Progress for monitoring and reviewing MPS response to HMIC recommendations

Report: 4
Date: 31 May 2001
By: Clerk

Summary

The MPA officers and MPS Inspections Unit have proposed a joint process for responding to HMIC recommendations. Although the current process works well, it is apparent that different MPA committees have different standards and practices in responding to HMIC reports. The MPA and HMIC Inspection Unit have developed a proforma which can be used by all MPA Committees. The Committee is asked to recommend that the proforma be used by Committees and review this procedure in conjunction with the MPS in a year's time.

A. Recommendations

1. The Committee note and approve the process outlined in the proforma and to refer the paper to Chairs of Committees to consider the process outlined for monitoring and reviewing MPS response future to HMIC reports.
2. The process and proforma is reviewed, in consultation with MPS Inspection Unit, in twelve months.

B. Supporting information

Background

1. At its inception, the MPA assumed responsibility for publishing the Commissioner's response to HMIC thematic and specific Inspections of the MPS.

2. MPA officers, in consultation with the MPS Inspection Unit developed a paper outlining the key stages of an inspection and the respective areas of responsibility of the MPA and MPS for each stage.

3. Currently, following the publication of an HMIC Inspection Report, the Commissioner responds to each of the recommendations, outlining the actions or progress that the Service has made. A copy of this report is sent to the Chair/Clerk of the Authority and the HMIC. The Chair accepts (or otherwise) the Commissioner's response, and notifies the HMIC and Home Office, among others of this.

4. This Committee delegates the reasonability for reviewing and monitoring the MPS progress on the specified inspection report to the appropriate lead committee. The Committee will then devise monitoring indicators that either require further information from the MPS to verify the account given of the stated performance, or performance indicators that will be used to monitor and review the MPS progress against the HMIC recommendations.

5. Because of the different approaches and processes adopted by the MPA Committees, the MPS Inspection Unit has experienced difficulties in tracking and monitoring various directorates response to HMIC reports.

6. At meetings with the Chair of the HR Committee and the MPS, a proforma and process was presented which all MPA committees for monitoring the MPS progress against HMIC recommendations could adopt. A template is based on the work undertaken by the CDO Committee (Appendix 1, see Supporting material). Further information about the proposed proforma is given below.

Column 1

The proforma template proposes that future reports should include the recommendations in full.

Column 2

It is often the case that the MPS has been required to respond to HMIC Inspection reports dealing with the same or very similar issues. The MPS Inspection Unit and MPA members felt it would be useful to make links with other HMIC Inspection responses, and relevant internal MPS inspections. This could assist the Authority in getting a better sense of the range of work that the MPS may have done in any given area.

Column 3

It is understood that not all committees require performance monitoring indicators or outcomes from the MPS against specific recommendations.

This column is proposed so that each committee can identify specific indicators that it will require.

Column 4

Although the Committee currently presents the MPS response to the HMIC recommendation, there is no process in place currently (according to the MPS Inspection Unit) for the MPS to respond to the indicators or outcomes identified by the Authority.

The MPS Inspection Unit is confident that this can be achieved and has processes in place for achieving this.

There is little information currently available to the MPA on which MPS Directorate or Individual has responsibility for progressing specific recommendation. This information is available and the MPS Inspection Unit sees no difficulty in providing the Authority with this information.

Similarly, the MPS will be informed of the MPA officers responsible for progressing specific recommendations.

This information will be of significant benefit to officers in both organisations.

Column 5

Will indicate a timeframe by which committees will require information. Discussion may need to be held with the Inspection Unit to ensure that they are able to meet the differing timeframes proposed by different MPA committees.

C. Financial implications

There are no financial implications associated with this report.

D. Background papers

None.

E. Contact details

The author of this report is Julia Smith.

For information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback