| Skip Navigation | Accessible | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Metropolitan PoliceAuthority |
Accessibility About MPA Contacts Search | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Home Committees News Partnerships Reports Issues Events Links Your Views | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Committees > MPA > 30 Mar 06 > Scrutiny programme 2006/07 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
QuickSearch |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Page summary This resource is from the Committees section. This is report 9 of the 30 March 2006 meeting of the MPA Committee and outlines a proposed scrutiny programme for 2006-7. Sections available here: Content Scrutiny programme 2006/07Report: 9 SummaryThis report outlines a proposed scrutiny programme for 2006-7. A. RecommendationThat
B. Supporting information1. The Peer Review of the MPA (carried out by the IDEA in January 2004) and the Audit Commission Initial Performance Assessment criticised the MPA for lacking a rationale for developing our scrutiny and review programme and for the balance we maintain between scrutiny and service improvement reviews. A framework for identifying areas for review was agreed by Corporate Governance Committee on 11 July 2005. 2. The MPA carries out scrutiny of MPS activity in a number of ways. This paper concentrates on the work of the scrutiny and review team. The scrutiny and review team is currently two FTE officers. We have a number of responsibilities including ensuring the MPA delivers its requirements under best value legislation, managing ‘set-piece’ scrutinies on behalf of Members, overseeing the MPS ‘Met Modernisation Programme’ and managing the MPA improvement programme on behalf of the MPA senior management team. 3. To date, the scrutiny and review team has delivered one ‘set piece’ scrutiny per year. However, the team is now up to strength and anticipates it can deliver at least two per year, which fits with Members’ objective to free up time through the review of the committee structures to conduct more scrutiny. 4. The scrutiny and review programme, encompassing MPA-led scrutinies and service improvement reviews needs to develop synergies with the internal audit process (and be clearly linked to the external audit and inspection process) so that it is part of a holistic process that drives radical shifts in delivery. A process has been established to ensure that this happens, as reported to Planning Performance and Review Committee on 13 February 2006. 5. The Authority has undertaken a number of scrutinies, since its inception. These have been effective when members wish to challenge the MPS approach to dealing with particular issues and when the review would benefit from significant involvement from communities and other key stakeholders. 6. Whilst it is important to ensure that evidential\ scrutiny focuses on areas where recommendations would be actionable by the MPS, there are benefits to using scrutiny to review areas where the solution to an issue cannot necessarily be delivered by the MPS alone, with the Authority playing in a key role in influencing others to accept the need for change. This can be developed further, as has been done with the mental health review, to undertake scrutiny jointly with other statutory agencies. A process that proved extremely successful. 7. The Authority is committed through its corporate strategy to undertake scrutinies of the following during 2005/06:
However, with the launch of the service review the MPA agreed to suspend its review programme until April 2006. Members are asked to confirm whether they believe these scrutinies remain valid in light of the service review and the subsequent Met Modernisation Programme. 8. The framework agreed by corporate governance committee in July 2005 aimed to articulate all MPS activity under broad headings used by the baseline assessment. This has been helpful to an extent but in developing a scrutiny and review programme, we need maintain some balance (i.e. avoiding overburdening the Authority and the Service). Therefore, the following filtering criteria should also be considered:
9. The baseline assessment of the MPS carried out in 2005 indicates that the following areas, having being rated poor or fair, could be considered for review:
10. There is substantial activity ongoing in many of these areas aimed at achieving improved quality of service (and therefore improved scores) in time for the next baseline assessment. Some of the areas above e.g. volume crime investigation, reassurance and reducing anti-social behaviour will be heavily influenced by changes brought about by the Met Modernisation Programme. Appendix 3 provides more detailed analysis. Given the filtering out criteria listed in paragraph 8, it may be considered premature to conduct any significant scrutiny activity into most of these areas. 11. Another approach could be to identify potential scrutiny areas in terms of crime types. This corresponds with the approach taken by Members in the past (e.g. rape, gun crime). The service review recommended the development of public protection units, which may cover child protection, rape, domestic violence, hate crime and mental health (many of which have already been subject to MPA scrutiny). One area that has had very little MPA scrutiny to date, and where it clear that there are opportunities for improvement is addressing drug crime. Reducing drug crime has been an MPA target for a number of years but is not currently included in the annual performance plan for 2006/07 (although this may change before the plan is finally agreed). Members have raised concerns about this in other fora. A report presented to PPR Committee in December 2005 and the subsequent discussion, indicated that there was a lack of internal co-ordination in the approach to addressing drug-related crime and that the strategic approach taken by the organisation is not as well developed as it could be. Furthermore, the MPS is part of a multi-agency response to reducing drug use through Drug and Alcohol Teams therefore an outward focused scrutiny approach would be an effective review methodology. 12. There are other areas of new activity that may warrant more detailed scrutiny by the MPA. These include ‘high tech’ crime capability and the developing approach to Organised Criminal Networks. Whilst is considerable work ongoing within the MPS particularly within SCD, it would be appropriate for the MPA to gain a better understanding of how these are developing and the resource and strategic implications this may have in due course. The establishment of the Serious and Organised Crime Agency in April 2006 will also need to be looked at in this context. 13. To date, the MPA has concentrated on undertaking comprehensive evidential scrutinies. We have developed other approaches to scrutiny in the last year, such as undertaking shorter, time-limited scrutinies, spread over one or two meetings (the gun crime ‘revisit’ for example). By using resources in this way, the MPA will be able to increase the level of scrutiny it is able to undertake. On this basis, it is recommended that the drugs scrutiny is a comprehensive evidential scrutiny and the investigation into ‘high tech’ crime and organised criminal networks are more focused. This will leave contingency to respond to any issues that arise during the course of 2006/07, addressing a concern that was raised by members of the corporate governance committee when they agreed the framework in July 2005. C. Race and equality impactThere are no direct race and equality implications from this report. However, the following points should be considered:
D. Financial implicationsThere are no direct financial implications to implementing this framework as the work will be undertaken as part of the Scrutiny and Review Unit annual work programme. Review activity can be resource intensive both for the MPA and the MPS, and within the MPA there are limited scrutiny resources available. It is therefore important that these resources are focused on areas where efficiency and or effectiveness gains can be maximised. E. Background papers
F. Contact detailsReport author: Siobhan Coldwell, Head of Scrutiny and Review, MPA For more information contact:
MPA general: 020 7202 0202 Appendix 1Scrutiny should:
They can be helpful when:
Appendix 2Summary of HMIC Baseline Assessment judgements 2005
Appendix 3Areas of weakness identified in baseline assessmentCitizen focus
Reducing crime
Investigating crime
Promoting safety
Providing assistance
Resource use
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Committees > MPA > 30 Mar 06 > Scrutiny programme 2006/07 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
© Copyright 2002-2009, Metropolitan Police Authority. | Terms & Conditions | Privacy | Freedom of Information |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||