HMIC baseline assessment and PPAF 2005

Report: 8b
Date: 06 December 2005
By: Chief Executive and Clerk

Summary

This report outlines the key issues arising out of the baseline assessment report issued by HMIC on 27th October 2005. It also highlights the results of the 2004/05 results of the Police Performance Assessment Framework (PPAF) published on the same day.

A. Recommendation

1. That the Authority considers the issues arising from the Baseline Assessment and PPAF results for 2004/05 and identifies any areas where it wishes the MPS to pay particular attention to improvement.
2. That members consider how they wish to be informed of the progress being made by the MPS on the issues identified by both assessments.

B. Supporting information

Baseline assessment

1. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) published their 2004/05 baseline assessment of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 27th October 2005. The report was circulated to all members at that time. Members have also had a separate briefing on the purpose and methodology of baseline assessment and PPAF.

2. The report provides Members with a summary of the key issues raised by the baseline assessment report.

3. The assessment is generally positive. The MPS received an assessment of ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ in half the categories. Only two areas were graded as ‘poor’. Importantly, the MPS was graded as ‘improving’ in twenty out of twenty one areas given a ‘direction of travel’ score. This makes the MPS the most improved force during 2004/05. Appendix 1 sets out the scores in full.

4. However, the assessment also indicates there is much to be done. The MPS was graded as ‘fair’ in ten areas and ‘customer service and accessibility has been given a ‘stable’ direction of travel. As noted above two categories – volume crime reduction and volume crime investigation received a “poor” rating. This is disappointing as it constitutes a significant part of MPS service delivery and is most peoples’ experience of crime and the police.

5. Baseline assessment is a more rounded assessment of performance, based on a review of key documentation and extensive interviewing of key personnel. However, throughout the report reference is made to poor performance against key indicators. It is clear that this has had a detrimental impact on the MPS’s gradings.

Citizen focus

6. The inspectors found that the MPS is in a good position to meet the government’s citizen focus agenda and that the introduction of safer neighbourhoods had provided a ‘stunning step change in delivery’. However, the fact remains that public satisfaction figures are comparatively low and the impact of these changes can be seen within these figures, the grading will remain low. It should be noted that the appointment of the DAC Citizen Focus happened after the on-site inspection. The report therefore doesn’t reflect some of the changes that have been made as a consequence of this appointment.

Reducing crime

7. The inspectors note that while crime levels are amongst the highest in the country, they are falling. The MPS receive a ‘good’ grading for their work to reduce hate crime and crimes against vulnerable victims. However the MPS is graded ‘poor’ for volume crime reduction as it will not meet its five year reduction targets and crime is not reducing as quickly in London as it is in the rest of the comparator group. The MPS is also penalised for its poor performance against NCRS. It should be noted that crime rates are a consequence of a wide range of factors many of which are outside the scope of influence of the MPS, therefore working in partnership is key. The MPS is graded ‘good’ for working with partners.

Investigating crime

8. There were some very positive assessments in this category. HMIC note that the MPS has a good reputation for investigating major and serious crime and makes an ‘impressive contribution to the regional drive to combat level 2 criminality’. Both areas receive a ‘excellent ‘ grading. Investigating hate crime is also considered ‘good’.

9. However, the investigation of volume crime is ‘poor’. The report identifies a number of reasons for this including low detection rates and NCRS compliance. The MPS has been addressing the NCRS issues since it failed the 2004 Audit Commission audit. Members should seek reassurance about the steps that are being taken to address poor detection rates on volume crime.

10. The inspectors found that forensic management and criminal justice processes were ‘fair’ but improving. The MPS could do more to exploit the opportunities available to it.

Promoting safety

11. The MPS were judged ‘fair’ in reassurance and reducing anti-social behaviour and promoting public safety. The introduction of safer neighbourhood teams and the extensive use of PCSOs were highlighted as positive developments. There is a need to develop models for measuring success in reducing anti-social behaviour. In order to receive a higher grading in the future, the MPS also needs to demonstrate it is reducing the fear of crime.

Providing assistance

12. The MPS deliver a ‘fair’ call management function that is improving with the implementation of the demand management best value review and C3i. There is a need to ensure that cultural change occurs as a consequence of C3i, an issue that Members raised with the MPS during the service review process.

13. Specialist support services are ‘good’ and roads policing is considered ‘excellent’.

Resource use

14. HR strategies and processes are improving and the MPS performance targets is good against key targets such as sickness and medical retirements. HR management is judged as ‘good’ and training and development is graded as ‘fair’. The inspectors highlighted a number of issues that require further development e.g. the management of overtime, fairness at work and the need to meet government targets on recruitment from BME communities. Inspectors found that race and diversity was ‘fair’. They recognise that the MPS has made significant progress but raised concerns including the lack of consistency across the organisation in the absence of an overarching strategy (although they recognise that a strategy is being developed) and the need to ensure supervisors have the confidence to deal with inappropriate behaviour.

15. Resource management was graded as ‘good’. Inspectors recognised the role played by the MPA in ensuring effective resource management. The inspectors identified areas of concern including the management of overtime and the use of police officers in non-operational roles. Both these areas were highlighted by the service review.

Leadership and direction

16. Leadership and strategic management are highlighted as strengths and are afforded ‘good’ gradings. However, the inspectors make clear that there are some real challenges ahead to ensure this delivers good performance outcomes.

17. The inspectors have recognised that the MPS has made improvements in the way it manages performance. The role of the MPA’s PPRC is also identified as a strength. However, this area has received a ‘fair’ grading in part due to the well known concerns about data quality, but also due to weaknesses in the inspection and accountability frameworks. Members should be aware that most of these issues are being addressed through the ‘modernising the met programme’.

PPAF

18. PPAF is intended to be an effective and fair way of measuring and comparing strategic performance in policing across the full range of policing responsibilities.

19. Forces and BOCUs performance is compared on a ‘most similar’ basis. Each force is placed in a group of its ‘most similar forces’ as determined by demographic, socio-economic and geographical factors strongly correlated with levels of recorded.

20. The MPS is compared with West Midlands, Greater Manchester, Merseyside and West Yorkshire. It must be remembered that the difference between the MPS and all other forces is such that no other force compares itself with the MPS.

21. There are a number of reasons for this that relate to the unique nature of London including:

• the national and international responsibilities of the MPS
• the large amount of tourism within London
• London being the centre of national government and the diplomatic service
• the rich diversity of the resident population of London
• the daily change in the London population caused by commuting.

It is important to ensure that this is taken into account when looking at the data.

22. The iQuanta system also allows the MPS to compare most similar BOCUs. Many BOCUs most similar groups are dominated by other London boroughs and so should allow BOCUs to identify weaknesses and to share good practice across the MPS.

23. The MPS delivery was graded as:

• GOOD - Providing Assistance, Resource Use and Local Policing;
• FAIR - Reducing Crime
• POOR - Investigating Crime, Promoting Safety and Citizen Focus.

24. Though the nature of London makes improvement in some of these areas more difficult there is a wide variation in performance across the MPS in different BOCUs.

25. The MPS failed its most recent NCRS audit. As a result of this the MPS was not given credit for some areas of improvement. The MPA has continued to emphasise that improvements must be made to data quality and an action plan has been developed to ensure that the next NCRS audit results will show improvement.

The way forward

26. The MPS needs to focus on areas of poor performance. A key area for this is around detections. Though detections are increasing, performance is still too low. It is also important that improvement is not achieved solely through non-sanction detections.

27. There are clearly discrepancies in performance across London. Borough exception reports are produced by both the MPA and the MPS. Good practice and poor performance identified through these reports should be fully utilised to enable the MPS to improve its overall performance.

28. The MPS now has a DAC with specific responsibility for Citizen Focus. It is important that this area of service delivery is given priority across the whole of the MPS. Improvements must be made to the way that victims of crime are dealt with. There are particular problems with the way that interactions with the public are followed up.

29. Additional work needs to be carried out to ensure that resources are effectively allocated to best meet the needs of policing in London and that future reductions in funding are planned for to minimise disruption of policing. For example, the end of the Safer Streets Initiative had a negative effect on street crime, even though funding of the initiative was known to be for a finite timescale.

30. The baseline report makes reference to the MPS being policy rich but implementation poor. Similar conclusions were drawn during the service review. Members will need to be reassured of the action being taken to address this culture of non-compliance. This may need to include an analysis of whether the policies are right in the first place.

31. Lastly, in order to ensure continuous improvement and that the issues highlighted by this assessment are addressed, Members should engage with the MPS to ensure that the policing plan for 2006/07 addresses deficiencies identified by the inspectors.

C. Race and equality impact

Race, diversity and equality are considered in detail in the baseline assessment. The report recognises the work done by the MPS to date, but identifies that there is more to be done particularly in ensuring consistency across the organisation. The report credits the approach taken by the MPS in dealing with hate crime. The performance information used in the report highlights lower satisfaction levels amongst BME communities with the service they receive from the police, but it should also be noted that in many cases the gap is smaller than in other forces.

D. Financial implications

The report raises a number of areas of concern that will need to be addressed. The MPS is currently developing an action plan to respond to these issues. This will need to include an assessment of the financial impact of implementing recommendations.

E. Background papers

• HMIC Baseline Inspection 2004/05 (distributed to Members at Full Authority on 27th October 2005)
• PPAF and Baseline Assessment 2004/05 – Briefing for Members

F. Contact details

Report author: Siobhan Coldwell, Head of Scrutiny and Review and Jane Owen, Head of Performance and Planning, MPA

For more information contact:

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

Appendix 1

Summary of PPAF rating 2004/05

Summary of HMIC Baseline Assessment Judgements 2005

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback