NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Form IA.5

CUMBRIA CONSTABULARY Impact Assessment/Adverse Impact assessment Summary outline for web site

Protective marking / Not Protectively Marked
Title / Service Confidence Policy
Policy owner / Director, Professional Standards Department
Version / V4 18.07.07
Summary / This policy explains the procedure that will be used when information which raises a concern regarding a member of staff is reported and normal criminal or discipline investigation methods are unable to substantiate the information and nevertheless a loss of confidence in the member of staff remains.
Relevance
To race equality / Low
Board / RSB
Date created / 21.08.07
Review
Date / August 2008

Outline the data you have used to assess the impact of this policy/function.

Documents
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
Police Staff Terms and Conditions of Employment Handbook
The Suspension from duty of Police Officers, Special Constables and Police Staff Policy.
Police (Conduct) Regulations 2004, Schedule 1.
Fairness at Work (Grievance Resolution) Policy and Procedure.
Revelation of Criminal, Misconduct and Discipline Findings to the CPS.
Professional Standards Department Reporting Policy.
Secondary Employment and Business Interests Policy.
Constabulary Vetting Policy.
Acceptance of Gifts, Gratuities, Hospitality and Discounts Policy.
Constabulary Policy on Sponsorship.
Sec 117 Local Government Act 1972.
Joint Police Authority and Constabulary Anti-Fraud and Corruption Policy (Draft)
Limited data was available across the six strands of diversity and this was considered.
Consultation feedback was considered.

Outline how you have consulted, internally or externally, to assess the impact of this policy/function

  1. How the consultation was carried out
  2. A summary of the responses
  3. What you propose to do as a result of the consultation.

  1. During the initial drafting stage of policy development key stakeholders were consulted. When a final draft policy had been prepared internal consultation in accordance with the Constabulary Consultation Standard was undertaken for a period of 4 weeks afterwhich the responses were collated and actioned where appropriate (see appendix 1).
  2. Summary of consultation responses – see appendix 1.
  3. Summary of actions as a result of consultation - see appendix 1.

Does the data or consultation indicate that the policy has a different impact on a particular group or groups?

No, the policy applies to all groups equally.

If so which groups are affected?

N/A

Is the different impact an adverse one for those groups? i.e. Does it put those groups at a disadvantage?

N/A

Is there any evidence that this policy:

Is discriminatory?

Is damaging good race relations/failing to promote good race relations?

If so what is the evidence?

  1. Not discriminatory
  2. Not damaging good race relations / failing to promote good race relations
  3. N/A

If the policy adversely affects people from certain groups, can it be justified because of its overall objectives? Explain in full.

NB Direct discrimination is not in law, capable of justification; only indirect discrimination can be objectively justified.

N/A

What changes if any have you made to the policy as a result of this review?

The impact assessment did not find any adverse impact on any of the six groups considered.

State how the ongoing affects of this policy will be monitored, and who will be responsible for this monitoring.

The Director Professional Standards is responsible for monitoring this policy.
The policy will be monitored in accordance with the Constabulary’s Race and Diversity Equality Scheme, Gender and Disability schemes 2005-08, this policy will be monitored by the Policy Owner on an on-going basis for implementation issues, consistency of compliance and potential for discrimination. Relevant statistics regarding gender, age, rank, ethnicity etc in relation to members of staff subject to investigation in accordance with this policy will be considered alongside grievance and appeal statistics and any comments / feedback received in order to identify trends, issues or concerns.
The ACPO Counter Corruption Advisory Group monitor and analyse the impact of counter corruption activity and advise the Police Service via ACPO Professional Standards Committee, such advice will be considered together with any other new legislation / guidance which may have an impact is introduced.
The Policy will be reviewed in line with the Constabulary’s published review schedule (normally annually) by considering whether:
  • The policy is still appropriate and necessary.
  • The current policy is being effective.
  • The benefits and impacts are as expected.
  • Changes in legislation need to be accommodated.
  • Any feedback that has been received and needs to be addressed.
In the event that an individual feels disadvantaged by the requirements of a Policy or Procedure or where they perceive there to be an impact which is intentionally or unintentionally unfair the matter should be dealt with in accordance with the Policy and Procedure Review Process / Selection Process Appeals Procedure contained in the Fairness At Work (Grievance Resolution) Policy and Procedure. This information will also be monitored and considered when reviewing the Policy.

Appendix 1

Summary of consultee responses and action taken.

Consultee / Response Summary / Action Taken
Director of Legal Services / Identifies difficulties to transfer police staff to a new role out-with their individual contract of employment, general or implied police staff terms and conditions outside the police staff disciplinary process. /
  1. Amend Stage 1 – Information Evaluation to reinforce the different employment conditions and consideration to be taken between Police Staff and Police Officers/Special Constables. Include the Director of Legal Services in the decision making process.
  2. Include at Stage 2 – Service Confidence Case Conference a risk assessment and strategy re personnel issues (contracts of employment / police regulations)

UNISON / Concern that ‘information’ used as the basis for the procedure being implemented would not be used for a disciplinary enquiry.
That the only sanction for individuals subject to the procedure is redeployment not dismissal. / NFA. The preferred action when any ‘intelligence’ is received will always be to commence a criminal or disciplinary investigation. The use of Service Confidence Procedures is always a last resort see:
  • Section 1 AIM OF THE POLICY.
  • Part 2, section 1 Stage 1 – Information Evaluation (para 2).
NFA. The procedure for the dismissal of police staff is established in the police staff disciplinary process.
Special Constabulary / Requests confirmation that if a Special Constable is subject to the procedure any meetings etc will take account on the individuals work commitments. / Include the need to consider the availability of the Special Constables when arranging meetings / interviews etc. Part 2, section 1 Stage 3 – A meeting will be held with the individual subject of the case conference. Also included at Part 2 section 5 Ethical Interviews overview.
Vetting, Disclosure and General Security Section. / Requirement to inform the Appropriate Authority where an individual subject to the Procedure has national security clearance.
Clarification re the disclosure arrangements regarding Data Protection and Freedom of Information Act requests.
Clarification re the timescales for the Retention and Destruction of records and documents. / The Constabulary Vetting Policy outlines the process of investigation and reporting for any change in circumstances that may impact on a persons vetting status. The Director PSD will be responsible for notifying the Constabulary Vetting Officer of any issues impacting on an employee’s vetting status. Part 2, section 1 Stage 2 - Service Confidence Case Conference amended.
Subject access requests will be responded to as per the Constabulary Data Protection and Freedom of Information guidance. Policy amended to include details of the action to be taken. Part 2, section 4 Administration.
Policy amended to include details of the retention and destruction guidelines. Part 2, section 4 Administration
Stakeholder / Concern regarding the opportunities for redeployment of staff in specialist roles. / Comment noted. See also comments from the Director of Legal Services above.
Stakeholder / Observes that the individual subject to the procedure is unable to challenge the ‘intelligence’ until after the case conference and therefore the procedure has commenced. / NFA. The preferred action when any ‘intelligence’ is received will always be to commence a criminal or disciplinary investigation. The use of Service Confidence Procedures is always a last resort. Upon being informed that they are subject to the Procedure the individual has a right of response. See:
  • Section 1 AIM OF THE POLICY.
  • Part 2, section 1 Stage 1 – Information Evaluation.
  • Part 2, section 1 Stage 3 – A meeting will be held with the individual subject of the case conference.

Stakeholder / Clarification that during Stage 5 - Appeal Procedure that if the DCC who then becomes the Acting CC will not confirm or hear appeals against their own earlier decisions. / NFA. The circumstances identified can arise in various Misconduct investigation situations and will be dealt with in accordingly to ensure there is no conflict of role /responsibility.

1

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED