Proposed scrutiny arrangements on performance management

Report: 12
Date: 12 July 2001
By: Clerk

Summary

At the June PSPM meeting members agreed the constitution of a scrutiny committee to look in greater depth at individual areas of performance and that a programme of work be presented to the July PSPM meeting.

This paper recommends an initial scrutiny into MPS rape investigation and victim care and proposes a programme of work and timescales.

A. Recommendations

1. That Members approve the proposal for 'rape investigation and victim care' to be the first topic for performance scrutiny by the MPA.
2. That Members agree the proposed draft methodology and timescales.
3. That Members discuss the appointment of a project director and the membership for the scrutiny committee on rape investigation and victim care.

B. Supporting information

1. 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.

2. Following a paper to the June PSPM, the committee agreed that it 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.

3. It is envisaged that the scrutiny committee will consider two or three areas of performance in detail each year. Experience of scrutinises carried out by other organisations will be drawn upon, however, the exact nature of the scrutinises will evolve over time. It would be a useful start to the process to hold an initial workshop on scrutinises involving members with previous experience of scrutinises and also people with scrutiny experience from other organisations.

Some suitable topics for scrutiny were outlined in the June PSPM paper and some other topics have been considered in discussion with the MPS since June. Most of the topics were felt to not be suitable for a first scrutiny for the following reasons:

• Domestic violence
  this is currently subject to internal review and an in-depth project by outside consultants. The Mayor is also about to launch a domestic violence strategy that may impact on police procedures
• Street crime
  a very wide area to consider for a first review – the MPS has suggested focusing on youth offending and the effectiveness of the criminal justice system with dealing with youth offenders of street crime but this is also subject to current external review
• ASBOs (Anti-Social Behaviour Orders)
  a possible area for the future but not part of the Policing Plan priorities for this year
• Vehicle crime
  again not part of the Policing Plan priorities and a review could skew effort away from other priorities
• Child protection
  again a possible area for the future but, due to current public enquiries into this area, perhaps not suitable at this time

5. A subject identified as particularly suitable for scrutiny was rape, as this is a current Policing Plan priority. Rape is also an area where the MPS is having difficulty establishing victim satisfaction measures and where performance is currently well below target for judicial disposals. In addition, the MPS would welcome the MPA's input into this area of performance. The HMIC is also due to report on findings of a thematic inspection of rape in October and the recommendations from this thematic can be considered as part of the scrutiny.

6. A scrutiny of rape investigation and victim care would not directly cut across any Best Value review. Reviews of 'Bringing Offenders to Justice' and 'Crime Investigation' will have an impact on rape investigation, however these reviews will not focus in on rape specifically. There is due to be an efficiency and effectiveness review of forensic science next year and the findings of the scrutiny may well feed into this review.

7. It is suggested that the scrutiny committee concentrates on three main areas in the MPS' performance in the area of rape:

• investigation methods and success rates
• victim care
• consistency of service provided to victims across the MPS

8. The general approach to be taken would be the formation of a rape performance scrutiny committee. Prior to an initial meeting of the committee the MPA analytical team will gather all relevant MPS and comparative data and background papers. An initial meeting of the committee would then consider the information and set a detailed programme of work. Presentations and interviews would be carried out with MPS and external experts in the area of rape and victim care and visits would be made to the MPS as was felt appropriate. Initial thoughts are that expert views and experience would be sought from the following:

• victim support, particularly those dealing with rape victims in London and other areas
• other rape support agencies
• MPS rape investigating officers
• CPS representatives
• MPS experts in dealing with rape victims
• the centre manager from the Camberwell Rape Haven
• an HMIC representative dealing with the rape thematic inspection report
• expert officers from other police forces acknowledged as best practice in the area of rape investigation and victim care

9. A timetable would need to be agreed at the first meeting of the scrutiny committee, however, a draft timetable is provided below:

10. There will also be a need to programme in a decision on the next scrutiny topic, probably to be decided at the December PSPM meeting. In addition, the findings would need to detail any recommendations for change and timescales for review of the recommendations.

11. It is suggested that membership of the scrutiny committee be 6 members with at least 3 from PSPM. A lead member from PSPM would be appointed as project director. It is also suggested that a lead officer from the MPA be appointed as project manager.

C. Financial implications

None at present, but visits outside the MPS may need to be funded.

D. Background papers

None.

E. Contact details

The author of this report is Johanna Gillians, MPA Senior Analyst.

For information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback