Monitoring for equality – concurrent report

Report: 06b
Date: 6 April 2006
By: Chief Executive and Clerk

Summary

The purpose of this paper is to outline some of the key opportunities, challenges and concerns from a range of equality and diversity perspectives as it relates to monitoring for equality within the MPS.

A. Recommendations

That members agree:

1. To review the progress made in monitoring for equality across the six diversity strands in the next committee cycle.
2. To request that the MPS submit a paper at the next EODB, which corporately outlines the key strategies to be employed to address responses of ‘Not Known’ or ‘Blank’ as and when they appear in data collection.
3. To consider the position in relation to faith monitoring in service delivery and community engagement.

B. Supporting information

Background

1. Equality monitoring is an integral part of successfully assessing whether both the MPA and MPS are meeting their statutory duties under various equalities legislation, including (but not limited to) the Race Relations (Amendment) Act (2000) and the Disability Discrimination Act (1995). In addition, both the MPA and the MPS have committed themselves to the ‘gold standard’ in policy and monitoring development – that is, not merely to comply with existing legislation, but to aspire to best practice.

2. Since the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, the MPS has made significant progress in equality monitoring. This has included developing strategies for data collection, which have been underpinned by policies, procedures and practices.

3. The purpose of this paper is to respond to the issues raised in the ‘Monitoring For Equality: The Information We Capture About You And Why’ and to highlight the key opportunities and challenges faced by the MPS in identifying, capturing, analysing and monitoring equalities data.
Data Collection & Quality Assurance.

4. Data collection is varied across the MPS. In terms of employment, data is collected across the six equality strands of age, belief/non-belief, disability, gender, race and sexual orientation.

5. In terms of service delivery and community engagement, data collection across the six equality strands varies according to factors such as the nature of service provided and IT provision.

6. Given the size and various functions undertaken by the MPS in terms of service delivery, there should be an aim for consistency of approach in terms of data collection across the equality strands. Allied to this consistency of approach should be a clear rationale as to why data is being collected by the specified strands. Carrying out an equality impact assessment can assist in this regard.

7. Equally important to collecting data is ensuring that any data collected is accurate. Quality assurance and the timeliness in rigorously verifying the data are critical to assisting service improvements.

8. In terms of quality assurance, there is a trend emerging across a number of service areas of increasing numbers of ‘Not Known’, ‘Not recorded’ and ‘Blanks’ especially in relation to gathering data by ethnicity. For example, in the data gathered by DPS in relation to public complaints/allegations across a police family group between November 2004 and October 2005, the ethnicity of the complainant in a total of 3791 complaints/allegations was ‘unknown’ in 33% (1258) of cases. This was coupled with the ethnicity and gender of the officer receiving complaints/allegations (total 5912) also averaging 21% being ‘unknown’ (1269 – ethnicity; 1252 – gender). In a different family group, for the year February 2005 to January 2006, in a total of 3887 complaints, details of the complainants’ ethnicity and age was ‘unknown’ by 36% (1415) and 34% (1333) respectively. In terms of the officers complained against, their ethnicity, age and their length of service were unknown in 24% of cases (PSCC, 9 March 2006).

9. This situation is not unique to DPS. The Transport OCU have also identified that in terms of their stops and searches just over 20% of their total encounters are either ‘Not recorded’ or ‘blank’ in relation to ethnicity monitoring (EODB, 6 April 2006).

10. Having such relatively high figures of ‘unknowns’ can skewer data, particularly in relation to performance management. It is proposed that a paper is submitted to the next EODB, which provides an overview of the scale of this issue, the barriers and how this will be tackled.

Trust and confidence

11. Maintaining staff and public confidence in any data gathered and stored is a cornerstone of effective equalities monitoring. Engaging staff in the development of any data collection processes can go considerably towards allaying suspicions and raising trust and confidence.

12. The development of the Cultural & Communities Resources database is an example of how, through engaging with staff and staff associations, data can be gathered, developed and maintained securely. Through this database the MPS is able to identify and utilise the skills, knowledge and experiences of police officers and staff, such as, for example, language skills. These skills can be used in circumstances, which assist the business, as for example, in the aftermath of 7/7 and 21/7.

Disclosure

13. Whilst it is important to maintain public and staff confidence with any physical systems that are devised, it is as important that once information is disclosed, it is only disclosed and remains the purview of those to whom it is entitled and not ‘leaked’ or circulated to other parts of the organisation – or indeed, outside of the organisation. Inappropriate disclosure of confidential information erodes trust and confidence in an organisation. The speed with which and the effectiveness of the interventions made by the MPS in such situations can lead to increased confidence in monitoring systems.

Monitoring and performance

14. One of the main aims of gathering data is to assess and improve performance, particularly between different equality groups if there is a negative differential. For example, measuring satisfaction levels between different equality groups is a vital way of examining whether services are meeting needs. Some of the major change initiatives being undertaken by the MPS including the Modernisation Programme, Together and Safer Neighbourhoods will need to monitor across all equality strands in order to ensure that they are as effective as intended – and that there is no significant disparity between people from different equality groups as a result of their identity.

15. There are other barriers to effective monitoring such as IT provision; not explaining the rationale for why the data is required; lack of confidence in maintaining anonymity (where required) and lack of perceived or actual connection between the data gathered and monitored and improvements to the service.

16. Currently, the MPA’s Race & Diversity Unit and the MPS’ Diversity & Citizen-Focus Directorate are exploring ways in which the process led by the Greater London Authority (GLA) in terms of budget and equalities monitoring can be best harnessed and utilised within both organisations to demonstrate the relationship between business objectives, diversity objectives, resources, outputs and outcomes.

17. However, one of the major barriers to the monitoring process is attitudinal: there has to be demonstrable evidence of learning in relation to the monitoring. Staff and the public have to see a connection between the data gathered and analysed and improvements in service and performance. If this is not clearly shown, then resistance towards data collection and analysis may intensify.

Faith monitoring in service delivery

18. On 19 May 2005, members considered the question of faith/non-belief as the themed discussion. At the end of the lively debate, members agreed that for the time being, the question of monitoring faith in service delivery would be deferred.

19. Since May 2005, a number of events has occurred which has brought this question back to the fore, including the events of 7/7 and 21/7, the rise in the use of stop and search as a counter-terrorism measure and how this has impacted on specific communities, the development of a joint MPA-MPS community engagement strategy, the soon-to-arrive MPS Race & Diversity Strategy and the rolling out of Safer Neighbourhoods.

20. Appendix 1 of this report contains the report that members considered in May 2005. Whilst it has been agreed that an on-going debate is currently taking place with community members’ view of faith monitoring in relation to stop and search, there is a need to consider whether it is now appropriate to monitor faith in other areas of service delivery and community engagement – for example, around the composition of community panels such as those operating in and around Safer Neighbourhoods, Crime & Disorder and Community Safety Boards. Members could request a paper, which sets out some of the possible options and resource implications for considering faith monitoring in specific areas of service delivery and community engagement. It is proposed that this paper includes the results of the MPS wide census of faith within the service, which was planned for July 2005, using the MetHR system.

C. Race and equality impact

The implications for not monitoring for equality monitoring are considerable: not only does it mean that the MPA and MPS are not complying with existing legislation, both organisations leave themselves open to a legal challenge. Moreover, some of the key performance targets that have been set for the MPS cannot be properly assessed without this data being collated, analysed and monitored.

D. Financial implications

There are no direct budgetary requirements arising from this paper; however, any review of specific service delivery areas for possible faith monitoring will attract an opportunity cost for MPA officers.

E. Background papers

• Faith Monitoring – EODB: 19 May 2005

F. Contact details

Report author: Laurence Gouldbourne, MPA

For more information contact:

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

Appendix 1

Report presented to the Equal Opportunities and Diversity Board on 19 May 2005 - Religion and belief equality and the Metropolitan Police Service

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback