Archived decisions

AT A MEETING OF THE PERFORMANCE PANEL of the POLICE AUTHORITY held in the first floor Conference Room, Westgate Chambers, Staple Gardens, Winchester on Friday 27 June 2003.

PRESENT:

Councillor Mrs. J. Rayment (Chairman); Mrs. R. Atkinson; Councillor Mrs. M. Snaith; Mr. G. M. King JP; Councillor P. Mason.

Also present: Mr. I. R. Readhead (Deputy Chief Constable); Mr. M. Coombes (Director of Finance); Chief Superintendent Giles Stogdon (Corporate Services); Insp. B. Gravenor (Corporate Services); Mr. R. Hawkins (Corporate Services); Mr. R. Burt (Force Crime Registrar); Mr. G. Ford (Corporate Services); Mr. M. Catlow (Audit Commission); Ms C Smith (Audit Commission); Mr. E. Knudsen (Treasurer's Office); Mr. J. Pattison (on behalf of the Clerk's office); Ms. S. Jackson; Ms. C. Vagg; Mrs. A. Holtby (Clerk's office).

111 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest.

112 APOLOGIES

Apologies were received from Councillor P. Heath and Mr R. Palmer.

113 MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 18 March 2003 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Members noted that the new Best Value Planning Process (Minute 110) had been presented to the Authority at its Annual Meeting on 10 June 2003 and not 11 June 2003 as stated in the minutes.

114 CRIME DATA QUALITY AUDIT REPORT: APRIL 2003

The Panel considered a report of the Chief Constable (Item 4 in the Minute Book) on the first of a programme of Crime Data Quality Audit Reports under new auditing arrangements led by the Police Standards Unit of the Home Office.

The Deputy Chief Constable introduced to the Panel, Mark Catlow the External Audit Manager, who had been appointed by the Audit Commission to conduct the review on behalf of the Police Standards Unit. The Deputy Chief Constable informed the Panel that the Constabulary were grateful to the Audit Commission for their work in conducting the review and were concerned about the serious issues raised.

Mr Catlow provided the Panel with a presentation which provided a summary of findings and key areas for improvement. A traffic light system had been developed to grade performance levels: green, amber and red, with red indicating areas with serious problems to be resolved. The Force had been awarded an overall red rating.

The review highlighted the following areas with serious problems:

      · Force-wide results for crime records

      · Results for the crime records identified 8 Basic Command Units (BCU's) with serious problems in closing incidents without a closing code.

      · Force management arrangements

      · Authority management arrangements

      The following areas were highlighted for improvement:

      · No uniform method of recording - a mixture of systems used impacted on the result

      · Lack of victim orientated approach

      · Level of supervision

      · Lack of audit trail - difficulty in tracking incidents to the crime committed

    There were 9 areas within the management arrangements which caused

    serious concern

      · Accountability and leadership - inconsistent supervision

      · Policy and administration - lack of staff awareness

      · Staff training, knowledge and awareness - lack of comprehensive training

      · Resourcing - variable particularly at crime desks

      · Systems for incident and crime recording - IT systems do not meet the NCRS requirements or comply with audit standards

      · Process for crime recording - inconsistent IT systems

      · Auditing arrangements, scrutiny and integrity

      · Quality of service - no coordinated approach

      · Police Authority role - minimal in terms of monitoring

    Following the review there were 7 key issues for improvement:

      · Management - take a more proactive role in driving the NCRS agenda and ensuring compliance with this national requirement

      · Training and awareness - ensure greater understanding and awareness of the requirements and issues surrounding the NCRS

      · Victim-oriented policing - victim-oriented crime recording must be fostered

      · Culture - a culture of compliance with NCRS should be created

      · Systems - ensure project Oberon facilitates NCRS recording and compliance

      · Resourcing - the implementation of NCRS needs to be properly resourced

      · User feedback - seek user feedback to ensure incidents reported are properly handled

      Mark Catlow informed the Panel that he was impressed with the Force's response to the findings and endorsed the Action Plan put in place. He added that he would be revisiting these issues at a later date and presenting his comments in his annual audit letter to the Financial Affairs Panel in October 2003.

      Members welcomed the Audit Commission inspection and noted the Force's Action Plan. They recognised that Andover Division had performed well in the assessment but that other areas had serious cause for concern. Members referred to the Force NCRS Working Group and expressed concern that both Assistant Chief Constables Specialist Operations (SO) and Territorial Operations (TO) were responsible for the Working Group. Although Members recognised that they would both share the responsibility to drive through the solutions it was felt that one ACC should take ultimate responsibility. The Deputy Chief Constable informed the Members that this was an issue for the Chief Constable and he would report back to the Panel.

      Members expressed concern that although the Working Group had met once, the targets for the action plan were not running to the timescale. Further concerns were targeted at the regularity for reporting back results to the Police Authority. It was agreed that there would be a monthly update to the Chairman and subsequent reports to each Performance Panel meeting. Members supported the idea that the Police Authority Members linked to the Divisional Commanders would be able to provide the Panel with a strategic overview of the whole of the two counties. This approach was also endorsed by the Audit Commission to strengthen the Authority's monitoring role.

      Members commented that too many acronyms had been used and welcomed the addition of a glossary with subsequent reports.

      RESOLVED:

      (a) That the Action Plan be endorsed.

      (b) That monthly monitoring reports on the progress of the Action Plan be provided to the Chairman and at each meeting of the Panel.

      (c) That the Chairman of the Panel be appointed to the Force NCRS Working Group.

      (d) That those Police Authority Members linked to Basic Command Units should monitor the progress of the Action Plan with their respective Divisional Commanders.

115 EFFICIENCY PLAN MONITORING STATEMENT 2002/03

The Panel considered a report of the Chief Constable (Item 5 in the Minute Book) on the March monitoring statement for the 2002/03 Efficiency Plan.

The Director of Finance informed the Panel that the Plan had still to be inspected by Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary (HMIC). Members were pleased to note that efficiency savings of £7 million had been achieved against a target of £4.5 million. The Director of Finance commented that since this report had been issued, the Audit Commission had indicated its satisfaction with the efficiency savings and subject to the HMIC viewing performance favourably, the Force could expect an A grade rating.

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.

116 BEST VALUE QUARTERLY MONITORING REPORTS

The Panel considered a report of the Chief Constable and the Clerk (Item 6 in the Minute Book) detailing fourth quarter monitoring reports of the following reviews:

      · Cleaning Services

      · Crime Intelligence

      · Lost and Seized Property

      · Crime Prevention and Reduction and Other Community Involvement

      · Custody

      · ACPO

      · Information Technology, Management and Systems

      · Call Management


      Members were pleased with the speed of the Best Value Review process, however commented that with regard to the EFQM (European Foundation for Quality Management) they had not received assessments following the force wide rollout which were due in March 2003. Chief Superintendent Stogdon informed the Panel that this was an error which should not have been included in the report and that only some departments rather than the Force as a whole will undertake this initiative.

      The Chairman commented that the Panel were receiving monitoring reports that were dated when presented to the meeting. It was agreed that if possible the future dates for Performance Panel should be changed. However, Members were mindful that it may be difficult to arrange revised dates which were convenient for the whole Panel at this late stage in the year.

      The Chairman was concerned that progress reports were often left too vague and requested that in future a timescale for action should be specified in the report and reasons given for non-compliance.

      RESOLVED:

      That the report be noted.

117 BEST VALUE SERVICE REVIEW SCRUTINY BOARD MEETINGS

      (a) Meeting held on 26 March 2003

      The Panel received a report of the Chairman (Item 7(a) in the Minute Book) on the meeting of the Service Review Scrutiny Board held on 26 March 2003.

      Members were informed that a new Head of Training had been appointed and the Deputy Chief Constable undertook to inform Members of the name of that person in due course.

      Members were concerned that the Scrutiny Board meeting had gone ahead without a Police Authority Member present. Whilst it was noted that there was nothing in the Terms of Reference to indicate that a Police Authority Member had to be present in order for the meeting to go ahead, it was agreed that in future the meeting should be cancelled if a Member was not in attendance.


      RESOLVED:

        (i) That the report on the Review of Training be noted.

        (ii) That the report on the Review of Personnel be noted.

        (iii) That the supplementary report on the Joint Review of Air Support be noted.

        (iv) That the supplementary report on the Review of Dealing with Incidents be noted.

        (v) That the progress of the Review of Criminal Justice be noted.

    (b) Meeting held on 23 May 2003

    The Panel received a report of the Chairman (Item 7 (b) in the Minute Book) on the meeting of the Service Review Scrutiny Board held on 23 May 2003.

    RESOLVED:

        (i) That the update report on the Review of Training be noted.

        (ii) That the update report on the Review of Personnel be noted.

        (iii) That the progress of the Review of Criminal Justice be noted.

        (iv) That the report on the Review of Firearms and Explosives Licensing be noted.

118 NEW BEST VALUE PROGRAMME

Inspector Gravenor provided an oral update on the proposals put forward for a new risk assessment approach to the Authority's Best Value Planning Process which had been approved by the Authority at its meeting on 10 June 2003.

He indicated that a consultation exercise had taken place with 71 questionnaires distributed of which 19 had been returned. The results thus far indicated that the top three areas for review were: Special Operations & Logistic Support, Specialist Crime Investigation & Forensic Support and Business & Property Services.

The Force was currently looking at issues such as finance/cost, performance and HMIC reports to determine which reviews are necessary. It was intended to have a new review programme available for discussion at the next Performance Panel. Arising from discussion on this matter, the Chairman indicated that the business considered by the Panel did not reflect its title and she asked that the Performance indicator information which was currently presented to the Authority on a quarterly basis should be presented to this Panel for detailed consideration in the first instance. Members agreed that the Panel should scrutinise sections of performance at each meeting provided that the relevant officer was able to attend.

4fM850603