Recommendations - West Midlands Police, April 2021
These learning recommendations arise out of a case where a woman called police to raise concerns about her parents, who were subsequently found dead inside their home after police forced entry into the property.
IOPC reference
Recommendations
The IOPC recommends that West Midlands Police should take steps to formalise the escalation and vulnerability doctrines (as set out in the force document “HMIC Observations and action taken following September 2017 Inspection”) into a compulsory policy and take step to ensure all contact staff are aware of their responsibilities under the policy.
If this is formalised into a policy the IOPC would also suggest that the Missing Persons policy (currently under review) should refer to it, as we have identified that staff working on Missing Persons cases have not reassessed THRIVE where logs have been unresourced or circumstances have changed.
This follows an IOPC investigation where a missing persons incident was not resourced for approximately 13.5 hours. During this time, the escalation process was not followed and staff did not conduct further risk assessments.
Do you accept the recommendation?
Yes
Accepted action:
The documents remain as guidance / processes rather than policies. However, the Chief Inspector said the issue was going to be raised the issue at a Strategic GOLD Vulnerability meeting.
Further response from the DCI in November 2021 confirmed that the escalation and vulnerability doctrines will now become policy, following a period of consultation.
The IOPC recommends that West Midlands Police should amend missing persons policy to expand on Chapter 9 “Concern for Welfare or Safe and Well” and the missing persons flow chart.
This follows an IOPC investigation where the incident type was originally classified as “Concern for Welfare” but then later changed to a “MISPER” (missing person). The investigation found that the incident type should have been changed sooner than it was and that this may have been due to gaps in the MISPER policy. It was also found that the missing persons flow chart did not cater for MISPER incidents which started out as “Concern for Welfare.”
Do you accept the recommendation?
No
When the original IOPC investigation was undertaken the WMP definition of a missing person in the policy was as follow’s;
‘Anyone whose whereabouts cannot be established and where the circumstances are out of character or the context suggests the person may be subject of crime or at risk of harm to themselves or another’.
Section 9 is from the relevant policy at the time of the IOPC investigation is shown in the below direct extract;
9. Concern for Welfare or Safe and Well
9.1. Logs are frequently created for ‘safe and well’ checks. There have been several cases where the police service has been criticised for misusing this category when the correct one was missing person.
9.2 Call handlers should make careful enquiries of callers and seek advice from their supervisors to ensure that, as far as possible, incidents are correctly classified as ‘missing person’ if the information from the caller, when probed, indicates that this is the correct classification. If the initial classification is correctly assessed to be ‘safe and well’ but subsequently turns out to be a missing person, the process for a missing person should be followed.
9.3. It is unacceptable to use the ‘concern for welfare’ categorisation to avoid a full missing person investigation. Any such action may leave a vulnerable missing person at risk of harm.
The new policy which was introduced in April 2021 includes a process map, escalation process and procedural guidance is underpinned by the APP definition of a missing person, it makes the starting point the definition and therefore reduces the ambiguity at the call handling stage, this will also be catered for in training, process, policy and practice;
Definition of ‘missing’
Anyone whose whereabouts cannot be established will be considered as missing until located, and their well-being or otherwise confirmed.
All reports of missing people sit within a continuum of risk from ‘no apparent risk (absent)’ through to high-risk cases that require immediate, intensive action.
This will reduce the ambiguity and regular reviews of concern for welfare logs will be undertaken.