Contents

Report 12 of the 7 June 2007 meeting of the Co-ordination and Policing Committee, and outlines a proposed scrutiny programme for 2007-8.

MPA scrutiny programme

Warning: This is archived material and may be out of date. The Metropolitan Police Authority has been replaced by the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime (MOPC).

See the MOPC website for further information.

MPA scrutiny programme

Report: 12
Date: 7 June 2007
By: Chief Executive

Summary

This report outlines a proposed scrutiny programme for 2007-8.

A. Recommendations

That subject to any comments from members, the proposed scrutiny programme for 2007/08 as shown in Appendix 1, be endorsed

B. Supporting information

Introduction

1. The Peer Review of the MPA (carried out by the IDEA in January 2004) and the Audit Commission Initial Performance Assessment criticised the MPA for lacking a rationale for developing our scrutiny and review programme and for the balance we maintain between scrutiny and service improvement reviews. A framework for identifying areas for review was agreed by Corporate Governance Committee on 11 July 2005.

2. To date, the oversight and review team has delivered one ‘set piece’ scrutiny per year. However, the team has expanded as a result of the improvement programme and anticipates an increase in the level of scrutiny it can deliver.

3. 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. A process has been established to ensure that this happens, as reported to Planning Performance and Review Committee on 13 February 2006.

4. Whilst it is important to ensure that evidential scrutiny focuses on areas where recommendations would be actionable by the MPS, there are benefits to 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. A process that proved extremely successful.

5. In September 2005, members endorse a framework for identifying potential areas for scrutiny by Members. The criteria included:

Performance/community priority (through the national and local policing plan)
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 (including over/under-spends or budget reductions)
Significant capital implications
Procurement considerations (e.g. if contracts are due for renewal)
Partnership priorities and activities

6. Discussions with Members indicate that are a number of areas could meet these criteria. These are outlined in Appendix 1. The column entitled “Way Forward” indicates the outcome of discussions with the Chairs Group on 5 April 2007.

7. In summary, two areas were identified for scrutiny:

Young people – an extensive scrutiny, with significant engagement with young people
Succession planning and talent management – identifying the needs of the MPS in the medium and long term and consideration of how this can be achieved (note the terms of reference is put forward for consideration elsewhere on this agenda).

Members also requested officers to undertake some further work to identify the benefits of scrutinising a number of areas:

Business crime
Use of resources
Safer neighbourhoods

These will be reported back in due course.

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) have been a key factor in the decision making framework for the scrutiny and review programme
all review conclusions and recommendations arising out of scrutiny activity 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

Corporate Governance Committee 11 July 2005 – Developing an Effective Review Programme

F. Contact details

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

For more information contact:

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

Appendix 1

Theme/ subject	Background/potential coverage	Issues	Way forward
Young people	Concerns about victim/offender trends including increasing severity Extent of Youth Engagement Safer neighbourhoods – roles in schools Partnerships and Prevention Cross - business group working What works/sharing good practice	Potentially huge issue – would require careful scoping TP leading the development of a MPS youth strategy Significant activity in SCD High profile multi-agency concern - London Youth Prevention Board (LYPB) recently established.	Agree that the Authority will undertake a piece of work, but clarity needed on role and work of LYPB before any undertaking.
Metcall	Huge financial resource Concerns about whether business change model is being implemented Effective resource management will be an objective for productivity strategy group Link Members feedback contradicts corporate message that roll out is a success.	MMP oversight overlap Timing roll-out still ongoing High priority on MPA policy scan Being reviewed by the Audit Commission as part of their 06/07 audit programme	No further work necessary
Citizen Focus	Challenging the approach by the MPS – “we know what is best for you” There is a need to prioritise the agenda	Member oversight already established	Covered by the Oversight Group – no further work necessary
Consultative mechanisms	Communication, consultation and engagement, how they do it, how they use the information to design services, links to citizen focus agenda Links and relationships between various consultative mechanisms – safer neighbourhoods panels, CPCGs, duplication with local authority mechanisms, potential increase in activity with Police and Justice Act requirements (scrutiny panels)	Would need to be very carefully scoped, but Citizen Focus is one of the weaker areas in baseline and PPAF Potential overlap with the community engagement oversight group	Covered by the oversight Group – no further work necessary
Business crime	Concerns that it is of limited priority to MPS Relationships/engagement with business at all levels – London First to the local corner shop How does the MPS deal with crime that is of interest to business – prevention, reduction and investigation What targets and measures	Link to MPS corporate objectives	Agreed to request a paper from the MPS. Agreed to take forward discussions with London First and other representative groups
Use of resources/use of public money	Using e.g. ABC to investigate variations in performance across boroughs Identification of efficiencies Consolidation of position ready for potentially difficult budget rounds ahead Cost morality – efficient and effective use of public money.	Fit with financial and business planning processes Not necessarily suitable for standard scrutiny format Overlap with productivity strategy group work programme	Members agreed that this needs to be taken forward Initial work will be progressed through the budget scrutiny process and the productivity strategy group. Officers have been tasked to develop a template to allow analysis to be undertaken.
Theme/subject	Outline	Issues	Way forward
Estates	usability by the public accessibility fitness for purpose	links to estates oversight group High priority on MPA policy scan	Sufficient scrutiny in place.
Monitoring Diversity	MPA continues to need to understand why the MPS find it so difficult and drive it cultural change has been slow to date	Concerns about whether this is appropriate for a Member-led scrutiny	Agreed MPA would address this through EODB.
Promotion processes/Talent Management	Recent ACPO recruitment processes have raise concerns about the quality of senior officers available to fill these posts. Concerns about whether the processes earlier in peoples careers is identifying appropriate officers. Significant research to show that certain groups of officers leave at key points (particularly women and BME officers).	Considerable activity in this area by external bodies including the National Policing Improvement Agency and ACPO.	Agree that the Authority this needs to be progressed as a priority but clarity needed on developments being led by other agencies.
HR strategy	medium/long term planning	workforce modernisation group in place Scrutiny format may not be most appropriate way of addressing this issue.	To be taken forward through the HR oversight group
Detective capacity in Territorial Policing	Sanction detection rates for volume crime remain low. Retention in TP a concern Detectives tend to transfer to SCD and SO	There has been some work on Detective Modernisation as part of MMP but this hasn’t resulted in significant change to date.	Agreed that this may be brought forward as a scrutiny, but not a priority. Agreed HR oversight could undertake an initial probe.
Safer Neighbourhoods	Where next Does the 1:2:3 model make sense across all wards Consultative mechanisms Role of sergeants Skills gaps Effectiveness of future plans/use of resources High crime wards/14k pop plus wards (match)	HMIC inspection of neighbourhood policing in the spring High priority on MPA policy scan Timing re roll out – would need careful scoping – may be appropriate to do during 08/09	MMP oversight in place and SN has been subject to significant oversight through the MPA committee work programme Will be priority for 08/09 programme but Members agree need to develop scoping exercise during 07/08.
Anti Social Behaviour	cross cutting partnership issue working with young people to engage them in solutions	The work of the pan-London ASB board would need to be considered.	Not suitable for a scrutiny at this point.
Intelligence	How is it used – forward thinking towards meeting PSA 1	MIB newly introduced MMP oversight	Not suitable for a scrutiny.
Road Traffic Policing	Concerns about performance in this area (KPIs) A number of partnership areas to be explored (traffic calming etc). New priority in annual policing plan.	Considerable activity by other organisation.	To be considered in the future.

Other issues raised by members

A number of other issues were raised by members, but were discounted on the basis that they have already been addressed by the MPA or other bodies, or that they would not be suitable as a scrutiny topic.

Public order – currently subject to a wide-ranging MPS review
High tech crime – recently considered, although will need on-going oversight
Thematic cross business group working – picking a theme e.g. older people or young people – doable, but would need careful scoping. Raised out of a concern that the MPS identify a problem and set up a unit to address the problem (e.g. VCD) rather than thinking about using current resources differently.

Other potential scrutiny areas

Violent Crime Directorate (although violent crime performance is improving)
Approach to Organised Criminal Networks (new area of business, limited MPA scrutiny to date)

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback