Developing the Joint engagement meeting (JEM) process within the MPA

Report: 7
Date: 4 December 2008
By: the Chief Executive

Summary

This report outlines proposals for developing a Joint Engagement Meeting (JEM) process that allows problem solving between the Metropolitan Police Service, Local Authorities and partner agencies and the relevant support within the MPA.

The process is nearing the end of the pilot stage. There has been a positive response to date. Support has been provided within the MPA and MPS for the pilot phase but the next phase of the roll out will require continued resourcing from both within the MPA and the MPS.

A. Recommendation

That

1. members agree the draft model for the Joint Engagement Meeting (JEM) process;
2. agree a preferred timetable option for the programme; and
3. agree the resource implications for the MPA and MPS

B. Supporting information

Background

1. The Chair of the MPA has stated that he intends to implement a series of meetings that will facilitate joint problem solving work with Borough Commanders, Local Authorities, and partner agencies such as the British Transport Police, London Criminal Justice Board members and Transport for London on issues related to crime and public safety. The process is currently being piloted and initial JEMs have taken place with partners in Kensington and Chelsea and Croydon. The next JEM is planned for December with partners from Hackney. The first round of JEMs has focussed on Youth Violence and related issues.

2. The MPA, as scrutiny and oversight body for the MPS, has a crucial role to play in these meetings and, more importantly in ensuring that improvement work and best practice identified through the process is progressed with the MPS and its partner agencies.

3. The MPA Planning and Performance Unit is well placed to support the Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Police Authority with this process and to ensure that the work from JEMs is integrated into the performance oversight and improvement processes of the MPA and MPS. Resource implications are discussed in the document.

4. Key benefits

5. The JEMs process offers an opportunity for the MPA to better ensure that the MPS and its partners are meeting the needs of Londoners on both a local borough and London wide basis. The process will compliment the MPA-based oversight of the MPS through its current committee structures and through the developing MPA corporate strategy and planning of the emerging MET Forward strategy. Specifically, JEMs will be closely aligned with the following elements:

• MET Delivery - Focusing on improving the way the MPS delivers its services detailed in the policing plan so that the public feel more confident about the services they receive and about safety in the community they live and work.
•  MET Partnerships - Acknowledging that community safety is a shared responsibility with Local Authorities and others. The MPA wishes to see better shared ownership of local issues and better joint problem solving.
•  MET Streets – Understanding how safe people feel in their local area is a key factor in improving confidence and satisfaction in policing.

6. The MPA will also ensure that there is effective linkage into the MPS’s own current and developing performance oversight and improvement processes such as Crime Control Strategy Meetings (CCSM) and Borough Capability Reviews.

Process pilot phase

7. To date there have been two JEMs. The meetings were both held at the Transport for London Compstat room in Parnell House. The meetings were chaired by the Vice Chair of the MPA and attended by key officers and staff from the Borough Operational Command Unit (BOCU), the Local Authority and Territorial Policing (TPHQ), along with colleagues from partner agencies such as the British Transport Police and Transport for London.

8. The process is supported by staff within the MPA, MPS and GLA and covers the following areas:

9. Research and analysis is carried out prior to the meetings into the general socio-demographic background, overall crime rates, and into specific issues relating to youth crime and youth violence with the borough. The following table shows, from an MPA/MPS perspective, some of the key analysis and data sources:

Pilot phase support resource

10. To date the work has been carried out by utilising all of the current resources within the Planning and Performance Unit, i.e., the three analysts, head of unit and administrator, with one analyst working on the project for a majority of time. In addition there has been considerable support from the MPS, specifically a Chief Superintendent from within Territorial Policing, and central and borough analysts, along with the support of individual officers and staff from the BOCUs.

11. External to the MPS and MPA, there has been support from the GLA and from the London Criminal Justice Board. As with the MPA and MPS this has been accommodated by current staff resources for the pilot phase.

12. It is already apparent that the process offers considerable potential for wide-ranging service improvement across London. Examples of joint work identified include:

•  Additional work being carried out on the 'Kickz' programme in Croydon to incorporate rugby and basketball
•  Work to take place within a borough to encourage wardens and housing officers to support the Met Volunteers Scheme
•  Prospective joint engagement with the Wave Trust to assist with long-term preventative work
•  Develop new front counter services in the town centre
•  Making sure that there is effective BTP/MPS liaison on operations in and around underground stations, e.g. the use of knife arches.

13. To maximise the impact of the process there is a need for dedicated resources to identify and disseminate best practice and organisational learning identified through JEMs.

14. The pilot phase has been resourced from within current staffing levels but this is not feasible for the next phase (see roll-out resource requirements below).

15. Learning from JEMs and any related analysis or research should feed directly into the MPS CCSM process and into future tasking and planning within both the MPA and MPS.

16. Going forward, consideration should be given first to whether all boroughs should be included in each round of JEMs (see programme roll-out timetable below) or whether a risk based approach could be adopted in the longer term, depending on priority issues.

17. A review of attendees is also required to ensure that the most suitable staff and officers from all organisations attend the meetings. Some organisations may not need to send as many staff or officers and, over time, we may need to include other organisations in the process. The MPA link member for each borough should also be involved as a matter of course.

18. Though the meetings are closed, because of the restricted nature of some of the data and to allow a frank discussion between partners, it is important that outcomes from the meetings are communicated within all organisations that take part, to other boroughs and agencies and to the people of London. A strategy for communicating these outcomes must be developed.

19. Additional proposed regular work areas include:

Risks to the process

20. There is a momentum to go through full cycle of the process with each borough by 1 May 2009. The benefit of this approach is that all partners are included and early intervention in long standing issues could be achieved.

21. There are a number of risks attached to this objective:

•  By undertaking 32 JEMs in such a short period of time the process could become diluted and discredited, looking at issues that are not necessarily appropriate to the specific borough or missing details that are important. The process could and should be a powerful method of addressing specific crime and safety issues for London.
•  The MPS is unlikely to fully engage if it believes the process is too costly for the benefit derived.
•  Neither the MPA nor the GLA can compel Local Authorities to take part in the process. Ensuring the involvement of partner organisations will be severely problematic if the process is seen as being either overtly political or cursory in nature.

Programme roll-out timetable

22. The MPA needs to consider what options are available:

1.  Complete all boroughs by 1 May 2009 and then develop a rolling programme.
   Issues
   •  The JEMs are likely to be diluted which could damage the credibility of the process
   •  There would be a considerable staffing resource requirement
   •  It is unlikely that suitable dates will be found for all 32 boroughs, the relevant police and partner organisation staff and MPA members
2.  Carry out JEMs with boroughs identified through risk assessment and hold informal meetings with relevant senior staff for the remaining boroughs.
   Issues
   •  Some reduction in staff resource requirements
   •  Informal meetings with Borough Commanders and LA Chief Executives could be seen as less productive, making it difficult to bring in partners
   • Will not greatly reduce diary pressures
3.  Carry out full JEMs with boroughs identified through risk assessment and hold group JEMs for the remaining boroughs
   Issues
   •  Reduced number of meetings with group JEMs possibly based around 3 MPS link areas or other Local Authority regional designation
   •  Group meetings will require considerable organisation
   •  Opportunity to share good practice learned through the full JEMs
   •  Meetings between low-risk boroughs may not maximise benefits
   •  Risk of boroughs not being as open about problems and issues in a group meeting.
4.  Carry out full JEMs with boroughs identified through risk assessment as part of an ongoing roll out of the process, with other boroughs being drawn into the process over the next part of the cycle using different focus areas (e.g. burglary, satisfaction or general crime performance).
   Issues
   •  Some boroughs could be missed
   •  Need to identify ways to spread good practice to boroughs not seen as high risk
   •  Some reduction in staff resource requirements
   •  Would have some reduction on diary pressure

Roll-out resource requirements

23. The work described in this paper will require additional resources. Within the MPA Planning and Performance Unit it is suggested that two additional staff be recruited:

•  A Research and Performance Analyst to work on the datasets, analysis, production of the slides and liaison with the various data provision sources
• A Performance Improvement Officer to identify best practice, chase outstanding actions, work with the MPS and partner agencies on agreed improvement work and support the integration of organisational learning into the MPA and MPS internal processes

24. These costs have been built into the MPA budget for 09/10. These two posts will also be able to support ongoing work carried out by the team such as the production of the Policing London Business Plan, the MPA Strategy and Plan and oversight of MPS performance and research across the organisation. Staff from the MPA Engagement and Partnership Unit will continue to be involved in the process, identifying borough based issues and supporting the JEM meeting. A further review of resource requirements should be carried out in May 2009.

C. Race and equality impact

This process is likely to highlight differential offending and victimisation rates for crimes and satisfaction rates. It is important that any learning from the process is disseminated to minimise future equalities impact.

D. Financial implications

1. At present TfL is allowing use of their Compstat room without charge. It is not known if this situation would continue should the full programme be rolled out. Additional cost for hire of this room or other suitable venues could be incurred.

2. Though the pilot phase of the process has been carried out using current staffing levels, this will not be possible for the full process roll-out. For the MPA, the additional analyst post has a starting salary of approximately £35k with on-costs included £44,975. The Performance Improvement Officer post will need to be evaluated but is likely to be grade 5 or 6 (starting salary of £35k or £40k, with on-costs included £44,975 or £52,880).

3. There will also be resource implications for the MPS, estimated as a senior level coordinator, currently a Chief Superintendent (total with on-costs of £113k) and additional analysis capability within the central analysis teams of two dedicated analysts at Band B and Band C (total with on-costs of £223k). There is an acknowledgement that the BOCUs involved will also have to contribute resources, though on a rotating basis, dependant on the timetable agreed. At present the maximum number suggested is two JEMs per borough per year, giving a total of 64 JEMs per year and the minimum is one borough per month, giving a three year cycle to cover all 32 boroughs.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author: Jane Owen, MPA

For information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback