post-conviction, case finalisation letters irrespective of crime committed or subsequent sanctions imposed. A number of WCOs also added links to RJ information to their email signatures. Whereas there are no absolute restrictions on who can elect to pursue RJ, it was suggested that proactively signposting towards RJ in all finalisation letters, prior to conversations being had regarding suitability, could be inappropriate in certain cases i.e. where a restraining order is in place, impacting negatively on the victim experience and possibly leading to re-traumatisation. The TFG agreed that clarity was needed regarding:

• When is it most appropriate to signpost victims to RJ in MPS communications?

• What stage of the criminal justice journey is it most appropriate to offer RJ services, and what is the most effective way of doing this?

• Whether or not victims of crime should be routinely offered RJ irrespective of crime, post charge.

Progress:

5.2.1. Working group convened with representatives from MOPAC, MPS and RJ providers. It was agreed that the RJ referral offer would be added to the additional information section of the case finalisation WCU letter template (see 5.1.3) explaining the outcome of trial/sentencing, and thereby making it less prominent, i.e. making it a passive offer instead of appearing like an active recommendation. It was felt this was the right balance of ensuring all victims were provided with information on RJ whilst not giving the impression to some victims that may be inappropriate for RJ, that we are actively suggesting it and potentially retraumatising them.

5.2.2. WCO email signature reviewed, refreshed and simplified. Standardised MPS branded signatures implemented across the hubs, removal of RJ component and inclusion of London Victim and Witness Service and Victims Code of Practice links.

Next Steps:

5.2.3. Enhanced training in RJ will be delivered to WCOs by our RJ partners ‘Calm’. This collaboration is already in train (Calm and MO10 owning).

5.2.4. Working group are set to reconvene and discuss additional opportunities to suitably promote RJ i.e. wider circulation of Calm leaflet; explore the concept of SPOCs/RJ champions in agencies which regularly engage with victims to help consider suitability of referral and appropriate time; RJ offer to be made more prominent online across the MPS, MOPAC, and LVWS websites.

5.3. Feedback Mechanisms

Following review of the various feedback mechanisms available to victims/witnesses of crime it is recommended that a new cross agency reporting tool is developed to capture all aspects of the victim/witness journey throughout the judicial process. Existing mechanisms (USS, TDIU, and London Voice) are limited in that the request for feedback is initiated 12weeks post-reporting, and is confined to assessing police action. WCO officers also promote a feedback mailbox where victims and witnesses can provide feedback directly to the WCUs via email. This feedback mechanism is promoted in all case finalisation letters and monitored by WCMs. However, it is underutilised (0 emails received) and there have been reports of users attempting contact via this method and receiving no reply, and issues raised regarding the complicated mailbox address: [email protected]

Progress:

5.3.1. Mailbox address amended to [email protected] and auto response softened. Letter templates amended to advertise new address. WCMs monitoring changes in use. Underutilised at time of writing. Next Steps: 5.3.2. Options paper produced by MOPAC Evidence and Insights but agreed by TFG that the scope of the tool needs to be widened to capture all aspects of the criminal justice journey from reporting to finalisation, assessing the contribution of all CJ partners to drive improvements regarding service delivery efficiently and effectively.

5.4. Governance of key victim updates in cases involving SOITs: Evidence has been presented to the group highlighting failings regarding the prompt and considered notification of victims and witnesses involved in cases concerning rape and serious sexual assaults. Review of processes in place to update victims and witnesses, and examination of governance structures to ensure compliance, required.

Progress:

5.4.1. Processes regarding key victim updates in cases involving SOITs has been reviewed. It is apparent that the current process is convoluted and confusing to both WCOs and SOITs/OICs. At present WCOs are responsible for notifying witnesses in these cases, but not victims as a general rule (an agreement can be made between the OIC/SOIT and WCO for the former or latter to inform both witnesses and victims). When an update is required, before the witnesses are notified, the WCO must first ensure that the victim has been notified, and so will contact the SOIT or the OIC. They must then wait for a response which could take days depending on a number of factors e.g. if the SOIT/OIC is on shift. This can result in delays to updates provided to victims/witnesses, and WCOs breaching requirements under the Victims Code of Practice. The delay also contributes to an increased workload as the task will remain incomplete until they have received a response from the OIC/SOIT and have notified the witnesses.

Next Steps:

5.4.2. It is the recommendation of this TFG – considering the complexities of this case type, and the specialist training required to adequately support associated victims/witnesses - that full responsibility for witness and victim management be absorbed by safeguarding/SOIT teams, similar to the approach adopted in homicide cases.

5.4.3. Interim action: Focus on developing process/policy to meet the needs of the victim and deliver key updates in the most appropriate way, ensuring complete clarity on responsibilities of those charged with updating the victim is in progress (1st draft complete. Document made in collaboration between MO10 and SRO Sexual Offences Investigation Team). This will include clarity on action to be taken in the event the OIC has a poor relationship with a victim/witness and ensure that mechanisms are in place to follow up telephone contact with written correspondence, particularly for victims of significant trauma.

5.5. Challenges impacting on WCU Culture: Progress:

5.5.1. A series of focus groups, consultations and semi-structured interviews were delivered across all WCUs (in person and online), exploring potential challenges impacting on WCU Culture. Various MPS data streams (staff survey, HR data, and in-house performance measures) were also reviewed.

5.5.2. The challenges highlighted were from the perspective of the practitioners, WCOs and band C/D Witness Care Managers (WCM) across the six hubs. These are highlighted in brief below (see appendix A for a more in depth review).

a. Increases in demand: The impact of court back logs and Criminal Bar Association (CBA) strike action. Some WCOs holding in excess of 200 cases. Repeated comments that they are at ‘breaking point’. Concerns voiced that they cannot dedicate the time they want to the V/W potentially impacting on quality of service.

b. Training: There is no corporate, standardised training package for Witness Care Officers and no centralised training team, or dedicated trainers across the hubs, resulting in a lack of consistency and fluctuations in standards of training delivery across the hubs. There is also no formal training to prepare WCOs to have conversations with people who have undergone significant trauma, have mental health issues or are otherwise vulnerable, or any coaching in de-escalation should an interaction become challenging or confrontational, all likely occurrences in this field. WMS training package glitch / not fit for purpose. No ‘sandpit’ available for WCO to familiarise themselves with the system.

c. Witness Management System: Multiple glitches e.g. WMS incorrectly populates certain letter templates, crashes frequently, is slow to move from tab to tab etc.

d. Staff Wellbeing: WCOs feel they are at breaking point with little sign of reprieve. They have lower than MPS average staff survey scores for measures regarding ‘Wellbeing’ and being ‘Well Supported’ (excluding “I have the flexibility I need to manage when and how I work” & “Changes that directly affect me are managed well”). Much revolves around demand and training.

e. BCU/WCU relationship: WCOs are frustrated by an apparent culture on BCUs where officers do not understand the role of a witness care officer, the demands placed on them, or their responsibilities regarding court attendance.

f. CPS / Courts: Challenges created by CPS working practices e.g. insufficient, delayed, or last minute case updates; not providing court running orders meaning all victims/witnesses warned unnecessarily; CPS reps on weekend overtime requesting WCOs warn or de-warn witnesses for the Monday knowing WCOs will not be on duty. The impact of the court backlogs, repeated adjournment of cases at short notice resulting in a perpetual churn of requesting dates to avoid, warning witnesses, de-warning etc. provision of insufficient information to warn witnesses in the court listings e.g. only providing witness surnames; last minute changes to the overnight warnings, differing requirements of WCOs depending on the Court.

g. Processes over people: There is a strong belief amongst WCOs that ‘processes over people’ is the current culture. A number of checks and balances to ensure compliance to VCoP for example which actually negatively impact victim experience i.e. sending update letters when preferred means of contact is phone. Self-imposed deadlines potentially impacting on time available to support victims.

h. Witness letter templates: WCOs share view of TFG - Templates not fit for purpose, require significant amendments to make sense and/or provide accurate information to the victim / witness. Need overhaul.

i. Band E Status: There is a strong feeling of discontent amongst WCOs regarding their pay and status. This is founded on the understandable belief that WCO workloads and work type is not comparable to other band ‘E’s e.g. archivists.

Next Steps:

5.5.3. A WCU working group has been established reporting directly into Head of Crime Prosecutions, tasked with reviewing the allocations process and other processes that could be amended - or removed - to ease pressures created by increasing demand.

5.5.4. Various options to address demand and associated challenges are also being considered. These include increasing existing resourcing levels (a recruitment drive is already in train. MOJ have provided funding for 10 WCOs for 2 years (5 are awaiting start dates/vetting), utilising agency workers, and the use of restricted or re-deployed officers and staff.

5.5.5. Training will be reviewed in its entirety with a view to uplifting and restructuring. TFG established to progress.

5.5.6. Training re trauma and conflict management be made available to WCOs (already in train).

5.5.7. Recommended that newly established WCO training teams link in with Learning and Development hubs at Hendon and Marlowe House (also sites of WCUs) to enable better working relationships between WCOs and new officers through; enhanced learning regarding the criminal justice process; better understanding and appreciation of the role of a WCO; and increased knowledge and understanding regarding the obligations of officers throughout the CJS.

5.5.8. Witness letters and deficits in WMS are being addressed as part of this TFG.

5.5.9. Band E status: Head of Crime Prosecutions has committed to looking at options for recognising the efforts of the WCOs in this extraordinary time of increased demand. This work is ongoing.

5.6. Performance Data & the Witness Management System (WMS)

The ‘Witness Management System’ (WMS) is a CPS owned online system used nationally to record and note contact and issues with victims or witnesses, and enable information sharing between CPS and Police to enhance support provided to victims/witnesses throughout the criminal justice process. The system was considered by the TFG to be data rich, and so assistance was sought from the CPS to allow MOPAC and the MPS enhanced access to this system to facilitate a more detailed analysis of performance data.

Progress:

5.6.1. Confirmation received that WMS system does not support the extraction of performance data that could support improvements to victim/witness care.

Next Steps:

5.6.2. This is a significant issue with national impact, and thus requires influence at a national level. This will be taken to the Victims Commissioner and the NPCC by this TFG to establish next steps and begin rectifying this data gap. It is requested that OB aid in discussions with National CPS regarding upgrading the Witness Management System and the availability of performance data.

Appendix A: Challenges impacting on WCU Culture

There are six Witness Care Units (WCUs) across London providing support to victims and witnesses throughout the criminal justice process, post charge. Five WCUs support BCU cases, and one, the Specialist Crime and Operations (SCO) WCU, supports Specialist Crime units (excluding Murder Investigation). Each of the BCU hubs have one band C and four band Ds. There are a total of 199.7 FTE band Es. SCO have one band C, two Ds and 17.67 FTE Band Es. These units work closely with, and have strong interdependencies on, a number of criminal justice partners, support services, and police officers and staff, to deliver the best possible service to victims and witnesses of crime. It is evident that there are a number of challenges (internal and external) at present impacting on the WCOs ability to deliver this level of service. It should be noted however, that in spite of these challenges, WCOs work diligently and tirelessly in their efforts to support people affected by crime, sometimes to the detriment of their own wellbeing. This exploration into the challenges faced is from the perspective of the WCOs and band C/D Witness Care Managers (WCM). It was achieved via a number of focus groups and semi-structured interviews that were held across all WCUs (in person and online), band C consultation (in person and online), and review of MPS data streams (staff survey, HR data, in-house performance measures). A number of themes/challenges emerged which reached saturation as the focus groups progressed.

These are detailed below:

Increases in demand: The impact of court back logs and Criminal Bar Association (CBA) strike action.

As of August 2022 19,107 cases were allocated to WCOs (199.7 FTE), giving an average of 96 case per WCO (63 trials). This is far higher than the pre-COVID average of 13,193 cases which gave an average of 73 cases (40 trials) per WCO (181.14 FTE), amounting to a 44% increase in allocated cases. It is also worthy to note that at present there are 16 WCOs who have under 3 months of service and therefore are not carrying full caseloads, 10 are on long term sick, and a number of WCOs are on flexible working patterns with a reduced case load. Consequently, throughout August there were 97 WCOs carrying between 100-201 live cases, with Specialist Crime WCU carrying significantly more cases per WCO. This increase in case load has been attributed largely to the significant case backlog created by court closures during the COVID pandemic, and the more recent barrister strikes. The majority of Witness Care Officers and managers suggest that approximately 80 cases is a manageable case load (dependent on case type) before associated challenges come into the fore i.e. staff welfare issues, reduced service delivery. During the focus groups a number of WCOs explained that they were at ‘breaking point’ with no sign of reprieve. 100% of participants shared the view that demand was too high to manage and deliver the high standards of service they wanted to provide victims and witnesses. A WCU working group has been established reporting directly into Head of Crime Prosecutions tasked with reviewing the allocations process and other processes that could be amended - or removed - to ease pressures created by increasing demand. Various options to address demand and associated challenges are also being considered. These include increasing existing resourcing levels (a recruitment drive is already in train), utilising agency workers, and the use of restricted or re-deployed officers and staff.

Training & the Witness Management System (WMS):

WCO training is a source of frustration for existing and new WCOs. There is no corporate, standardised training package for Witness Care Officers and no centralised training team, or dedicated trainers across the hubs, resulting in a lack of consistency and fluctuations in standards of training delivery. Training of new WCOs falls to a few experienced WCO volunteers at each WCU, who continue to manage their own caseload (although their new allocations are put on hold) while providing training to new joiners. If these ‘trainers’ are unavailable the mantle falls to the next experienced volunteer. All WCUs tend to follow the same loose structure training new joiners i.e. all make use of a ‘WCO Manual’ that new WCOs must progress through during training (but how this is done varies from hub-to-hub), and there is a gradation with regards to exposure to case type i.e. police only cases first, followed by one or two victims of low level offences, before moving on to more complicated cases. There is no formal training that prepares WCOs for interactions with people who have undergone significant trauma, have mental health issues or are otherwise vulnerable, or any coaching in de-escalation or like challenging encounters. All are likely occurrences in this field. Indeed participants were able to provide anecdotal evidence of this from personal experience. The available trainers are clearly very competent and diligent WCOs, but they have no professional training in teaching, just a drive to impart their knowledge onto new joiners and mould them into functioning WCOs which leads to inconsistencies in delivery. Another challenge for WCOs and WCO trainers is the ‘Witness Management System’ (WMS). This is an electronic system used nationally to enable information sharing between CPS and Police to effectively manage cases and enhance support provided to victims and witnesses. All WCOs need to be proficient in its operation to perform in their role. Within WMS there is a training package, however, it has not been updated since 2007 and has a number of technical issues including a faulty ‘knowledge check’ component meaning trainee WCOs cannot test their understanding with regards to whatever element of WMS they have been taught. There are also screens were certain tabs are out of shot, and faulty selection panes. There is also no ‘sandpit’ version of WMS which would enable WCO familiarise themselves fully with the system. Instead they must ‘learn on the job’ with live cases where making errors carries more risk to service delivery. It is of note also that the live system is not without its own glitches e.g. WMS incorrectly populates certain letter templates, crashes frequently, is slow to move from tab to tab etc. It is somewhat unsurprising that positive responses in the staff survey to the statement “I have technology to use that makes my job easier” were well below MPS average.

Staff Wellbeing:

WCUs have lower than average staff survey scores for measures regarding ‘Wellbeing’ and being ‘Well Supported’ in comparison to the MPS (excluding “I have the flexibility I need to manage when and how I work” & “Changes that directly affect me are managed well”). All persons spoken to emphasised the impact of the increased demand on their wellbeing. Many reported that they took the stresses of work home with them, and could not relax during their annual leave or rest days knowing they would be returning to an increased workload. It is of note that when a WCO goes off work with sickness, or is away on leave, their case load is distributed amongst the WCOs in the hub so victim care continues. However, this creates additional stress for the receiving WCOs, and a potential reduction in the quality of service delivery via an inability to manage the caseload. One participant described looking at their ‘task list’ on WMS following such a re-distribution and feeling so overwhelmed they broke down and had to step away. The challenging nature of aspects of the work also impacts e.g. having to read through statements describing criminal ordeals, confrontational phone calls from witnesses or victims when the case has not gone as expected, poor relationships with Police officers/OICs, mental health issues etc. One WCO described having to send police around to a victim’s house following a phone call where they expressed suicidal ideation to the WCO. There is also no specific training for WCOs on conflict resolution, managing stress or like initiatives to assist. Although it was concede that line management / WCMs send periodic emails on wellbeing initiatives offering support, WCOs feel they don’t have time to engage with any of the services and consider the emails to represent a lack of understanding of challenges WCOs face by line management leaving them feeling unsupported. The predominant recourse in times of stress and upset is to turn to a team member. This camaraderie is reflected a higher than average positive response rate to the staff survey question “I feel a strong sense of belonging to my team”. Other challenges affecting wellbeing included having no time to engage in development opportunities and not feeling listened to (again this is reflected in the SS with lower than average positive response rates to the statements, “I have opportunities to learn and develop” & “My ideas are valued”).

BCU OIC / WCU relationship:

WCOs are frustrated by an apparent culture on Basic Command Units where officers do not appear to understand the role of a witness care officer or their responsibilities regarding court attendance. WCO gave numerous examples of this poor relationship and attributable consequences e.g. officers refusing to attend court and or making unsatisfactory excuses; officers not giving their contact details, not answering phones, turning off phones etc. hindering WCOs ability to complete overnight court warnings; officers not responding to email; officers responding in an unprofessional manner to simple requests; officers advising witnesses and victims they don’t have to attend court and give evidence; not providing witness details in the MG9 etc. Whereas it was widely reported by WCOs that it was ‘not all officers’, occurrences described above where common place and significantly added to WCO demand i.e. via having to contact the officers repeatedly, have long email exchanges, challenging phone calls, making escalations etc.

CPS / Courts:

WCOs reported challenges created by certain CPS working practices impacting on demand and WCO victim/witness relationship, e.g. insufficient, delayed, or last minute case updates; not providing court running orders meaning all victims/witnesses need to be called to court even though they all won’t be heard; and CPS reps on weekend overtime requesting WCOs warn or de-warn witnesses for the Monday knowing WCOs will not be on duty to complete this task. The impact of the court backlogs was mentioned by all WCO/WCMs (challenges highlighted in ‘Increasing demand’); repeated adjournment of cases at short notice resulting in a perpetual churn of requesting dates to avoid, warning witnesses, de-warning etc. was also a topic of discussion; provision of insufficient information to warn witnesses in the court listings e.g. only providing witness surnames; last minute changes to the overnight court warning list generating substantial, unnecessary work volume; differing working practices and requirements of WCOs depending on the Court was also highlighted.

Processes over people (including Witness letter templates):

The Code of Practice for Victims of Crime (VCoP) places a number of statutory requirements on the Police and Criminal Justice partners. A number of these are the responsibility of witness care officers and are time bound. For example, if a case goes to court the WCO has to tell the victim within 5 working days (or 1 working day under ‘enhanced rights’); if a victim is required to give evidence the WCO must again inform the victim within 5 working days (or 1 working day under ‘enhanced rights’ – right 8 VCoP refers). A number of a non-mandatory performance measures have been created for MPS WCOs to ensure timely compliance with VCoP, however some of these have become unmanageable with the increased demand. For example, MPS WCOs must notify all victims within 1 working day of the items set out in ‘right 8’ irrespective of whether they have enhanced needs or not. A number of WCOs also reported that the letter templates were not fit for purpose requiring significant amendments to make sense and/or provide accurate information to the victim / witness. They also stressed that they believed at times they felt pressured to disregard the wishes of victims who categorically inform them they do not wish to be contacted via letter, as they are required to send follow up letters to phone call updates in all instances. In short, there is a pervasive belief amongst WCOs that ‘processes over people’ is the current culture.

Band E Status:

There is a strong feeling of discontent amongst WCOs regarding their pay and status. This is founded on the understandable belief that WCO workloads and work type is not comparable to other band ‘E’s e.g. archivists