Policing priorities 2001/02

Report: 9
Date: 14 December 2000
By: Commissioner

Summary

This report outlines for discussion the process used to develop the MPA's 2001/02 priorities and endorsement of the proposed priorities is sought. The Authority is asked to agree to the inclusion of sustained activities in the plan.

A. Supporting information

Background

1. At its meeting on 28 July 2000, members considered a report on Corporate Planning Process 2001/02, and agreed that one role the MPA should lead on is producing the Policing and Performance Plan 2001/02, through joint working with the MPS. This paper seeks confirmation of the 2001/02 priorities provisionally agreed with the Finance, Planning and Best Value Committee on 21 November 2000.

Development of the 2001/02 priorities

2. The priority development process has been conducted jointly by the MPA and MPS. It has considered a range of inputs, and is shown in outline in Appendix 1.

3. The input received from all of the inputs has been used to shape the emerging priorities shown in Appendix 2. This list (excluding reference to the Met Policing Model) has been circulated by Lord Harris to the Home Secretary and key London opinion formers (e.g. London MPs, chairs of PCCGs, Chief Executives of London Boroughs, selected voluntary groups) for feedback. Comments to be received by 8 December.

4. Further external inputs may yet affect the final decision on 2001/02 priorities. Details of these will be presented in the supplementary paper available for the Full Authority meeting on 14 December. [Timings preclude all the information being available in time for inclusion in this paper being circulated to members beforehand through the normal distribution channels].

Sustained activities

5. Appendix 3 shows a list of 'sustained activities'. It is the MPS's view that reference to these should be included in the plan. Clearly, not every function can be designated a priority, as the MPS would then lose its intended focus on a limited number of services. Equally, sustained activity should relate to second order priorities rather than being a complete list of everything the organisation does. The definitions below clarify the difference between the two concepts:

• priority is a service area on which the MPS will focus resources in order to effect a significant improvement in performance
• sustained activity is an area that the MPS will continue to address as part of its overall basket of services. It may be a previous year's priority that will get continuing attention to ensure delivery, like homicide, or an external priority, like vehicle crime, which is monitored and supported but not a first level priority.

6. It is the MPS's view that the principal difference between a priority and a sustained activity is that priorities will have first call in any resource allocation or application of additional resources, either in year or through budget growth.

Production of the plan

7. Once agreed, the proposed priorities can be developed further into a set of SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time-based) objectives. Decisions on appropriate accompanying Performance Indicators and targets can be taken once the objectives themselves have been confirmed. The outline decision timetable for producing the plan is:

B. Recommendations

1. That the Authority discusses the proposals in this paper.
2. That the Authority endorses the proposed 2001/02 priorities shown in Appendix 2 (subject to the content of information contained in the supplementary paper).
3. That the Authority agrees to the principal of including reference to sustained activities in the 2001/02 plan.
4. That the Authority agrees the list of sustained activities shown in Appendix 3.

C. Financial implications

The decision on priorities affects the distribution of resources within the MPS. However, the precise numbers involved cannot be quantified until the emerging priorities above have been developed further into a set of SMART objectives. In particular, the targets agreed for the objectives will influence the amount of resources needing to be devoted to their achievement.

D. Review arrangements

The views expressed here will be used to develop the agreed priorities into a set of SMART objectives. These objectives can then be drafted into the plan. The authority will receive an update on plan production at its meeting on 11 January, and will be asked to agree the draft plan at its meeting on 8 February. In between formal meeting dates, the Oversight panel will provide guidance to the joint MPA/MPS team working on plan production.

E. Background papers

The following is a statutory list of background papers (under the Local Government Act 1972 S.100 D) which disclose facts or matters on which the report is based and which have been relied on to a material extent in preparing this report. They are available on request to either the contact officer listed above or to the Clerk to the Police Authority at the address indicated on the agenda.

• 28 July Metropolitan Police Authority report 7 - Corporate Planning Process 2001/02
• 17 October Finance Planning and Best Value Committee report 35 - Initial Views on MPA priorities 2001/02.
• 21 November Finance Planning and Best Value Committee report 43 - Emerging priorities for 2001/02

F. Contact details

The author of this report is Sarah Hedgcock from the MPS Corporate Development Group.

For information contact:

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

Appendix 1: Inputs to the priority development process

The 2001/02 priority development process has considered the following inputs:

• Ministerial Priorities - these will remain unchanged from 2000/01, namely:
  • to reduce local problems of crime and disorder in partnership with local authorities, other local agencies and the public; and
  • to increase trust and confidence in policing amongst minority ethnic communities
• The performance of the MPS against the Best Value Performance Indicators set by the Government.
• The performance of the MPS against its existing Policing Plan priorities
• Weaknesses highlighted by HMIC
• Mayoral priorities
• The content of local Crime and Disorder strategies
• The agreed Mission, Vision and Values of the MPS
• The feedback from external consultation conducted amongst members of the public. Key inputs into this process have been:
  • 1,000 one-to-one interviews carried out in three London Boroughs during June and July
  • the results of the Public Attitude Survey conducted amongst 3,868 residents of London during August and September.
  • letters sent out by BOCUs to local residents, partners, businesses and community groups seeking their views on a) What should the MPS do to make London safer? b) What should the MPS do more of? c) What should the MPS do less of?
  • an analysis of the responses to customer satisfaction surveys
• Internal consultation conducted amongst MPS staff. This has been the form of:
  • a staff survey
  • feedback from BOCU/OCU Commanders and Branch/Department heads on a preliminary set of planning parameters circulated to them for comment
  • the input of senior police and civil staff members at a Seminar on 18 October, which sought their views on 2001/02 priorities.
  • feedback from senior police and civil staff members on the refined and focused list of proposed priorities developed by Management Board and Lord Harris on 19 October.
• Views of the Oversight Panel (as chaired by Lord Tope) and the Finance, Planning and Best Value Committee.

Appendix 2: Proposed 2001/02 priorities

* Local objectives and targets for anti-social behaviour will be set by boroughs. A corporate definition of anti-social behaviour will be circulated, so that boroughs can develop their own objectives within a corporate framework.

** reference to the Met policing model was excluded from the list of proposed priorities circulated externally, as work to scope the concept more fully is still ongoing.

Appendix 3: Sustained activities

External Sustained activities

• Homicide
• Terrorism
• Vehicle crime
• Emergency Response
• Reducing road casualties

Internal sustained activities

• Modernising IT
• Modernising Personnel
• Modernising Finance
• Best Value
• Dealing with corruption and dishonesty

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback