Developing an effective review programme

Report: 12
Date: 11 July 2005
By: the Clerk and Chief Executive

Summary

The MPA undertakes a considerable amount of scrutiny and review of the MPS each year. This paper sets out a proposed framework for agreeing a scrutiny and review programme based on sound scrutiny principles and ongoing commitments promised by for example the MPA corporate strategy. It also provides a tool for maintaining a strategic overview of performance, which can be built on from year to year.

A. Recommendation

That members endorse the proposed scrutiny framework.

B. Supporting information

Introduction

1. The MPA undertakes a considerable amount of scrutiny and review of the MPS each year. Both the Peer Review (carried out by the IDEA in January 2004) and the Audit Commission IPA for identified that we lack a rationale for our review programme and for the balance we maintain between scrutiny and service improvement reviews. This paper sets out a proposal for agreeing a scrutiny and review programme based on sound scrutiny principles and ongoing commitments promised by, for example, the MPA corporate strategy. It also provides a tool for maintaining a strategic overview of performance, which can be built on from year to year.

Scope of the review programme

2. The Authority scrutinises the activities of the police service in a number of ways:

• Committee requests for reports/information
• themed committee meetings,
• internal audit programme
• service improvement reviews (formerly best value reviews)
• scrutinies.

3. Committees are responsible for ensuring their annual work plans, therefore this paper does not dwell on the first two bullet points above. However, when committees are considering their plans, they may wish to consider some of the principles outlined below.

4. Internal Audit has a robust annual risk assessment process in place, which allows them to target their resources at key business activities on an annual basis.

5. The scrutiny and review programme, encompassing MPA-led scrutinies and service improvement reviews needs to develop synergies with the internal audit process (and be clearly linked to the external audit and inspection process) so that it is part of a holistic process that drives radical shifts in delivery.

Service improvement reviews

6. Home Office, APA and ACPO guidance states that service improvement reviews (formerly best value) should be properly integrated within police performance management and should:

• encourage innovation and excellence
• ensure services are responsive to the needs of users and not for the convenience of providers
• engage local communities, staff and other partners in shaping local services
• deliver improvements
• focus on outcomes not process
• provide a rigorous (but not rigid) framework
• enhance national and local accountability.

7. Service improvement reviews provide authorities to undertake a root and branch review of service, by fundamentally challenging how and why a service is provided.

8. Service improvement reviews can help when:

• there is a need to improve performance in a priority area, or performance is good but might benefit from fresh thinking
• the authority is unclear about the objectives of a service or how the service contributes to local or national priorities
• there is a need or opportunity for step change in performance (or significant savings and evidence is that such a step change is reasonable (e.g. where other authorities, forces, providers) are delivering a much better quality or more efficient service.

9. The following criteria are proposed to inform judgement on identification of areas for consideration as a service improvement review:

• Service review outcomes
• Performance/community priority (through the national and local policing plan) (these are outlined at Appendix 1 for ease of reference)
• GLA/Mayoral annual deliverables
• Poor performing area
• High community priority
• Public interest
• Low public satisfaction/confidence
• Equality and diversity issues e.g. disproportionality
• Identified as weak by external agencies
• Significant financial burden (particularly over/under-spends or budget reductions)
• Significant capital implications
• Procurement considerations (e.g. if contracts are due for renewal)
• Partnership priorities and activities

10. The MPA and MPS were ambitious with the original best value review programme, which resulted in wide-ranging and sometimes ill-defined reviews that delivered little. From this experience, it is clear that reviews need to be tightly focussed (without becoming too limited). Consideration therefore needs to be given to this when any programme is developed.

11. In developing a scrutiny and review programme, we need maintain some balance (i.e. avoiding overburdening the Authority and the Service). Therefore, the following filtering criteria should also be considered:

• Issue being examined elsewhere or recently reviewed
• New legislation anticipated

12. The MPS Management Board has historically, in consultation with the MPA, agreed the service improvement programme. Areas that have been reviewed to date include:

• Crime management
• Managing demand
• Consultation
• Retention
• Security vetting
• Security of buildings
• Custody capacity
• Brining offenders to justice
• Records management
• Operational support
• Training (part of a national programme)
• Complaints
• Equalities (jointly with the GLA family)

13. When service improvement reviews were introduced, we were required to produce a 5 year programme. This requirement was relaxed in 2003. However, there are still elements of this programme that have not been delivered and may still be worthy of review. These include:

• Catering
• Managing communication
• National and international functions (although a review of these functions was conducted last year by an independent consultant)
• MPA functions
• Improving road safety

Scrutiny

14. The Authority has undertaken a number of scrutinies, since its inception including:

• Rape
• CDRPs
• Stop and search
• Gun crime
• Overtime
• Policing mental health

15. These are effective when members wish to challenge the MPS approach to dealing with particular issues and when the review would benefit from significant involvement from communities and other key stakeholders.

16. Whilst it is important to ensure that the scrutiny focuses on areas where recommendations would be actionable by the MPS, there are benefits is using scrutiny to review areas where the solution to an issue cannot necessarily be delivered by the MPS alone, with the Authority playing in a key role in influencing others to accept the need for change. This can be developed further, as has been done with the mental health review, to undertake scrutiny jointly with other statutory agencies.

17. The Authority is committed through its corporate strategy to undertake scrutinies of the following during 2005/06:

• resource utilisation - including changes to operational deployment following the introduction of the Step Change programme, the civilianisation programme and workforce modernisation.
• review of resources - including overtime allocation to all OCUs and monitor implementation of the recommendations of those reviews.

The launch of the service review has, however, suspended all other review processes and the MPA has agreed to postpone its programme until 2006.

18. To date, the MPA has concentrated on undertaking comprehensive evidential scrutinies such as those outlined in paragraph 14. Committees may also wish to develop different approaches to scrutiny such as undertaking shorter, time-limited scrutinies, spread over one or two meetings. By using resources in this way, the MPA will be able to increase the level of scrutiny it is able to undertake.

19. As with service improvement reviews, scrutinies should focus on areas of poor performance, low public confidence or satisfaction, address equality and diversity issues and be of significance with regard to performance and resources.

Developing a review programme

20. It is envisaged that all MPS activity is identified under broad headings. The service review will be helpful in providing a framework for this and the HMIC baseline assessment activities can also used (see appendix 3). This will need to be supplemented with discussions with lead MPA members and officers to ensure that it is fully comprehensive. Additionally, it will need to be cognisant of other review programmes, such as internal audit, both to ensure that there is no duplication but also so that no important areas are left unscrutinised.

21. An analysis using the criteria outlined in paragraphs 9 and 11 would be undertaken against each of the activities, using the wide range of information available to the authority to identify whether it is an area in need of scrutiny and review. An example could be as follows:

Citizen Focus

• This is a key priority in the national policing plan and in the “Building Communities, Beating Crime” white paper
• Public satisfaction and confidence in the police is below the ‘most similar force’ (MSF) average, and tends to deteriorate as contact with the police develops
• Call management of 999 calls is improving although satisfaction is falling and targets are regularly missed.
• Call management has been graded as “fair” in the baseline assessment
• HMIC are currently researching a thematic in this area. The final report is expected in the early summer 2005.
• C3i will have a radical impact on the customer interface
• The police authority undertook a service improvement review of demand management in 2003. Implementation has been slow.
• The baseline assessment rates reassurance as ‘good’, citing the commitment to Safer Neighbourhoods and the involvement in the national reassurance pilots.
• There is MPA oversight of the Safer Neighbourhoods programme.
• Safer Neighbourhoods is a significant financial commitment.

22. Once analysis has been undertaken for all areas, we would envisage that a weighting process is used to identify the priority areas for review. This could be done using a numerical scoring system against the criteria (see appendix 2). Decisions should also be taken at this point about the most appropriate method of review. Decisions about service improvement reviews will need to involve colleagues from the MPS.

23. Implementing a process such as this will allow the MPA to build up a comprehensive database over time, bringing together knowledge from teams across the MPA and outside.

Process for agreeing an annual scrutiny programme

24. Under current committee arrangements Co-ordination and Policing Committee (COP) is responsible for agreeing which areas will be subject to in depth scrutiny. They also agree the terms of reference and the final report and implementation plan.

25. It is proposed that a paper detailing the outcomes of the analysis outlined in paragraphs 20 to 24 above are presented to COP annually in January, so that the programme of work can commence early in the financial year.

C. Race and equality impact

There are no direct race and equality implications from this report. However, the following points should be considered:

• equality and diversity issues (particularly disproportionality) will be a key factor in the decision making framework for the scrutiny and review programme
• any programme will be subject to equality impact assessment
• all review conclusions and recommendations will be fully impact assessed.

D. Financial implications

There are no direct financial implications to implementing this framework as the work will be undertaken as part of the Scrutiny and Review Unit annual work programme. Review activity can be resource intensive both for the MPA and the MPS, and within the MPA there are limited scrutiny resources available. It is therefore important that these resources are focused on areas where efficiency and or effectiveness gains can be maximised.

E. Background papers

• Home Office “Building Better Communities” 2004
• Home Office National Policing Plan 2004
• IDEA Peer Review January 2004
• Audit Commission Initial Performance Assessment November 2004
• Home Office “Best Value and Planning Guidance for Authorities and Forces 2003
• HMIC Best Value Protocols
• MPS Corporate Strategic Assessment (Exception Report) September 2004
• Securing Continuous Improvement, PPRC 9 Jan 03
• Management for Best Value Arrangements, PPRC 22 July 2002
• Various MPA performance and authority reports
• Office of Public Scrutiny good practice guidance

F. Contact details

Report author: Siobhan Coldwell, Head of Scrutiny and Review, MPA.

For information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Appendix 1

National policing plan priorities:

• Reducing overall crime, including drug-related and violent crime (also a PSA target).
• Providing a citizen focused police service, which responds to the needs of communities and individuals, especially victims and witnesses and inspires public confidence in the police, particularly among minority ethnic communities.
• Taking action with partners to increase sanction detection rates and target prolific and other priority offenders.
• Reduce people’s concerns about crime and anti-social behaviour and disorder.
• Combat serious and organised crime within and across force boundaries.

MPA priorities:

• Transform community engagement to help Londoners secure more responsive policing at a local level
• Work with the MPS to achieve cultural change throughout the service so that everyone in London, including all its diverse communities, can gain and retain confidence in policing
• Drive the MPS to make most efficient and cost conscious use of its officers, staff and other available resources
• The Authority will hold the Commissioner rigorously to account for continuing improvement in the effective operational and organisational performance of the Metropolitan Police Service
• Deliver a more efficient and effective MPA, which continues to be fit for purpose.

MPS / MPA Policing Plan control strategies

• To minimise the risk from terrorist activity; to maintain an effective response to terrorist incidents.
• To reduce the level of gun enabled crime
• To disrupt organised networks, the activities they are involved in and to seize their assets, in order to reduce harm in neighbourhoods and communities.
• To improve neighbourhood safety
• To improve our contribution to the criminal justice system
• Citizen focus and demand management
• To reduce levels of serious violence and increase the number of violent offenders brought to justice
• Diversity
• Women’s safety
• Prolific offenders

Appendix 2

Please note this is for demonstration purposes only

Key

2 = fits criteria
1 = some elements fit the criteria
0 = no evidence or not significant
-1 = doesn't fit the criteria

Appendix 3

HMIC baseline assessment activities

Citizen Focus (PPAF domain A)

• Fairness and equality
• Neighbourhood policing and community engagement
• Customer Service and accessibility
• Professional standards

Reducing Crime (PPAF domain 1)

• Reducing hate crime and crimes against vulnerable people
• Volume Crime Reduction
• Working in partnership to reduce crime

Investigating crime (PPAF domain 2)

• Investigating serious and major crime
• Tackling Level 2 Criminality
• Investigating hate crime and crime against vulnerable victims
• Volume crime investigation
• Forensic Management
• Criminal Justice Processes

Promoting Safety (PPAF domain 3)

• Reassurance
• Reducing anti-social behaviour and promoting public safety

Providing assistance (PPAF domain 4)

• Call management
• Providing specialist operational support
• Roads policing

Resource Use (PPAF domain B)

• HR
• Training and Development
• Race and Diversity
• Resource management
• Science and technology management
• National Intelligence Model

Leadership and direction

• Leadership
• Strategic management
• Performance management and continuous improvement

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback