Minutes - draft

These minutes are agreed.

Minutes of the meeting of the Communities, Equalities and People Committee of the Metropolitan Police Authority held on 14 January 2010 at 10 Dean Farrar Street, Westminster, London SW1H 0NY.

Present

Members

• Cindy Butts (Chairman)
• Faith Boardman
• Victoria Borwick
• Valerie Brasse
• Kirsten Hearn
• Clive Lawton

MPA officers

• Catherine Crawford (Chief Executive)
• Lynne Abrams (Public Protection Policy Officer)
• Hamera Asfa Davey (Oversight and Review Officer)
• Alan Johnson (HR Officer)
• Natasha Plummer (Engagement and Partnerships Manager)

MPS officers

• Glen Allison (Chief Superintendant, Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate)
• Bill Griffiths (Director, Leadership Development)
• Tamsyn Heritage (Assistant Director, Talent Management)
• Paul Madge (Director, HR Operations)

1. Apologies for absence

1.1 Apologies for absence were received from Martin Tiplady and Martin Davis.

1.2 The Chair wished to thank Martin Davis for the work he had put into the Committee, as he would be leaving on 31 January.

2. Declarations of interests

2.1 There were none.

3. Minutes Communities, Equalities and People Committee, 12 November 2010 (part 1)

3.1 It was noted that there was no action sheet as suggested the agenda.

3.2 The minutes of the meeting held on 12 November 2009 were approved and signed as a correct record.

4. MPS Approach to Talent Management and Succession Planning

4.1 Bill Griffiths (Director, Leadership Development, MPS) introduced the report on the MPS Approach to Talent Management and Succession Planning, with a specific focus on work being undertaken across four strands to identify, develop and progress talent across the MPS.

4.2 The Committee noted that highlights from the last 18 months were set out in paragraph 3 of the report. Paragraph 75 of the report detailed recommendations on areas for development, including greater engagement of MPS Management Board to ensure Business Groups were held to account and actively encouraging mentoring, which had been approved by MPS Management Board.

4.3 Members noted a gratifying level of activity in this area, but recognised the persistent difficulty for BME persons finding their way into structures. Members acknowledged that considerable work had been undertaken to analyse the assessment process, but questioned whether there was any assessment of where unsuccessful candidates fell down with regards to diverse skills and abilities, and whether, for example, these might point to structural issues within the schooling and educational environment.

4.5 A Member questioned how success was measured in the longer term for career progression and what work was being done to ensure the right issues were considered. It was noted that there was a point in the report where the MPS admitted this did not correlate with the programmes.

4.6 Members raised a concern about the predominance of programmes for police officers rather than police staff and asked how the MPS was assessing the needs and developing and supporting talent amongst police staff as opposed to police officers.

4.7 The Committee was advised that with regard to the issue of schooling and educational experience, this was a huge and complex question and that the MPS had to work on the basis that BME colleagues had equivalent experience at the candidature stage, as well as equal preparation for the assessment. It was expressed that the best way to eliminate bias was to have a range of assessors. Everything that was known to be possible had been done and the representation of candidates entering the schemes was beginning to be more proportionate.

4.8 The MPS advised that some work was underway within the High Potential Development Scheme (HPDS), for example, to quality assure the talent management programmes to ensure the right people had been selected and were progressing accordingly to higher ranks within the organisation. This included the development of a scorecard, which looked at how many candidates were promoted on a longer term basis. It was also stressed that the scheme was challenging and people had to be of a sufficient calibre to remain on it, which in itself could be considered a measure of whether or not the right people were getting through the process; those having dropped out demonstrating perhaps that they were not suitable for leadership roles.

4.9 Members expressed the view that it was equally important to ensure feedback for unsuccessful candidates. In response to this, members were advised that people dropped out of the scheme for a variety of reasons including personal matters and lateral moves into specialist roles vertically, and not only through failure. In addition, failure to succeed on the HPDS would not remain on a candidate’s record, so individuals were not precluded from taking on leadership roles in the future.

4.10 Members highlighted that the MPA review had consistently raised the issue of the line managers’ right to veto applications from their staff to talent schemes. In reply, the MPS explained that the assessment of the application form was weighted to take into account both the manager’s and the candidate’s views on their suitability for the HPDS and in practice most OCU Commanders tended to support candidates’ applications. In addition, as the Equip to Achieve Programme, for which candidates could self-select, prepared candidates for the High Potential Development Programme, and to some extent minimised the weight of the manager’s endorsement. A Member noted that the MPS’ observation that the line manager tended to support the candidate did not counteract the fact that candidates should be enabled to self-select; since those persons not supported by their manager probably would not apply at all.

4.11 With respect to the police staff development, Members were advised that the Intensive Development Programme catered for those colleagues. This was also available to staff at a lower pay band level than the programmes available to officers. The Chair questioned whether this programme was sufficient, stressing that the perception was that the MPS was not catering for staff as well as for officers.

4.12 A concern was expressed with regard to linking academic ability to talent, which was perpetuated through processes to select candidates with potential from within universities. Many people without academic success could be fantastic leaders and approaching universities could introduce bias in itself. She questioned what assessment tools were being used in this respect.

4.13 Faith Boardman declared an interest, having been an assessor for the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA). She mentioned that this experience had raised questions for her in that 85% of assessors had been white. Among them, there had been Service assessors and outside assessors, with the outside assessors not bringing as much external perspective as she had hoped. She observed that there had been a ‘picture’ of what a leader was within the group. While that was needed to a degree, because of the distinct operational requirements within organisations, it was too much of an automatic view. Instead, diversity in the Service needed to consider what future requirements would be. Given this experience, she wished to understand the make up of MPS assessment panels.

4.14 Members were advised that, as with the NPIA assessment centre approach, there had been feedback to individual candidates, for example, on the HPDS. It was questioned how much of this individual feedback was given to managers, particularly follow-up action for those who failed to make the HPDS, but had been good enough to be selected for the Equip to Achieve Programme in the first place.

4.16 It was suggested that valuable lessons could be learned to train people not on any kind of fast track scheme. It was recognised that the MPS needed to make the most of the investment it had made into talent schemes and could do so by feeding back the results of the talent schemes into general training.

4.17 On academic qualifications, it was the MPS view that the scheme helped people considered to have talent, which was in fact a benefit to those who had not been to university, for example. The scheme gave them analytical and research techniques that they would need, which constituted a real opportunity for them to prepare for high level challenges. It was stressed that there was no requirement to have a degree, nor was not having one an impediment to promotion.

4.18 The MPS response on feedback was that this took place both for successful and unsuccessful candidates. There was debriefing for unsuccessful colleagues, development centres for groups and tailored individual feedback, which was part of the ongoing nature of the feedback.

4.19 National policy applied to assessment of the national programmes, although the MPS was challenging some elements, and receiving slow but responsible replies.

4.20 National approaches also applied to assessor assessment, although the MPS played its part in the HPDS and the Police National Assessment Centre (PNAC) assessment processes. For the Emerging Leaders Programme, an outside body with experience of the processes had been brought in, and each candidate seen by eight people, which reduced the potential for unconscious bias. This approach incurred greater costs, however.

4.21 An opinion was shared that it was not just the number of assessors, but their diversity, that made a difference. To combat this, the MPS had introduced a number of processes: there was a wash up session at the end of each day, to ensure there were no anomalies and to moderate scores; detailed individual feedback reports were given; candidates had the opportunity to speak to assessors; and coaching and mentoring outside the candidate’s line management chain.

4.22 Members shared concerns that benchmarking figures for career progression had still not been provided. The Committee had requested this information for all Members, but it was thought that the response had only gone to one. In addition, further figures had been expected in this meeting. Explicitly, Members wished to understand the baseline career progression comparison against the fast track schemes, in order to comment effectively, and what impact the talent scheme was aiming to have. The context was important for the Committee in measuring the schemes.

4.23 In brief, Bill Griffiths estimated the impact of the talent schemes. In general, talent schemes were designed for 1 2% of the people in organisations, a very small number, around 1,300 in the MPS discounting junior staff. As a guide, the fast track schemes reduced the time for progression taking place by about half from approximately 21 years to between 12 and 15 years. He apologised for the miscommunication and that no figures had yet been provided, but committed to providing the requested figures in the form of a pyramid or curve plotting the average time for progression to different levels.

4.24 Faith Boardman declared an interest, having been on the Civil Service Fast Track scheme. She noted considerable variation of progression and very small numbers in talent schemes.

4.25 Baseline information from 2007 could be used to provide information on career tracking and disproportionality, including across to recruitment. With respect to academic bias, the MPS was looking at specials as a route into the Service and moving away from written tests to competency based interviews.

4.26 The most recent Equality Impact Assessment of the schemes was requested.

4.27 Members wished to understand more on mentoring. It was shared that there were 40 people registered as mentors, and a proposal had been made to understand more about the activity, because it operated informally. The management board had received these suggestions warmly and acknowledged that more could be done, because it was not a current priority.

4.28 To a question on restricted duties, the response came that there were limited numbers on programmes.

4.29 The Chair thanked Bill Griffiths for what was to be his last meeting. She acknowledged the contribution he made over a number of years and committed to continuing to support the values and beliefs that he had pursued. Bill Griffiths thanked the Committee, saying he had enjoyed working with team on the issues.

Resolved to note the report.

5. Domestic and Sexual Violence Board Annual Report

5.1 Lynne Abrams (Public Protection Policy Officer, MPA) introduced the report that presented the annual report of the Domestic and Sexual Violence Board (DSVB).

5.2 The Committee noted that the DSVB, co chaired by Valerie Brasse and Kirsten Hearn, had seen many developments over the last 12 months. Seven boroughs had presented their local response to sexual and domestic violence to the Board and ensuing recommendations contained within the annual report intended to pull together the issues that were common to several areas, rather than borough specific issues. It was hoped that there would be more engagement around ensuring sexual violence was represented locally.

5.3 In terms of taking recommendations forward, Area Commanders would attend a closed session in April to provide their response, take part in writing recommendations and take those forward.

5.4 Members considered the report comprehensive and requested feedback on its progression. Members also considered that it was great to move forward the issue and deemed the report to have asked the right questions. The impressive growth and intensity of the process was also noted and members were pleased that the Board would be engaging with Area Commanders. It was recognised that partnership working was critical and this was visible. It was also noted that this initiative requested diversity numbers routinely, for instance on LGBT and age, so the issue was genuinely being tackled. All Members of the Committee shared the view that crucial work was being done and approved of the important agenda being pursued. Several were disappointed that they had no spare capacity to become more involved.

5.6 The Committee discussed the joint leadership of the Board, which was considered to work well because of the co chairs complementary strengths. Members commended the DVSB as a model of good practice for other areas of MPA business.

5.7 Partnership working, where boroughs shared information and worked together, was commended. It was felt by some Members that further work should be taken up on Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRP), but it was feared not all Members were able to progress this unless more was done specifically to enable them to bring up the issue.

5.8 At various times in the report, there was mention that some issues came up repeatedly. Asked whether this was because people did not care, or because solutions were not being shared effectively, Lynne Abrams answered that it was difficult for learning to be passed between areas, because of the ways boroughs categorised information. For instance, domestic violence homicide reviews could link to child abuse investigations. There were issues here about how the MPS learned, as well as about technology, and sourcing and centralising data, where boroughs had incomparable data sets. Gaining consistency was important, but an ongoing problem.

5.9 Members asked that this work be disseminated to members through a lunchtime briefing and also was suggested that it be included in the Joint Engagement Meetings (JEM) agenda. The Chair found it useful to have the MPS perspective on such a toolkit for the MPA.

5.10 Members noted that it would have been useful for an MPS colleague to have also attended the meeting to give an MPS perspective on the work of the Board.

Resolved to accept the content and recommendations in the report.

6. Home office Borough Command Unit Fund 2009/10 – Six Monthly Update

6.1 Natasha Plummer (Engagement and Partnerships Manager, MPA) put forward the six-monthly update advising members of the recent work in the Home Office Borough Command Unit Fund, which had gone to plan except for outstanding issues in one borough. Regarding sign off for agreements, all processes were going ahead as they should. She highlighted that, contrary to the previous plan whereby the fund would end this year, it would be extended by a further year with a confidence target focus.

6.2 One Member of the Committee mentioned that a lot of time had been spent on preparing Borough Commanders to take this up. Concern was raised about the more disjointed proposal for the following year, where it was difficult to ensure sustainability on something like confidence.

Resolved (1.) to note the content of the report, and (2) that Members receive a further report detailing the spend and work being undertaken to deliver the programme of activity at the March CEP.

7. Update on the revision of the MPA/MPS Community Engagement Strategy

7.1 Hamera Asfa Davey (Oversight and Review Officer, MPA) updated Members on the MPA/MPS working group on community engagement. She thanked those Members who had taken part in the interview process, stating that the MPA section had now come to an end. As the MPS was still in the process of consultation, that side was ongoing. The intention was to have a draft strategy for the March CEP and sign off at May CEP, an ambitious target. She stressed that Board Members’ involvement in the next few months was key, and requested that questions came back to her immediately as they arose. The working group was considering having a series of papers on the strategy, followed by action plans, whereby the detail would be contained in the latter. As the purpose of a strategy was high level and the detail would come in the action plans, explanation would be forthcoming as to what was left out of the strategy and why.

7.2 The Committee was invited to ask questions.

7.3 A Member commented that the boundaries of community engagement had not been explored. The Community Engagement Sub-committee would be a good place to situate such work, in particular who was going to action it.

7.4 The Chair requested that the working group’s strategy paper be a living document, given the outcome of recent inspections. While the Committee would expect to review the strategy, she welcomed the working group’s ambitious plan to go ahead.

7.5 Hamera Asfa Davey commented that the Regulatory Reform Bill had a community engagement section to take into consideration.

7.6 A Member asked if action plans were intended to be for the whole MPS, as there seemed to be space for both London and borough wide actions. It was stressed that local input should be allowed, where possible. In reply, it was assured that the strategy document would be simple, but the MPA action plans would go out for local consultation because community action groups giving up their time for engagement purposes needed to see their impact. This was more difficult for the MPS, because so much community engagement was taking place. The MPS section of the working group had not decided how to go ahead with their action plans, but action plans were certain to go out for consultation in this section as well.

7.7 Asked how Equality Impact Assessments were progressing, which were helpful in bringing up issues, Hamera Asfa Davey said these were now with David Skelton. There had been a number of issues in the findings, one such being that several safer neighbourhood panels had found that young people were not being engaged as effectively as they could be.

7.8 A Member noted that Independent Custody Visitors (ICV) were not included in the strategy. Another Member recalled that ICVs now fell under monitoring rather than community engagement in terms of the boards. Asked if this strategy would hold up in eyes of ICVs, Natasha Plummer pointed out that, generally, working group members in boroughs were also in ICVs. The Chair noted that those developing the strategy seemed conscious of this point.

Resolved to note progress made to date.

8. Reports form the sub-committees

8.1 One Member mentioned that it would be useful to share Police Community Consultative Group (PCCG) annual reports between the boroughs.

8.2 The PCCG report of one borough made reference to a sum of £50,000, calling it a ‘decrease’. On asking for an explanation, another Member elaborated that the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee (HCPAC) submitted an annual budget, and the borough would receive the amount requested. In this case where the borough had received less, it would have requested a lower amount, had the amount cut because it had some left over or seen a reduction because some had been used inappropriately.

8.3 As regards sharing annual reports, all were done at year end, which may differ, so sharing may be difficult. However, a representative selection could still be useful. In addition, benchmarking was done between boroughs, information which could be useful to the Committee.

Exclusion of press and public

A resolution was put to exclude the press and public from the meeting during the remaining agenda item as it would be likely to disclose exempt information as described in Part 1, Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

Resolved – That the press and public be excluded from the meeting during the remaining agenda items.

9. Reports form the sub-committees

9.1 The minutes of the exempt section were approved and signed as a complete record.

End of meeting 15.42 pm

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback