Getting it Right for Victims and Witnesses RESPONSE FROM THE ASSOCIATION OF POLICE AUTHORITY CHIEF EXECUTIVES April 2012 1
Introduction ASSOCATION OF POLICE AUTHORITY CHIEF EXECUTIVES RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION GETTING IT RIGHT FOR VICTIMS AND WITNESSES 1. The Association of Police Authority Chief Executives (APACE) is the professional body which represents chief executives and other senior staff within police authorities. The Association s objectives are to: provide professional support and development for its members liaise and work closely with the Association of Police Authorities (APA) provide a forum for professional debate represent and promote the interests of members to key stakeholders 2. Chief Executives represent continuity between the current policing governance arrangements and those of Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs). We are therefore interested in any proposals regarding them as they will have an impact on their role and responsibilities. We believe with our experience we have some valuable contributions to make to the debate. 3. Our response is derived from the advisory and technical role which chief executives perform, particularly with regard to the delivery of PCCs Policing and Crime Plans and effective governance for both policing and PCCs wider role. As such our response is limited to those aspects of the consultation directly affecting PCCs and we will not respond to every question. 4. Any queries about this response should be directed, in the first instance, to Mark Sayer, Research and Co-ordination Officer, email: mark.sayer@essex.pnn.police.uk 2
5. Question 2 Should supporting victims to cope with the immediate impacts of crime and recover from the harms experienced be the outcomes that victim support services are assessed against? Yes, APACE supports these criteria as sensible for considering the outcomes that victim support services should be assessed against. Recovery must be aspirational as it is not always going to be achievable. Recovery is a very subjective measure. Also some victim experiences are that they never fully "recover" from their experience, even though they may have been given excellent support. These factors should be taken into account. 6. Question 3 Are the eight categories of need identified correct? Are there any other categories of need that support services should address? These categories are correct as far as they go. Community resilience may be an additional need that support services could address. Often there are multiple victims within a single community. Enabling the strengthening of that community is likely to support the other categories of need of those victims in such situations. 7. Question 4 Is a mixture of locally-led and national commissioning the best way to commission support services for victims of crime? Yes. APACE believes that the mixed approach to commissioning is right, although such a model will require very close coordination between the tiers of commissioners to avoid confusion and duplication. PCCs have responsibility both for the totality of policing in their area, and to collaborate with other PCCs 1. As such they will form regional commissioning bodies. This places them in an ideal situation to undertake both local and regional commissioning of victims services, enabling coordination of both tiers, thereby simplifying the commissioning landscape and enabling reduction of administration costs (see question 5, below). It is suggested that some kind of overarching forum be considered to allow all levels of commissioner to meet, discuss and coordinate victims services across the victims landscape. 8. Question 5 MoJ Consultation Paper Should Police and Crime Commissioners be responsible for commissioning victim support services at a local level? Who else could commission support services? 8.1. Yes. PCCs will be best placed to commission services in respect of victims at both the local and regional level. The placing of this important responsibility into the hands of the PCC is most likely to ensure strong and effective links between, on the one side, the police, local authorities and other organisations who regularly deal with the victims, and on the other, victim support providers. Moreover, the placing of victims services commissioning 1 S1(6) Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 (PRSRA11), Policing Protocol, and s22a Police Act 1996 as amended by the PRSRA11 3
firmly within the PCC s office will mean victims issues will remain a predominant and visible subject in any PCC s electoral promises to voters. This approach will have the added value of aligning integrating commissioning frameworks for crime reduction and victim support as both the needs and service provision are inextricably linked. We need to exploit available resources, reduce cost and avoid duplication (see below) 8.2. One possible criticism of the approach set out at question 4 above is that this will increase administration costs particularly if commissioning is happening across all police force areas. However, PCCs will be commissioning other services, so the capability available for commissioning these services will be available to commission victims' services. 8.3. Regarding possible costs, we set out below a provisional assessment. Needs assessment: Preliminary planning is coming to fruition. PCCs will need to do a more detailed mapping of victim support services and be clearer of the pattern of victims needs within their local community. The identification of need based on levels of vulnerability / threat / harm / risk (as well as an understanding of the demographic data of communities) forms part of the foundation of commissioning activities. This will require a bespoke piece of work which will require additional investment. Planning: Police Authorities working with their constabularies do have the skills to produce Police and Crime Plans. Adding victims within the Police and Crime Plan should be at marginal cost if the victim needs assessment is of a high enough standard. However, ideally each PCC should have their own Victim and Witnesses strategy. Again producing this will required additional work, but may possibly be delivered through existing resources. Do: This covers the procurement of the service. Most authorities currently work through their constabularies procurement departments to procure specific services. Again if the needs assessment is good this can be used to create an effective service specification. If the existing specifications from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) are rolled over costs will be minimal. If new specifications are developed, for example new Payment by Results contracts, more investment will be needed. Also each PCC will have to decide whether to use a grants process or full blown procurement (and some PCCs costs may trigger EU procurement processes). The National Audit Office website provides helpful guidance on use of grants. The more complex the process is the higher the costs are likely to be, but potentially producing better outcomes. Contracts or grants are likely to be for a number of years so procurement costs will not be recurrent. PCCs will also be able work together to reduce costs of commissioning. The appetite for change will dictate the costs within this stage. Support from the MoJ with model contracts would really help to reduce costs. Review: Most PCCs will have some performance management capacity which can be used to monitor progress. 8.4. In summary, the local and regional commissioning of victim services could be achieved at minimal costs. However, if local services are to be developed to meet local need initial investment may be required. After the first year the commissioning could be mainstreamed into other processes. 4
8.5. PCCs have a statutory responsibility to obtain the views of victims of crime in their area 2. Having some say and influence over how victims are treated is essential in enabling PCCs to react to what victims tell them. In short, the democratic accountability built into the Police and Crime Commissioner model can be usefully harnessed to ensure the voices of victims remains at the forefront of the criminal justice system. 8.6. The consultation document does not make it clear if funding for local or regional commissioning of victims services will be ring-fenced. No matter how uncomfortable, this question needs facing. 8.7. If the government is intent on driving through these reforms, it may have to consider specifically earmarking funds for victims services which would prevent it from being diverted to other police, criminal justice or community safety activities. 8.8. There demand from victims and witnesses for support is considerable. The Government must recognise this and ensure commissioners have the necessary budget and support to succeed. 9. Question 6 Who do you think should commission those services at a national level? If national level commissioning is undertaken by the Ministry of Justice, who have considerable experience of commissioning services, and regional and local commissioning is done by PCCs, then all victims services commissioning will be the responsibility of the democratically accountable. 10. Question 7 Which services do you think should be commissioned at a national level? Those services that seek to address victims needs after the most serious or heinous of crimes e.g. murder, rape, acts of terrorism. APACE recognise that there should be no possibility of variances in services towards victims in these very special categories. Such certainty and consistency can probably only be best achieved by a single, national commissioner. 11. Question 8 Should there be a set of minimum entitlements for victims of serious crimes, those who are persistently targeted and the most vulnerable? Defining minimum entitlements is likely to be unhelpful. Each victim is unique and a flexible approach is therefore required. The absence of minimum entitlements would enable commissioners to commission services defined by victims, not by guidance or legislation. However, a set of principles could be set out, promoting the approaches and value of restorative justice as outlined in paragraphs 111 to 123 of the consultation paper. 2 S96(1B) Police Act 1996 as amended by the PRSRA11 5
12. Question 15 How can the processes which allow victims and witnesses to make complaints to CJS agencies be improved to make accessing redress easier 12.1. Complaining as a victim or witness against criminal justice agencies can be a daunting and extremely frustrating experience. The criminal justice system is a highly complex and difficult entity to understand as an insider - let alone when one is a victim or witness and encountering its rules, conventions and processes. 12.2. More consideration should be given to third-party or intermediary services for victim and witnesses who wish to complain against agencies within the CJS, especially in the context of a case proceeding through the system. It may be worth considering what role the Complaints Ombudsman could have. 12.3. Complainants should not have to wrestle with the separate entities of the CJS, nor worry about which part of the CJS is responsible for what functions or activity. Victims and witnesses should be able to lay their complaint or grievance to an impartial intermediary, who will take up the matter on their behalf and secure comprehensive and swift answers from those within the CJS who are accountable. 12.4. There may be a role for the PCC to play here, in acting as a bridge between victims and witnesses dissatisfied with the services they have received and the agencies involved. 6