Proposed scrutiny arrangements on performance management

Report: 13
Date: 12 June 2001
By: Clerk

Summary

The PSPM Committee has now acquired a skill and experience in analysing the performance of reports provided by the MPS. It has had a number of reports across the whole range of performance issues and has, particularly in analysis of exceptions, pursued some topics in greater depth.

In the light of that experience, it is now proposed that the committee should extend its performance monitoring capacity by setting up a scrutiny process. This would enable a far more thorough and in depth analysis of specific performance issues to be conducted within the overall framework of the PSPM remit.

A. Recommendations

1. That Members approve the proposal to constitute a scrutiny committee to look in greater depth at individual areas of performance.
2. That Members agree that a detailed programme of work be presented to the July meeting of PSPM.

B. Supporting information

1. The PSPM routinely considers a monthly performance analysis report from the MPS covering all Annual Policing Plan and Best Value Performance Indicators. It has in addition commissioned specific reports on aspects of performance, including street crime, operation Strongbox, operation Trident and domestic burglary. Other committees scrutinise in some depth aspects of performance that fall within their remit. For example HR committee conducts a monthly analysis of recruitment and retention statistics while the CDO Committee has focused on stop and search, and has commissioned a report on the quality of the data from the MPA's analysis unit.

2. The Chairman, in discussion with Members and Officers, now feels that the time has come to constitute some aspects of the committees work differently, to allow for a wider consideration of the factors that underpin performance and initiatives that can be taken to improve performance against the targets set in the policing plan.

3. Drawing on examples of best practice from the modernisation programme adopted by local authorities, and the work done by parliamentary select committees, it is proposed that the committee should conduct up to three scrutinies a year. It would be for members to consider whether this should be done by the whole committee or whether a smaller group be formed to carry out the scrutinies. Other members with particular interests in the topic under scrutiny might be co-opted.

4. What we envisage is identifying two or three areas of real concern in terms of achieving performance to meet the priorities set by the Authority and to probe into the ways in which the MPS is approaching these. This would involve more than just analysis of statistical trends. Members would want to take evidence, both written and oral, from operational officers and from a wider circle of commentators, practitioners, experts, other agencies and, where relevant, international experience. This would not be a new kind of review, or yet another inspection or audit, or a competitor for best value; rather it would complement work that is already ongoing and allow the Authority to reinforce the MPS's programmes. At the end of each scrutiny, a written report will be prepared and published.

5. Members would want to discuss, if the general approach is accepted, where effort might be best targeted in the first year. Provisional suggestions are:

• domestic violence – where the Authority could, through its examination of current practice, explore useful links with the Mayor's strategy as well as with initiatives being taken more generally outside London;
• street crime - where there are a number of initiatives that can be pulled together where scrutiny of performance and tactics could help to focus effort (although there has been a fair amount of attention paid to this topic recently);
• vehicle crime – where the MPS's performance on current trends indicates that the government's national target of 30 per cent percentage decrease in vehicle crime over the five year period is unlikely to be achieved.

6. If Members approve this general approach, a more detailed programme will be prepared, taking into account comments from the MPS and timing implications of other reviews, including best value, to ensure maximum benefit from the scrutiny exercise. This will be decided at the next PSPM committee on 12th July and presented to the full Authority for approval at the subsequent full Authority meeting on 26 July 2001.

C. Financial implications

None immediately, though any fact-finding visits to Europe or further afield would need to be financed from within the MPA's budget.

D. Background papers

None.

E. Contact details

The author of this report is Catherine Crawford, Clerk, MPA.

For information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback