You are in:

Contents

Report 6a of the 6 April 2006 meeting of the Equal Opportunities & Diversity Board and presents the MPS position on using equalities based criteria for monitoring activity in respect of the employment, service delivery and community engagement functions.

Warning: This is archived material and may be out of date. The Metropolitan Police Authority has been replaced by the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime (MOPC).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

Monitoring for equality: the information we capture about you and why

Report: 06a
Date: 6 April 2006
By: Commissioner

Summary

This report presents the MPS position on using equalities based criteria for monitoring activity in respect of the employment, service delivery and community engagement functions. The paper sets out to explain why the monitoring takes place, what criteria is used, and when is it applied. The paper also identifies gaps in the arrangements and what the MPS proposes to do to address them.

A. Recommendations

That Members:

  1. Note the contents of this report
  2. Satisfy themselves that the approach adopted by the MPS, in relation to monitoring, is appropriate
  3. That any gaps in the arrangements will be addressed through the planned activity shown
  4. Through discussion, help to identify any further gaps

B. Supporting information

Context

1. The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) is committed to delivering services to, and engaging with, individuals and communities across London. It is also statutorily obliged to comply with relevant legal requirements (e.g. the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000), and, it can be argued, ethically obliged to meet others where the obligation is not a statutory one (e.g. s404 Greater London Authority Act 1999).

2. Within the service delivery and community engagement functions, when it comes to meeting the needs of people based on their origins within definable diversity strands (e.g. Age, Disability, Gender, Race or Ethnicity, Religion or Belief and Sexual Orientation) or any multiples of those strands (e.g. older, disabled females), the MPS must also ensure there is no unjustified disproportionality or hierarchy of difference and that all requirements are being met.

3. In order to be able to demonstrate that these obligations, both statutory and ethical, in respect of services and engagement are being fulfilled, relevant sections of the MPS, increasingly, need to monitor their activity using equality strands as criteria.

Employment

4. The HR Strategy Unit collates and monitors diversity across the six strands of equality on behalf of the organisation. Currently this is undertaken to varying degrees of sophistication. There are a number of reasons for this and these are detailed below.

5. However, by way of background information, a piece of research was recently conducted by the HR Directorate which highlighted the anomalies that exist in our data collection processes. For instance, it identified that data collated relating to age, race and gender was robust and reliable enough to undertake meaningful analysis and as such is utilised to inform key HR processes such as recruitment, training, promotion and progression. The organisation is committed to bringing the other strands of diversity to the same level of monitoring and it is hoped that the introduction in July of the self-service function on MetHR, will aid this tremendously. The HR Directorate are acutely aware of the sensitivities surrounding this application and is working with the staff associations to address any concerns.

6. Early conversations with the Staff Associations have indicated agreement that collation of equality data is really important to enable the MPS to understand the make-up of its workforce so that services and processes can be tailored to meet the needs of all staff. They also agree that the proposed self-service facility on MetHR is a step in the right direction but have expressed concerns about the setting of targets for some of the strands. All have expressed a willingness to work closely with HR to address these issues. Ultimately, the intention will be to develop a communication strategy to raise awareness and reinforce the importance of data monitoring, corporacy of approach and the setting of standards.

7. Age and Gender - MetHR holds complete and accurate data for the ages and gender of all MPS personnel. Data is complete because anyone who is employed by the MPS will list their age on their job application, and this data will subsequently be entered on to MetHR. The information is accurate because age, unlike say marital or educational status, is an unchanging variable that conforms to a universal measure in contrast to a category such as ethnicity, which is changeable over time and place. Gender, although changeable, is another category that tends to be stable across time and place. Transgender data is not currently captured and thus has been identified as an area for further development.

8. Age data is used for succession planning purposes to forecast corporate needs and recruits’ ages in relation to potential retirees. The Workforce Modernisation Programme will present new challenges to the MPS in relation to age concerns. Part of the Programme will, pending consultation and appropriate legislative changes, involve the adoption of multi-point entry into the MPS. This will mean that corporate needs for skilled and possibly older workers will have to be balanced against similar needs to ensure that younger workers develop the skills and knowledge base to attain promotion. Whilst aware of these possibly competing needs, it is far too early to contemplate the possible impact of how Workforce Modernisation will impact on the age profile of the MPS.

9. Gender data is reported internally and externally through the HR Scorecard and Workforce data and is monitored through our recruitment, promotion and progression processes.

10. Ethnicity - MetHR holds data on ethnicity in the 16+1 form which conforms to HO requirements. Data on ethnicity, like information on gender and age, is captured on job applications. As with gender, monitoring is done locally and corporately and on an ongoing basis; extensive reporting is available both publicly and internally on all MPS processes.

11. Disability - Although there is the capability to monitor for disability on MetHR, uptake of this option has been limited, especially amongst police officers versus police staff. Approximately 43% of all police officers have 15 or more years experience on the job, and almost 14% have 25 or more years of service, making it doubtful that so few have, over time, developed a disability of any sort. Possible reasons for the discrepancy between the percentage of police officer and police staff revealing disabilities may be:

  • Police officers may be less willing to share information of disabilities with HR managers than police staff
  • Police officers may fear more than police staff that admitting to a disability would hamper job promotion
  • Police officers who have been diagnosed with a disability may feel that they can handle the situation, that there are no special needs and, therefore, there is no need to disclose information to HR managers
  • There may be a different cultural milieu for police officers that discourages police officers from revealing information about disabilities

It is unclear why so few MPS personnel have declared themselves partially disabled; however, this may simply mean that there is some confusion as to what separates being disabled from being partially disabled. Because of low numbers and probable discrepancy between numbers recorded and reality, measures for disproportionality would be meaningless.

Another consideration to be taken into account in terms of Disability monitoring is the MPS’ intention to adopt the ‘social model’ of disability. Disabled people have developed this model. It explains that people are disabled more by the barriers that society has in place then their impairments. These barriers are:

  • Physical - such as the built environment or lack of equipment that assists disabled people
  • Attitudinal - such as the negative perception of disability e.g. through stereotyping and stigma
  • Organisational – e.g. the policies and procedures that discriminate or work against disabled people.

This means that in future, the MPS will need to find the balance between monitoring an individual’s disability, which is described as complying with the ‘medical model’, i.e. categorising people by their condition, and ensuring working arrangements are such that by default they afford equality to disabled people. The work on the organisation’s Equalities Scheme, driven in part by the statutory requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 2005, will be critical in finding this balance.

12. Faith - Data on faith is recorded through paper and online application
processes, using Office of National Statistics categories. However, this information does not form part of the selection process and is held both anonymously and separately from other applicant data. Application outcome, therefore, will not be prejudiced, whatever choice the individual makes in regard to this query. Further, the decision to answer this question is left to the discretion of the individual who can also choose to tick the ‘prefer not to say’ option. Data held on MetHR pertaining to faith is collected in far more detailed format than that held by the Office of National Statistics. People can fill in the ‘other category with a specific religion and this then generates a nominal category for the religion. This means that the data is more detailed than that held by the ONS but that MPS data can be aggregated if analysis in comparison to national standards is needed.

13. Currently, the comprehensiveness of the data being held on MetHR is not of a standard where meaningful analysis could take place. This field is optional for personnel to fill in, and, therefore, many have simply not taken the time to complete this area. It is hoped that as self-service becomes available and publicised this situation will change.

14. Sexual orientation - like information on faith, sexual orientation is recorded through paper and online application processes, using Office of National Statistics categories. However, this information does not form part of the selection process and is held both anonymously and separately from other applicant data. The decision to answer this question is left to the discretion of the individual who can also choose to tick the ‘prefer not to say’ option. Thus, application outcome will not be prejudiced, whatever choice the individual makes in regard to this query.

15. Data on sexual orientation is not currently held on MetHR and therefore no meaningful analysis can be undertaken.

16. To address this, a self-service facility will be available on MetHR in July which will enable staff to self-disclose their sexual orientation. This field will be blocked to ensure that no line managers or HR staff have access to this information. However, it will be necessary for a small number of MetHR staff to be able to view the data in order to undertake effective monitoring. Naturally, any reporting of this data will be totally anonymous.

17. One of the greatest problems would lie with defining what disproportionality would look like. It has been estimated that approximately ten percent of the population is gay or lesbian; however, in a city as cosmopolitan as London, this could be a considerable under estimate. The figures for the bisexual and transgender communities would be even harder to guesstimate. Further, no firm decisions have been made on what will be asked in the 2011 census. The Greater London Authority submitted a document in August requesting that sexual orientation be included in the next census; however, a decision is not imminent and the GLA are not optimistic that this category will be included. Thus, the MPS would have to develop reasonable and appropriate baseline figures and targets.

Service delivery

18. Examples of the variety of monitoring arrangements in place across the MPS include that supplied by the Directorate of Information (DOI) which has its own diversity forum in place, the scope of representation at the forum is monitored but DOI output is not yet fully analysed. The Diversity Excellence Model is a driver for activity but, as yet, little other specific equality monitoring is carried out.

19. The Directorate of Resources (DoR), within procurement services, employs an Equal Opportunities Monitoring Form as part of their ‘Invitation to Tender’ documentation to reflect their support and determination to include Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) in the bidding process. The form requests information on gender, ethnicity, disability and the overall diversity of supplier organisations.

20. The form was recently sent to 992 current suppliers, who annually supply goods and services to the MPS with a value between £154,000 and £1m. Just over 236 responses have been received. As a result of the data collection, information on SMEs, broken down into the criteria shown above, will be stored on a database and used in supplier choice.

21. Other examples of monitoring within DoR include police clothing and equipment procurement, where the suitability of garment fabrics and products is monitored in relation to ethnicity, faith and gender. Catering Services monitors all compliments/complaints against ethnicity and carries out regular customer surveys. Additionally, in outgoing sponsorship arrangements, the ethnicity of the recipients of MPS sponsorship is monitored.

22. In Territorial Policing (TP), repeat victimisation will be monitored through the MPS’ Hate Crime Policy. The focus, at present, is on the ethnicity of victims and suspects of repeat burglary offences. In case disposal activity, the first monitoring exercise report is due by April 2006. Ethnicity is also monitored in; authorisations for video and other identification procedures, overt filming and photography (where Borough Intelligence Unit’s records will be sampled to identify any disproportionality), in harassment and stalking cases and in the management & execution of arrest warrants. In the latter, the Operation Emerald Warrant Management System (EWMS) has undergone a recent software change, allowing for the Ethnicity Code of the subject to be entered.

23. Monitoring of the MPS Crime reporting system (CRIS) will include close scrutiny of victims from different racial groups. In addition, each MPS custody suite will complete a template on a given date each month from January 2006 for 10 months. The data captured will include information on how the detainee was dealt with, including risk assessment, special needs and their ethnicity.

24. Other examples of monitoring within TP involve both the Victims Charter/ Victims Code of Practice, results of which are produced by the Home Office, and the Witness Management System (WMS) which will be fully rolled out in the MPS in March 2006 and which, it is planned, will allow the capture of information on a wider range of equalities criteria.

25. The performance of Safer Neighbourhood Teams will be capable of being monitored across all these TP activities.

26. Equalities monitoring by the Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) information in relation to public complaints is captured from form 3352, which is completed when a complaint is reported. The monitoring information is taken from section 1 of the form (Details of Complainant) under the headings of Gender; Date of Birth (Age), and Self Defined Ethnicity Code.

27. Data is monitored through DPS’ Performance Analysis Unit (PAU), which in turn informs the Strategic Assessment for the Directorate. The new DPS ‘Reception Desk’ (a response to the Morris Report) will be capturing equalities data beyond just satisfying statutory duties to include Age, Disability, Gender, Race or Ethnicity, Religion or Belief and Sexual Orientation.

28. DPS intend supply to complainants with an equal opportunities monitoring form. No such MPS corporate form exists at this time and any design work will include consultation with the Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate (DCFD). Once captured, this information will be collated, analysed and fed into the Prevention and Organisational Learning Command to be applied appropriately. Progress in this scheme is itself being monitored through use of the Diversity Excellence Model by DPS.

29. In terms of service delivery, Central Operations (CO) Directorate monitors activity conducted by CO19’s Armed Response Vehicle (ARV) crews, when fulfilling requests to attend Schools and community groups to explain tactics, selection and training procedures. Monitoring criteria includes age profile and ethnicity of groups involved. In a similar vein, this level of monitoring also covers those external groups who visit the unit’s training centre.

30. Territorial Support Group (CO20 TSG) also monitors presentations that its personnel provide to community groups to explain the work of the TSG as well as any bespoke inputs given to particular groups/geographical areas where TSG officers are operating, to explain tactics and facilitate accountability for impact. This work is also monitored for age profile and ethnicity.

31. Serious Crime Directorate (SCD) impact assess and monitor a number of service delivery and engagement based policies. This process encompasses all six diversity strands. The policies involved include:

  • Interview of Significant (or Key) Witnesses
  • Work Related Deaths – A Protocol for Liaison
  • Dealing with Threats to Life
  • Vulnerable & Intimidated Witnesses
  • Safeguarding Children and Child Abuse Investigation in the MPS
  • The use of HOLMES within the MPS
  • The use of DNA
  • Fingerprint Evidence in Criminal Investigations
  • Covert Operational Security Policy
  • Forensic Submissions

32. At individual Borough Operational Command Unit (BOCU) level, monitoring takes a number of forms, dependent on need. For example, Haringey Borough monitors interpreter and ‘Language Line’ usage by nationality. This supports a partnership approach between the MPS and Haringey Primary Care Trust and local authority, which is researching cross agency translation service provision.

The Met-Modernisation Programme

33. The Hounslow ‘Health-check’ project sees the BOCU monitoring a wide range of its service delivery functions and outputs against a range of equalities criteria and using the information to set targets for improved performance. This is a new initiative and requires time to bed in to fully demonstrate its effectiveness.

34. The Met-Modernisation Programme is key to the future of the organisation and is at an early stage of implementation. Currently, activity is being progressed to impact assess, across all six strands, each key element of the programme, as set out below.

  • Safer Neighbourhoods
  • Workforce Modernisation
  • Information Quality
  • Intelligence
  • Together
  • Citizen Focus: Improving Engagement Strand
  • Citizen Focus: DPS Reception Desk
  • Efficiency
  • Performance
  • Investigating crime & dealing with offenders: Beacon Project
  • Investigating crime & dealing with offenders: Civilian Case Builders/ Investigators
  • Investigating crime & dealing with offenders: Centralised Tape Summary Units
  • Investigating crime & dealing with offenders: Borough Based Custody Centres
  • Investigating crime & dealing with offenders: Central Crime Recording Bureau
  • Investigating crime & dealing with offenders: TP CMU
  • Investigating crime & dealing with offenders: Victim Focus Desks
  • TP Modernising Operations
  • C3I/Airwave
  • Service Centres
  • Counter Terrorism, Security & Protection
  • Serious & organised crime: Covert Policing
  • Serious & organised crime: Organised Criminal networks
  • Capital city policing
  • Public Protection

35. Each of these elements will need to be analysed in respect of identifying the opportunities to include monitoring arrangements around employment, service delivery and community engagement, to address any potential or real disproportionality.

MPS Corporate Position

36. At present, it can be seen that the level and scope of monitoring is somewhat inconsistent when viewed across the MPS as a whole. The organisation does not yet have in place a mechanism or framework that drives, on a structured basis, data-capture and analysis in respect of all six legally definable diversity strands and in a single technological approach. Much of the current effort is directed towards acquiring information based on race or ethnicity, in line with the 16 + 1 Office for National Statistics (ONS) Framework. A key driver for this activity is the requirement to produce data under s95 Criminal Justice Act 1991.

37. The use of the 16 + 1 framework is a subject of some debate and activity. Discussions are being had around the expansion of the contents of the framework to allow for the capture of data on more specific ethnicity criteria (e.g. the inclusion of Arabic as an origin criteria) and to increase its scope (e.g. at present, Gypsy and/or Traveller, as a criterion, is not included). This work is being progressed in response to a recommendation in AC Ghaffur’s recent report and will need to take account of other drivers at the national level e.g. ACPO, the Home Office, and the ONS.
38. Generally, age and gender data is also secured, but non-visible diversity, such as sexual orientation and religion is not routinely obtained across all functions, because, as yet, there is no corporate system or agreed approach that allows the information to be used, for example, to direct resources, services or engagement where analysis could demonstrate gaps in provision etc.

39. Where data is captured and its confidentiality is critical, any breaches of trust will fall within the constraints of the Data Protection Act 1984 and also the organisation’s professional codes of conduct. Individual members of staff who fail to comply with these procedures will be dealt with under criminal legislation where the acts amount to crime. Of course, the MPS must also establish systems and programmes to manage data in a way that gains the trust and confidence of those who supply, or who are compelled to provide, information.

The way forward

40. However, this position will change now that the new MPS Race and Diversity Strategy 2006-9 has been approved by the MPA. Implementing the Strategy will lead to the adoption, across the MPS, of the Equality Standards for Local Government (ESLG). These standards drive corporate as well as local Operational Command Unit (OCU) activity in four areas; Leadership, Service Delivery, Employment and Training, and Community Consultation and Engagement. In turn, the Standards have five levels of achievement and encompass all six identified diversity strands.

41. To reach a specified level of the Standards will require evidence of action, much of which can only be obtained through monitoring and data capture. Therefore, in order to progress against the Standards, monitoring will be required and in order to improve performance in all areas, in respect of all equality criteria, the results of such monitoring will need to identify any inequality, inactivity or best practice, so that the organisation can move forward corporately.

42. For this to be successful will require true corporate commitment, strategic level ownership of the whole approach, and the capacity to measure, monitor, analyse and manage equality information effectively.

43. Monitoring in this way will assist the MPS to tackle discrimination; implement key strategic directives appropriately, critically assess service delivery and the level of community engagement and also help in benchmarking with other public sector agencies and partners in London. The information, as long as it is captured in an accurate and timely fashion, which is planned within the approach to the Standards, will also allow for the focus of monitoring to be on equality of opportunity for its people, as well as on the equality of outputs and outcomes for those receiving services and engagement.

44. This is required because only a holistic approach to the use of information will allow the MPS to achieve higher levels of the Equality Standards and be likely to convince any sceptics, either inside or outside the organisation, who might be unwilling to provide information, of the importance of doing so.

Quality assurance

45. Until the Standards are in place and embedded, and the MPS ensures it has in place the capability to analyse any monitoring data it captures as a result, the organisation is at some risk in terms of not being readily able to show that all of its services are delivered on a totally equitable basis.

Equality Impact Assessment

46. Not withstanding any new drive to capture and monitor equalities based information, that which is captured must be of value and capable of improving MPS performance. Merely recording information across all six diversity strands will not, it is suggested, add value to the process or increase the level of trust and confidence that Londoners have in the MPS.

Information Technology Systems

47. Currently, the Quality Assurance (QA) of any service delivery and engagement data and / or data capture processes relies on locally conducted audit. When the new Equality Standards based monitoring is embedded at both local and corporate level, it is envisaged that QA will be conducted remotely by DCFD staff, augmented by ‘on the ground’ activity conducted by a team of ‘Impact Consultants’.

48. In 2004, within the work carried out to comply with the Race Relations (Amendment) Act, all MPS corporate policies were assessed for their impact on each of the six diversity strands. This was as robust a process as was possible at the time, given that, for example, specific and general duties for Disability Equality have only just been published (January 2006). Each of these assessments, after wide consultation, was published on the MPS Internet site. Monitoring and the outcomes of monitoring of these assessments also appear alongside the majority of the policies, any gaps are work in progress. For the MPS’ Single Equality Scheme, these policies will need to be revisited and, in some cases, re-assessed. A new corporate Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) template is currently being devised to assist in this process.

49. The MPS’ IT systems do not all consistently allow for the capture of equalities monitoring data. ES@T, the internet based software programme that drives ESLG activity and which is undergoing assessment within the MPS for its suitability, would, it is suggested, provide an opportunity to conduct monitoring in a more consistent fashion. This is one of the factors being considered when deciding whether to progress the purchase of a licence to use it. Other IT changes, as they take place in the delivery of the Met-Modernisation Programme, will also be analysed for their monitoring potential. For example, the centralisation of the MPS intelligence capability, affords opportunities in relation to CRIMINT, the electronic intelligence system, protocols.

Community engagement

50. Formal community engagement takes place, mainly, at two distinct levels; i.e. at the corporate level with pan-MPS independent Advisory Groups (IAGs) and locally, through Borough facilitated IAGs. There is no consistent framework in place to drive monitoring of these groups, although DCFD staff are currently devising a set of protocols in respect of IAG selection and membership.

51. The independence of IAGs precludes, to some extent, the use of monitoring information. This is because to a large extent they run their own affairs. However, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) pan-MPS IAG has conducted cultural monitoring in order to determine how representative they are of their communities. This took place too recently to be able to report any outcome.

52. In another example, Gypsy Traveller Advisory Group (GTAG) members decided that only Romany Gypsies and Irish Travellers, the two racial groups covered by the Race Relations legislation, could be full members of the forum. Other people are free to attend meetings but cannot vote on key matters. The religion / belief of members is not monitored as this is not considered to be an issue for them, but by design, both men and women are represented.

53. In order to be able to map the geographic location of specific communities, each BOCU relies on demographic data held and maintained by their respective local authorities, much of this obtained from census data. At the corporate level, some tentative contacts have been forged between the DCFD and the GLA’s Data Management and Analysis Unit, in respect of London-wide information about, for example, community age profiles, ethnicity and gender based data.

54. The DCFD Diamond Support Group actively monitors the diversity of those who sign up to the Police Message Broadcast System (PMBS). The process covers age, gender, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation and disability, as well a range of other lifestyle criteria. This allows tailored messages to be sent to discrete sections of the community and for the MPS to try and ensure that as many facets of London’s communities have the opportunity to give and receive information.

Specific monitoring of religious belief

55. The introduction of the Equality Standards, coupled with the publication of the MPS’ Equalities Scheme, will result in an increased focus and level of activity across the six diversity strands including religious belief / faith (as well taking account of those people who would cite none as their answer to this question). In order to devise action plans to achieve higher performance, monitoring will be essential.

56. As is stated above, requesting this information can be highly emotive and the requirement will need to be seen by the respondent to be justified, relevant, and where appropriate treated and handled confidentially. Further, once the MPS has captured such information it must use it, and be seen to be using it to improve services and the level of community engagement.

57. For example, in stop and search events, to require from people information about their religion / belief, would add another tier of bureaucracy to a process which may well need to be made more complex after any revision of the 16 + 1 framework. However, in custody situations, such information will be vital in ensuring appropriate food, prayer and observance issues are acknowledged (e.g. fasting during Ramadan may affect the validity of interview evidence used in respect of a Muslim suspect). Victims of crime may require support from a religious perspective and the nature of any seemingly minor crime, coupled with information about the victim’s faith, may raise the classification of the event to hate crime.

58. The Diamond Support Group arrangements mentioned above are specifically monitored in this area. This provides the MPS with a consultation mechanism in respect of particular religions or for multi-faith issues.

Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR)

59. The MPS is committed to meeting the challenges that are likely as a result of the legislation proposed in the Equalities Bill, as well as any scrutiny or directives issued by the CEHR once it is formed. The organisation’s decision to progress a single, unified Equalities Scheme is testimony to this commitment. This work, primarily driven by the obligations in respect of meeting the disability equality duty will see explicit action plans being devised for all six diversity areas with the flexibility to encompass, in the future, other areas such as poverty and homelessness. The Scheme must not become an indistinct amalgam of action and as a result each diversity area will be clearly identifiable within the Scheme.

60. The launch of the MPS Race and Diversity Strategy 2006-9, which the Equalities Scheme will supersede, sets out the organisation’s position in respect of any hierarchy of difference. At present, because of a number of factors, there is enhanced activity in relation to achieving race equality. It is envisaged that the level of activity driving this enhanced status will, in time, be applicable to all diversity strands.

List of abbreviations

ACPO
Association of Chief Police Officers
ARV
Armed Response Vehicle
BOCU
Borough Operational Command Unit
CEHR
Commission for Equality and Human Rights
CO
Central Operations
CRIMINT
Criminal Intelligence System
CRIS
Crime Recording Information System
DCFD
Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate
DNA
Deoxy Ribonucleic Acid
DOI
Directorate of Information
DOR
Directorate of Resources
DPS
Directorate of Professional Services
EIA
Equality Impact Assessment
ES@T
Electronic Self-Assessment Tool
ESLG
Equality Standards for Local Government
EWMS
Emerald Warrant Management System
GTAG
Gypsy / Travellers Advisory Group
HOLMES
Home Office Large Major Enquiry System
HO
Home Office
HR
Human Resources
IAG
Independent Advisory Group
LGBT
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender
MetHR
Metropolitan Police Service Human Resources database
MPA
Metropolitan Police Authority
MPS
Metropolitan Police Service
ONS
Office for National Statistics
PAU
Performance Analysis Unit
PMBS
Police Message Broadcast System
QA
Quality Assurance
SCD
Serious Crime Directorate
SME
Small Medium Enterprise
SO
Specialist Operations
TP 
Territorial Policing
TSG
Territorial Support Group
WMS
Witness Management System

C. Race and equality impact

Equality and diversity is the subject of this report. A coherent strategy is a cornerstone of the MPS Race and Diversity Agenda. The strategy sets out that the organisation will implement the Equality Standards for Local Government, which drives activity across six diversity strands. Improving the MPS’ performance will require more consistent and rigorous monitoring than takes place at present. Only by demonstrating that we can capture such data meaningfully, confidentially where relevant and that we use the information pro-actively to enhance our services, we will gain the respect of Londoners.

D. Financial implications

The financial implications lie mainly in the cost of changes to existing MPS IT systems or the implementation of additional programmes. For example, it has been calculated that to make the changes to the systems and documentation that employ the 16 + 1 ethnicity framework, will cost approximately £50,000 per programme. This does not include any re-training of staff costs. Some work on monitoring in existing IT systems could be completed when changes are made to implement the Met-Modernisation Programme. The licence for the ES@T programme referred to, will costs in the region of £5000 per annum. Training costs have been estimated at a one off payment of £6000 for 100 OCU based operators.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author: Kevin Bowsher, DCC4, Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate, MPS

For more information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback