Thames Valley Police told to improve counter-corruption and vetting processes

An independent report has identified a number of areas in which Thames Valley Police needs to improve its operations.

The report conducted by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS) also found that sufficient progress has not been made in areas of concern identified in the last assessment.

Among the areas where the body has called for the police force to improve in the report released today (17 November), is the vetting system used within the organisation, and addressing potential abuses of the police officer position.

Needs improvement is the second lowest grade given, after inadequate.

While the report was released today, it relates to inspections taken in July 2021.

Thames Valley Police states it has addressed a number of areas of concern since then, and received sign offs from the body regarding the progress.

The report flagged a flaw in Thames Valley Police’s IT vetting system.

It does not link with the human resources system which tracks people leaving or moving within the organisation, this process has to be done manually.

Inspectors found that workforce numbers varied between the two systems.

So its Force Vetting Unit may be unaware of movement within the police force.

This is a risk for the force, HMICFRS says.

Data seen by inspectors in May 2021, showed that over 300 vetting cases needed renewing, but while Thames Valley Police claims the number is now barely over 100, no evidence was supplied to prove this.

Another concern raised was the quality of the vetting carried out by the police.

The report states: “During our last inspection, the force had not vetted a large number of officers to the minimum level required. This was raised as a cause of concern. Since then the force had undertaken a programme of work in two phases.

"Phase one focused on reducing the numbers of officers without vetting, which at the time of our inspection had been completed. Phase two focused on cases requiring vetting renewal. The final report on both phases of the work was due in September 2022.

“We were concerned that on publication of this work, the force would have assurance as a snapshot in time. It was unclear how the force proposed to maintain an adequate grip of its vetting workload beyond this point.”

Samples seen by the HMICFRS were up to scratch, but inspectors found that the Force Vetting Unit did not comply with several areas of the Authorised Professional Practice (APP).

One aspect that was not up to standards was the work done to conduct inquiries on family members and associates.

This is a conscious decision based on time management, inspectors say.

While the police force has a system to deal with potential disproportionality, the report found that there was no evidence this issue was analysed.

The report states: “For example, the force doesn’t analyse the proportion of rejections for applicants with a particular protected characteristic compared to a control group without that protected characteristic. As a result, the force has no means of understanding the reasons for any disproportionality and therefore no action is being taken to address it.”

In conclusion on vetting the report found that Thames Valley Police had not made sufficient progress to improve its system, to the standards demanded in a national report in 2019.

Thames Valley Police’s IT monitoring systems were classed as effective in the report.

But inspectors found that the process by which information about counter corruption risks and threats were assessed was not “of the required standard”.

Inspectors said they saw little evidence of in-depth analysis on information and emerging threats.

The force does have a clear strategy for crime prevention, intelligence and enforcement.

But the report found that many of the 60 corruption cases which were inspected by the independent body, were not categorised in line with national guidelines.

No cases were closed prematurely by police covering Thames Valley, but inspectors discovered that some cases which should have been sent to the Independent Office for Police Conduct, were not.

The report found the force reats sexual misconduct cases seriously and works with several organisations to make sure victims are supported in these cases.

In conclusion on Thames Valley Police’s counter-corruption policy the report states: “The force has made insufficient progress to improve the quality of its counter-corruption STA. We strongly urge the force to do so.”

A Thames Valley Police spokesman said: “The force was inspected by HMICFRS in July 2021.

“Since the inspection was made, we can confirm that everyone in the force has been vetted in-line with the College of Policing’s Authorised Professional Practice for vetting.

“HMICFRS has now signed off a number of areas as completed that are shown in the report as continuing areas of concern.

“Since the inspection was made, we prioritised ensuring that everyone in the force has been vetted in-line with the College of Policing’s Authorised Professional Practice for vetting, which has now been completed.

“Due to the national police officer uplift, which aims to recruit 20,000 new police officers across the UK, Thames Valley Police has employed 522 new officers since October 2019, with a further 76 to be recruited by March 2023. Naturally, this, and vetting for other roles, including police staff, has put pressure on the vetting department to process all new officers.

“Each officer has to go through a stringent vetting process, which has to be carried out thoroughly.

“For example, a new police officer, police staff or special constable recruit has to provide details about their partner and all family members aged ten or over, as well as their associates and co-residents. The force would then carry out the following checks:

· “Checks are made on the Police National Computer;

· “Searches are carried out on the Police National Database;

· “Checks are made with the Counter Terrorism Unit;

· “Counter Terrorist Checks (CTC) are carried out;

· “Searches are undertaken on all force databases, including non-conviction databases;

· “Record management systems are checked;

· “Crime report allegations are examined;

· “Voters’ records are searched;

· “The force’s vetting database is searched;

· “Credit reference checks are made and the applicant’s financial position is considered;

· “Open-source enquiries are made, for example, search engines and social networking sites;

· “Professional standards checks are made;

· “Ministry of Defence searches are carried out;

· “ACRO - the national police unit responsible for exchanging criminal conviction information between the UK and other countries – checks are made.

“Meanwhile, for management roles the vetting process involves the same checks as well as the following additional enquiries:

· “Checks on personal finances, including a financial questionnaire, a credit reference check and assessment of the information returned;

· “Business interest and secondary employment checks;

· “Liaison with occupational health;

· “Enquiries relating to vulnerability to pressure or inducements, including the indiscriminate use of alcohol or drugs and/or gambling, where relevant;

· “Appraisals from current and/ or former supervisors to cover a minimum 12-month period, where applicants are existing staff;

· “Interviews with current and former supervisors, at the discretion of the Vetting Manager;

· “Interviews with the person subjected to the vetting procedure, at the discretion of the Vetting Manager;

· “References from line managers;

· “Security Clearance and Developed Vetting check may be applied where appropriate.

“The vetting process is thorough, for example between 1st November 2021 and 1st November 2022, 1,024 individuals were vetted, 816 were cleared, 33 were cleared with conditions, 101 withdrew from the process, three were refused and then overturned at appeal, and 71 were refused.

“In relation to HMICFRS’ findings regarding disproportionality. At the time of the inspection in July 2021, the force had a manual system for recording disproportionality, however this system is now automated, making the recording and analysis of this data much easier.”