Contents
Report 4 of the 1 April 2010 Joint Strategic & Operational Policing and Finance & Resources Committee, details the proposed changes to the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and targets within the 2010/13 Policing London Business Plan resulting from discussions at previous committee meetings.
Warning: This is archived material and may be out of date. The Metropolitan Police Authority has been replaced by the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime (MOPC).
See the MOPC website for further information.
Policing London business plan 2010/13
Report: 4
Date: 1 April 2010
By: Chief Executive
Summary
The role of the Metropolitan Police Authority is to ensure effective delivery of those policing issues that are important to them (and the constituents they represent) and to Londoners.
This report details the proposed changes to the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and targets within the 2010/13 Policing London Business Plan resulting from discussions at both the joint meeting of the Strategic and Operational Policing Committee (SOP) and Finance and Resources Committee (F&R) on 18 March and the Metropolitan Police Authority on 25 March.
A. Recommendation
That members are asked to note the changes to the proposed top level KPIs and the additional reporting methods and, if content, to approve the 2010/13 Policing London Business Plan on behalf of the Authority.
B. Supporting information
1. The role of the Metropolitan Police Authority is to ensure effective delivery of those policing issues that are important to them (and the constituents they represent) and to Londoners.
2. At a joint meeting of the Strategic and Operational Policing Committee (SOP) and Finance and Resources Committee (F&R) on 18 March members were concerned that the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) contained within the draft Policing London Business Plan 2010/13 did not sufficiently reflect the policing priorities that are of most concern and would therefore not allow the Authority to fully hold the MPS to account.
3. The Metropolitan Police Authority met on 25 March to consider the draft Policing London Business Plan 2010/13. The Authority did not approve the plan as members still had concerns about the lack of KPIS and targets. Members were conscious of the need to approve the plan by 31 March 2010.
4. It was agreed that further work would be undertaken and proposals brought back to members for comment and approval. Although members did not formally agree at Full Authority that the plan could
be delegated to the Chief Executive in consultation with the Chair and the Vice Chair, extensive consultation has now taken place and SOP members may now feel empowered to approve the plan.
Proposal.
5. It is proposed that there should be a three tiered approach to the way in which the Authority holds the MPS to account for performance against the policing plan.
- Tier 1 – Key Performance Indicators and Targets
- Tier 2 – Themed reporting against the corporate objectives and key deliverables
- Tier 3 – Exception reporting
Tier 1 – Key Performance Indicators
6. Following feedback from members and discussion with the MPS, it is proposed that the policing plan should contain the following KPIs and Targets. Those KPIs in bold are proposed as additional KPIs by the MPA
Corporate measures and targets 2010/11 - updated control set
7. The table in appendix 1 shows the new MPS Performance Indicators for 2010/11, at both Headline KPI and supporting levels and shows the MPS lead to which they are aligned. These are grouped into eight performance areas.
8. The full proposed Headline KPIs are in the tables below. Members are asked to agree to the inclusion of these KPIs and targets as part of the top level indicators. This brings the total number of KPIs to 18, which is still a significant reduction on the number in the previous Plan, but focuses on the matters of importance to Londoners and the Authority.
| Indicator | Target 2010/11 | Target 2009/10 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confidence | |||
| 1. KPI 1 Local police doing a god job | |||
| KPI1 | PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE WHO AGREE THAT THE POLICE AND LOCAL COUNCIL ARE DEALING WITH ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR AND CRIME ISSUES THAT MATTER IN THEIR AREA (APACS 2.2, NI 21 Source: BCS and PAS Q74b) | 55.4% | +8% on baseline by March 2011 |
| 2. KPI 2 User satisfaction | |||
| KPI2A | PERCENTAGE OF VICTIMS SATISFIED WITH THE OVERALL SERVICE PROVIDED BY THE POLICE AND OF THESE THE PERCENTAGE OF I) WHITE USERS AND II) USERS FROM MINORITY ETHNIC GROUPS (Note: there is a
confidence interval of +/- 3% for these targets) (APACS i) 1.1 and ii) 1.2 Source: User Satisfaction Survey) |
80% | 80% |
| KPI2B | THE NUMBER OF POLICING PLEDGE PROMISES MET (15 PLEDGE PROMISES) | IMPROVE ON 2009/10 | N/A |
| Safety | |||
| 3. KPI 3 Reducing serious acquisitive crime | |||
| KPI3A | THE I) NUMBER OF SERIOUS ACQUISITIVE CRIMES (ROBBERY, RESIDENTIAL BURGLARY, MOTOR VEHICLE CRIME) AND II) SANCTION DETECTION RATE (i) APACS 5.2 NI 16 ii) APACS 6.2 Source: HMCS ADR) |
i) -3.2% on 2009/10 ii) 12.2% |
i) -2% on 2008/09 ii) 11.8% |
| KPI3B | THE I) NUMBER OF ROBBERIES (PERSONAL) AND II) SANCTION DETECTION RATE | i) -3.0% on 2009/10 ii) 19% |
|
| KPI3C | THE I) NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL BURGLARIES AND II) SANCTION DETECTION RATE | i) -4.0% on 2009/10 ii) 16% |
|
| KPI3D | THE I) NUMBER OF THEFTS/TAKING OF AND THEFTS FROM MOTOR VEHICLES AND II) SANCTION DETECTION RATE | i) -3.0% & -2% on 2009/10 ii) 7.5% |
|
| 4. KPI 4 Reducing violence | |||
| KPI4A | THE I) NUMBER OF MOST SERIOUS VIOLENCE CRIMES AND II) SANCTION DETECTION RATE (i) APACS 5.1, Source NI 15 ii) APACS 6.1) |
i) -4.0% on 2009/10 ii) 35% |
i) -4.3% on 2008/09 ii) 32% |
| KPI4B | THE I) NUMBER OF KNIFE CRIMES AND OF THESE THE NUMBER USED TO INJURE AND II) SANCTION DETECTION RATE (I) APACS 5.6, SOURCE: NI 28 SERIOUS KNIFE CRIME) |
i) -4.0% on 2009/10 | i)-5.6% on 2008/09 |
| KPI4C | THE I) NUMBER OF GUN CRIMES AND OF THESE THE NUMBER DISCHARGED AND II) SANCTION DETECTION RATE (I) APACS 5.5, SOURCE: NI 29 GUN CRIME RATE) |
i) -5.0% on 2009/10 | i) -3% on 2008/09 |
| KPI4D | THE PERCENTAGE OF RAPE VICTIMS SATISFIED WITH THE WAY POLICE INITIALLY DEALT WITH THEM | BASELINE | N/A |
| KPI4E | THE I) NUMBER OF REPORTED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OFFENCES II) ARREST RATE AND III) SANCTION DETECTION RATE | i) No target ii) 77% iii) 47% |
ii) 70% iii) 45.7% |
| KPI4F | THE SANCTION DETECTION RATE FOR REPORTED HATE CRIMES (RACIST & RELIGIOUS HATE AND HOMOPHOBIC CRIMES) | 45% | R&R 42% Hom. 44% |
| 5. KPI 5 Reducing lives lost | |||
| KPI5A | PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN NUMBER OF PEOPLE KILLED OR SERIOUSLY INJURED IN ROAD TRAFFIC COLLISIONS (APACS 9.1, NI 47) |
REDUCE KSI 50% BY 2010 (BASELINE 6,639) | REDUCE KSI 50% BY 2010 (BASELINE 6,639) |
| KPI5B | THE I) NUMBER OF HOMICIDES AND II) DETECTION RATE | I) NO TARGET II) 85% |
I) NO TARGET II) 85% |
| KPI5C | COUNTER TERRORISM MEASURE - A SET OF MEASURES BASED AROUND CONTEST (RESTRICTED) | N/A | N/A |
| 6. KPI 6 Delivering a safe and secure Olympics | |||
| KPI6A | LONDON 2012 OLYMPICS AND PARALYMPIC GAMES MEASURE - THE PROPORTION OF POLICE SERVICE DELIVERY PROJECT MILESTONES DELIVERED ON TIME. | 95% | N/A |
| Improvement | |||
| 7. KPI 7 Efficient use of our assets | |||
| KPI7 | NET CASHABLE EFFICIENCIES DELIVERED AS A PROPORTION OF GROSS EXPENDITURE | £124m (3.4%) | £142.9m (3.97%) |
| 8. KPI 8 Maximising use of warranted officers | |||
| KPI8A | THE PERCENTAGE OF WARRANTED OFFICERS DEPLOYED TO OPERATIONAL POLICING (OPERATIONAL POLICING IS OPM CATEGORIES OF UNIFORM OPERATIONAL AND NON-UNIFORM OPERATIONAL ) | 2% IMPROVEMENT ON BASELINE (CLEANSED DATA FOR MPA BY END OF APRIL) | N/A |
| KPI8B | BME REPRESENTATION: PERCENTAGE OF POLICE OFFICER RECRUITS FROM MINORITY ETHNIC GROUPS COMPARED TO THE PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE FROM MINORITY ETHNIC GROUPS IN THE ECONOMICALLY ACTIVE POPULATION (APACS 3.1) |
20% of total police officer recruits | 20% of total recruits (0.8:1) |
Tier 2 – Themed Performance review
9. The draft Plan lays out the strategic outcomes and corporate objectives. The plan also details the key deliverables for 2010/11. It is proposed that MPA officers should design a performance framework in collaboration with MPS colleagues, that allows the MPA to scrutinise these deliverables.
10. It is proposed that the final set of KPIs and targets should be reported to SOP on a monthly basis. Performance on key deliverables against one of the corporate objectives should then be considered on a monthly basis. An example of how this might function for the corporate objective of ‘make neighbourhoods safer by responding to local priorities, tackling crime and anti social behaviour and reducing road casualties’, is detailed below, showing the list of measures from the MPS control set that could be called on when reviewing performance.
| Key Deliverable | Measures |
|---|---|
| To focus on local policing priorities and crime through a visible presence in our neighbourhoods, business communities and town centres |
|
| To reduce crime and the fear of crime in our communities, working with our partners to alleviate Anti Social Behaviour and acquisitive crime |
|
| To protect vulnerable people, including young people and tackle offenders that cause the most harm |
|
| To bring more offenders to justice and, with our partners, improve Criminal Justice outcomes particularly for persistent priority offenders |
|
| To improve safety on London’s transport network |
|
| To work with partners to reduce road casualties and remove uninsured vehicles |
|
11. This would enable the Authority to undertake more detailed scrutiny of performance and would provide the opportunity to bring in new data sets. For example this would be used to explore different ways in which roads policing could be monitored through action against unlicensed drivers. This also provides a means by which new performance indicators can be developed and baseline data collected./p>
112. On the alternate month, SOP would review performance in other business groups, such as Professional Standards, the Directorates of Information, Public Affairs and Legal Services and so on. An example of how this would work is shown below:
| Month | KPIs | Performance theme |
|---|---|---|
| April | KPIs and targets Exception reports |
Confidence |
| May | KPIs and targets Exception reports |
Professional standards |
| June | KPIs and targets Exception reports | Reduce serious violence and protect young people |
| July | KPIs and targets Exception reports |
DOI |
| etc |
Tier 3 – Exception reporting
13. There would also be a system of exception reporting to ensure that areas requiring remedial action or promotion of success can be considered throughout the year. This approach would complement the current thinking within the MPS. Regular exception reporting would be provided by the MPS to flag up issues and prepare reports for consideration by SOP with MPA officers overseeing the exception reporting./p>
C. Race and equality impact
The proposed increase in KPIs, particularly the inclusion of rape and hate crime, demonstrates the Authority’s continuing commitment to monitoring the MPS’s performance in respect of those crimes which cause the most concern to, and impact most significantly on, minority and vulnerable communities
D. Financial implications
None over and above those listed in the previous planning papers.
E. Background papers
None
F. Contact details
Report author: Jane Harwood, Assistant Chief Exsecutive, MPA
For information contact:
MPA general: 020 7202 0202
MMedia enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18
Supporting material
Send an e-mail linking to this page
Feedback