Review of promoting equality and diversity through the ‘Metropolitan Police Service Modernising Programme’ agenda

Report: 06b
Date: 1 December 2005
By: the Chief Executive and Clerk

Summary

This purpose of this report is to outline some of the key challenges and concerns from a range of equality and diversity perspectives as they relate to the Modernising the MPS agenda.

A. Recommendations

That members agree:

1. The critical success factors as outlined in paragraphs 10 – 21
2. To consider and propose other critical success factors, key outcomes and models and measures of stakeholder engagement.
3. To refer key issues and concerns to the Oversight Group.

B. Supporting information

Background

1. The Service Review was commissioned in February 2005 by the Commissioner. Its purpose was to identify how the organisation currently uses its resources and, how human and other resources can be redirected to the point of delivery.

2. The purpose of the Corporate Strategy is to set a clear strategic direction for the Metropolitan Police Service grounded in its core values and driven by goals of improved quality of policing and performance.

3. ‘Together’ is designed to address the behavioural and organisational cultural improvements the MPS needs to make to deliver its corporate strategy.

4. Due to the level of interdependency between these three separate streams of work, the MPS is now presenting these as part of a wider Metropolitan Police Service Modernising Programme [MMP] agenda.

5. The purpose of this report is to outline the key equality and diversity issues for the organisation that cut across this improvement agenda. These are influenced by the learning the MPA and MPS have had presented through the Morris Inquiry, the CRE’s Formal Investigation in the Police Service in England and Wales and the Ghaffur Thematic Review of Race and Diversity in the MPS.

Developing a response to the MMP

6. In developing this paper we have set out what we consider are the consistently recurring challenges in terms of delivering the equality and diversity agenda across the organisation from the perspective of three interdependent areas: employment practice, service delivery and community engagement. These challenges are: leadership; effective management; handling complaints; representation; active communication; hidden voices of existing, new and emerging communities; key encounters; and accountability. Members are keen to understand how these will be responded to through the agenda of the Modernising the MPS Programme [MMP].

7. Equally important are the thinking and approach towards the rollout and implementation of the MMP. If this is sound, congruent and properly supported by the values and the behaviours that the MPS need to promote, then the Commissioner’s vision of ‘…diversity being a brutal business imperative’, will be on the road to being achieved; in addition, it will assist in providing an answer to the question posed by the Commissioner in his Richard Dimbleby lecture of 16 November 2005: ‘What kind of police service do you want?’

8. The MPS report poses three thoughtful questions to the MPA:

1. “What does success of the Met Modernisation Programme look like in relation to equality and diversity issues?”
2. “What equality and diversity outcomes would the MPA EODB recommend we work towards?”
3. “What does effective and efficient stakeholder engagement look like from the EODB’s perspective?”

9. The following are suggested critical success factors, key outcomes and measures of effective stakeholder engagement upon which the MPA would be seeking to explore, develop and hold the MPS to account. These success factors, outcomes and measures are not intended to be exhaustive; however, they should formulate some of the key priorities for the MPS as part of its ‘modernising agenda’.

Employment

10. In paragraph 34 of the MPS report, it states, ‘We know that people are our most valuable resource.’ Like other public bodies, the MPS has experienced high-profile and sensitive employment cases – publicly and internally – which has challenged its intention and ability to ‘… become an employer of choice’. Both the Equal Opportunities Commission and ACAS in recent reports have stated that improving employee relations is key to productivity improvements; business performance and employee satisfaction are raised when employee relations are based on mutual trust and respect.

11. Critical Success Factor: No significant disparity between the experiences of people based on their identity e.g. ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation, religion and belief, or age.

12. Key Outcomes: Managers being trained and able to demonstrate that they manage all their staff fairly and proportionately; equity of treatment between police officers and police staff; police officers and staff clear about objectives, roles, responsibilities and accountabilities which are supported by regular reviews; increased confidence and effectiveness in managing poor performance; increase in levels of complaints; local resolution of disputes; more effective ways in handling and resolving complaints; evidence-led internal investigations; greater transparency in the resolution of disputes; increased levels of timeliness in resolutions of disputes; use of internal data to identify, review, monitor & evaluate areas of improvement; evidence-led internal investigations; evidence that the organisation is learning from its past and actively uses its ‘corporate memory’; timeliness in resolutions of disputes.

13. Effective & Efficient Stakeholder Engagement: Evidence of appropriate and timely consultation with S.A.M.U.R.A.I; increased evidence of learning from outside bodies and agencies, including IAGs; developing a range of engagement models with individuals and staff associations.

Service delivery

14. One of the main objectives of the MMP is to make the MPS more ‘citizen-focused’. Whilst the MPS has been hugely successful in bringing to justice people who commit murder (94% detection rate), it can also be argued that this type of crime, though devastating to individuals, families and communities concerned, is fortunately, less commonplace that car crime (7%) and burglary (19%) – where performance is not as robust. In addition, differentials of experiences with particular police activities such as counter-terrorism and stop and search where race, faith, gender and age are significant factors also go to the heart of trust and confidence.

15. Critical Success Factors: No significant disparity in the MPS’ response to the experiences of people based on their identity in relation to a) the incident(s)/crime(s) they have experienced or b) alleged to have committed.

16. Key Outcomes: Clear levels of accountability; increased performance at local Safer Neighbourhood (SN) level; reduction in communities’ fear of crime; increased levels of public when encountering the police; clear evidence of personal diversity objectives linked to performance; use of equality impact assessments to structure the delivery of service.

17. Effective & Efficient Stakeholder Engagement: Evidence of provision of accurate and intelligible information; of providing information in formats relevant to community groups; evidence of using the experiences of victims and witnesses to inform future service provision.

Community Engagement

18. In order for the strategic outcome “Communities are engaged with, confident in and satisfied with our service”, to be achieved, diverse communities and diverse sections within those communities need to feel and experience they have had some involvement in policing – and not merely from the ‘intelligence-gathering’ perspective.

19. Critical Success Factor: No significant disparity between communities and intra-communities satisfaction of police communication, consultation and participation in the delivery of service.

20. Key Outcomes: Engagement with communities, especially new and emerging communities whose voices may have been overlooked or ignored; increased levels of reporting across a range of crimes; evidence of communities actively contributing to problem-solving; use of the ‘police family’ in addressing key issues of policing.

21. Effective & Efficient Stakeholder Engagement: Evidence of using information from link members, SNs, Community Police Consultative Groups (CPCGs), Crime & Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs) and Independent Advisory Groups (IAGs) to inform service delivery; evidence that engagement is sustainable and uses internal and external specialists as and where appropriate; evidence that equality impact assessments are reviewed regularly; evidence of using the experiences of victims and witnesses to inform future service provision.

Outstanding issues

22. Notwithstanding the above and the concerns outlined in Appendix 1, there are still a range of questions (in no order of priority) to be considered which have significant equality and diversity implications. Whilst the MPS may not as yet have fully formed answers, it may be important to see these as ‘markers’ to be addressed:

• How will the MPS approach individuals who have multiple needs?
• To what extent is the Diversity & Citizen-Focus Directorate (DFCD or DCC4) engaged with the 18 key strands of the programme?
• Which of the 18 key strands are seen as priorities or pivotal to the success of the overall MMP?
• The creation of the Public Protection Units (PPUs): how will the formation of the PPUS ensure that the specialisms that have been built up are maintained?
• Throughout the report, there is an implied assumption that greater diversity in recruitment and/or rotation of tasks will lead to an improved workforce. However, if equality – the identification and dismantling of barriers – is not addressed, how will people’s experiences change?

C. Race and equality impact

The MMP is one of the most significant change programmes in the MPS’ history and as such has major equality and diversity implications.
The notes from an event in September 2005 are attached which form an ‘initial’ impact assessment. Given the Service Review was commissioned in February 2005, what are the proposals for the completion of the equality impact assessment? How will it demonstrate that it has responded to the range of significant issues raised by MPS staff and community members? Has it responded? A range of relevant and significant concerns were raised regarding the proposals on custody arrangements, public protection units, support for staff when driving through this programme, Metcall, ensuring hidden voices are heard and the centralisation of support services.

D. Financial implications

There are no financial implications arising directly from this report.

E. Background papers

• Papers to MPA Full Authority – 29 Sep 05
• Review of progress report relating to agreed outcomes of Morris, Taylor, Commission for Racial Equality and Ghaffur reports as it relates to Professional Standards – EODB, 6 Oct 05
• Reporter, Equality Exchange, EOC, September 2005
• The Acas Model Workplace, ACAS, November 2005

F. Contact details

Report author: Laurence Gouldbourne & Hamida Ali, MPA.

For more information contact:

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

Appendix 1

In examining the Metropolitan Police Service Modernisation Programme [MMP], the following questions should be examined across a backdrop of promoting equality and diversity. ‘Diversity’ is about celebrating differences and valuing what skills, experiences and lifestyles people bring to their work; ‘equality’ is about identifying and breaking down barriers that stop people progressing and developing in their work.

In rolling out the MMP, the MPS also has to address forthcoming equalities legislation. It will not be enough for the MPS to promote ‘good race relations’ – it will be required to eliminate discrimination and promote good relations on the grounds of race, gender, disabilities, sexual orientation, age and religion/non-belief.

The commissioning brief identified eight ‘hardy perennials’ – issues that have historically hampered and impacted negatively on the MPS’ ability to successfully deliver on employment, service delivery and community engagement fronts. These ‘hardy perennials’ are:

• Leadership
• Effective management
• Handling complaints
• Representation
• Active communication
• Hidden voices of existing, new and emerging communities
• Key encounters
• Accountability

This appendix seeks to pose some of the questions, concerns and issues that may need to be addressed to ensure a successful rollout.

1. Leadership

1. The MPS proposals for a Leadership Academy are designed to contribute to the organisation’s challenges posed through the Together Programme. The organisation wants to achieve against the corporate strategy “through a shift in organisational culture and individual behaviour. Together is the approach that the MPS is taking to underpin the changes”. It appears that the organisational response to delivering the Together agenda is through the Leadership Academy where all officers and staff with a line management responsibility will ‘attend’ the Leadership Academy.

• Given that the shift of behaviours is necessary across the organisation, how will the MPS deliver this through only its managers? Given that some of the changes required by the agenda are to value people, could this be perceived as opportunities afforded only to managers, and not to those without those responsibilities? What about aspiring managers? What about people who have no interest in progress but simply want to deliver? Why are line managers prioritised? Is this approach worth the potential negative cost? Can the organisation afford this?

2. Effective management

• How will the ‘franchise’ model where greater devolution is given to Borough and Operational Command Units (B)OCUs give greater support to managers working with confidence to resolve complaints early?
• There are clear equality and diversity implications for the ‘franchise’ model giving (B)OCUs greater control over their budgets. Examples of these implications are around procurement contracts - how is local practice overseen from an equality and diversity perspective? Equally, recruitment practice – how does greater devolution of responsibility positively affect consistency of practice in employing and supporting people?
• How will the Race & Diversity Learning Programme impact on ensuring there is effective management across the organisation?

3. Handling complaints

1. One of the key recommendations emerging from the Morris Inquiry was that the Commissioner undertake a “fundamental review” of the MPS Directorate of Professional Standards. Given that this is a key workstream for DPS, it is crucial that the Together work is clearly integrated with the work of the ‘fundamental review’ of DPS.

• How will Together interface, support and work with the fundamental review of DPS?

4. Representation

1. There are key equalities issues facing the organisation in terms of recruitment, retention and progression. While the debate is largely dominated by discussion on recruitment and retention, less is spent discussing progression of staff and officers in terms of ethnicity and gender. A recent MPS report Double Glazing and Sticky Floors: How sticky are the floors for non-managerial black and minority ethnic women in the MPS? looked at this issue for black women in the organisation – both from a staff and an officer perspective. The report concludes that black women are more likely to be in lower grades within the organisation and disproportionately experience greater difficulty in progressing.
2. Through the Modernising the MPS agenda, the organisation could ensure that its specialist project management skills (“the right person with the right skills in the right place”) are utilised in delivering this critical set of work. Clearly this may mean that the skills may sit with individuals not viewed by the organisation as ‘senior’ – this is part of the Together challenge – challenging the organisation to recognise skill where it lies in the organisation and harnessing it to its full.

• What steps will be incorporated to ensure that there is transparency in creating and presenting opportunities for police officers and staff?
• Will there be easier movement for police officers and staff, thus creating opportunities for new skills to be developed?

5. Active communication

1. Home Office reports on people’s experiences of the criminal justice system have often resulted in the similar results: people want accurate and timely information; people want to offer solutions; people want to shape and influence outcomes; and people want to actively participate in delivering outcomes.

• How will the MPS, particularly at local Safer Neighbourhoods (SNs) levels, demonstrate that it actively responds to local priorities and involves local communities in delivering outcomes? How will the MPS demonstrate that it can celebrate its successes with its local partners?

6. Hidden voices of existing, new and emerging communities

• Abstracting for other resources - will these Public Protection Directorate teams pick up other related issues or will new units be invented every time, e.g. youth policies?
• Independent Custody Visitors (ICVs): will there difficulties in getting translators and Forensic Medical Examiners (FMEs)? If so, how will this be tackled?
• Custody Nurses - the only custody nurses are at Charing Cross and only then through MPA pressure. Might this become a more significant resource at a cluster?
• Events in July 2005 led to certain communities being criminalised. How will the MPS respond when this occurs?

7. Key Encounters

• How will the Diversity Strategy be integrated within the MMP?

8. Accountability

• How will personal diversity objectives be devised to interface with performance? How will these be monitored?
• How will the skills of SN teams be developed to ensure that equality and diversity is at the heart of delivering local services?
• Proposed changes around Custody Clusters: how will ICVs be consulted about this proposal?
• Given that 40% of police officers have less than 2 years experience, how will the organisation use the expertise of experienced officers before they leave the service?

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback