MPA corporate strategy

Report: 8
Date: 28 October 2004
By: Clerk

Summary

This report presents the latest version of the MPA corporate strategy as amended following consultation with key stakeholders.

A. Recommendation

That the Authority:

1. approves this version of the corporate strategy for implementation.
2. considers the appropriateness of discussing this strategy at one of the regular Member level meetings between the MPA and the ALG.
3. agrees that the Co-ordination & Policing Committee will be responsible for monitoring the implementation of the action plan.

B. Supporting information

Background

1. As part of the Authority’s corporate governance arrangements, a draft corporate strategy was produced by the MPA senior management team. Co-ordination and Policing Committee considered the emerging priorities from the strategy in informal session on 19 April 2004.

2. All staff and members have been consulted on the strategy since the first draft was produced and a large number of amendments have been made. The latest version of the strategy, revised to reflect comments our external stakeholders is attached at Appendix 1.

3. The corporate strategy contains five priorities for improvement, all of which are of equal importance. Each priority has a number of actions associated with it and will be supported by team plans and cascaded into individual staff objectives through the appraisal process. The strategy covers a three year period but will be reviewed on an annual basis to ensure that priorities are still relevant. Performance will be monitored by the senior management team and through reports to committee. The priorities in the corporate strategy indicate where the MPA’s resources will be allocated over the next three years. The MPA is working towards a number of mayoral priorities. Where these are not specifically referred to in the strategy, they are included in authority and team business plans. The MPA also carries out a number of day to day activities which will continue to be undertaken in addition to the priorities in the strategy, but these areas will not receive additional resources.

Feedback from stakeholder consultation

4. The strategy was sent to key stakeholders including the MPS, Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships, Community/Police Consultation Groups, Greater London Authority, the Association of Police Authorities, Association of London Government and the Home Office. A full list of consultees is attached at Appendix 2.

5. Twenty-two responses were received. All were broadly supportive of the aims the MPA sets out to achieve. However, a number of respondents made comprehensive comments. As a result a number of changes have been made including:

• expanding the summary to explain the accountability mechanisms between the MPA and the MPS
• rewording a number of action points to ensure clarity
• adding a number of action points, in particular on working with the MPS to improve performance management, achieving cultural change within the MPA and improving the governance of major change programmes within the MPS.

Appendix 3 contains a fuller summary of the responses. This has been cross-referenced to the strategy, so that changes can be readily identified.

6. The ALG in its response asked whether it would be appropriate to table the strategy at one of the regular member level meetings between the ALG and the MPA.

C. Race and equality impact

A full equalities impact assessment of the corporate strategy has been completed. Improving community engagement and increasing the confidence in policing amongst London’s diverse communities are core themes of this strategy, therefore the successful implementation of the strategy should ensure that the MPA is better placed to address equality and diversity issues. Equally, an internal commitment to achieving level 5 of the race equality standard will help ensure the MPA itself is ‘fit for purpose’.

D. Financial implications

No additional financial costs have been identified.

E. Background papers

• Detailed consultation responses file, held by Siobhan Coldwell.
• Police Authority Meeting 30/09/04
• Corporate strategy paper

F. Contact details

Report author: Siobhan Coldwell

For more information contact:

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

Appendix 1: Metropolitan Police Authority Corporate Strategy 2004-07

The Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) is an independent statutory body set up to oversee the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). The Authority’s mission is to secure an effective, efficient and fair police service for London’s communities. Our vision is to make London the safest major city in the world. Our values are to treat everyone fairly, to be open and honest and to work in partnership. Our key aim is to influence the MPS to improve policing for Londoners. This corporate strategy sets out the priorities that the MPA intends to achieve over the next three years.

The MPA is responsible for setting the policy framework for policing in London. The Authority publishes an annual performance plan and a three-year strategy plan which sets goals for the MPS to achieve. The strategy plan “Towards a Safer City” identifies 5 strategic goals for the police service:

• developing safer communities,
• securing the capital against terrorism,
• revitalising the criminal justice system, developing a professional and effective workforce, and
• reforming the delivery of policing services.

The MPA ensures that that the MPS is accountable to Londoners and does this by controlling the budget, consulting extensively on what Londoners want from their police service and by regular and open scrutiny of all policing activity.

This corporate strategy presents the goals the MPA has set for itself. It covers a rolling three-year period. The Authority’s current three-year strategy plan ‘Towards the Safest City’ will be reviewed in 2005, along with the Crime and Disorder Reduction Strategies of each London borough. We also have a number of key Mayoral priorities. Those that are not specifically mentioned in this corporate strategy, are integrated into authority business plans.

The MPA’s priorities will be reviewed in line with this timescale to ensure that all the priorities are linked. Beginning in 2005, the corporate strategy targets will be reviewed each year to ensure that the MPA is able to respond to emerging issues within the context of a medium term plan.

The MPA will measure the success of the corporate strategy through the use of a set of performance indicators.

An equalities impact assessment has been carried out on the corporate strategy and the outcome is reflected in this strategy.

The five priorities are all of equal importance and are as follows:

• Transform community engagement to help Londoners secure more responsive policing at a local level;
• Work with the MPS to achieve cultural change throughout the service so that everyone in London, including all its diverse communities, can gain and retain confidence in policing;
• Drive the MPS to make most efficient and cost conscious use of its officers, staff and other available resources;
• The Authority will hold the Commissioner rigorously to account for continuing improvement in the effective operational and organisational performance of the Metropolitan Police Service;
• Deliver a more efficient and effective MPA, which continues to be fit for purpose.

The MPA has limited resources and the actions under each priority area indicate where resources are to be focused over the next three years. The MPA also undertakes a number of day-to-day activities, which will be reflected in its plans along with the priorities above.

MPA action plan

Priority 1: Transform community engagement to help Londoners secure more responsive policing at a local level

Priority 2: Work with the MPS to achieve cultural change throughout the service so that everyone in London, including all its diverse communities, can gain and retain confidence in policing

Priority 3: Drive the MPS to make most efficient and cost conscious use of its officers, staff and other available resources

Priority 4: The Authority will hold the Commissioner rigorously to account for continuing improvement in the effective operational and organisational performance of the Metropolitan Police Service

Priority 5: Deliver a more efficient and effective MPA, which continues to be fit for purpose

Appendix 2: Key stakeholders

• All London Borough CDRPs
• All London Borough PCCGs

• Audit Commission
• Association of London Government
• Association of Police Authorities
• Association of Police Authorities
• Black Londoners' Forum
• Boards of Deputies of British Jews
• British Transport Police
• British Transport Police
• Central London Partnership
• City of London Police
• City of London Police Authority
• Commission for Racial Equality
• Consortium of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Voluntary & Community Organisations
• Greater London Action on Disability (GLAD)
• GALOP
• Greater London Authority
• Greater London Authority
• Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority
• HM Inspectorate of Constabulary
• Home Office
• c/o Kingston REC, Wel-Care House
• Inter-Faith Network
• London Chamber of Commerce and Industry
• London Civic Forum
• London Development Agency
• London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority
• London Probation Service
• London Underground Limited
• Metropolitan Police Service
• Refugee Council
• Road Peace
• Southern and Eastern Region TUC Race Relations Committee
• Transport for London
• Union of Muslim Organisations
• Women's National Commission
• Youth Justice Board

Appendix 3: Consultation responses

This document provides summaries of the responses received to the corporate strategy from external stakeholders.

Metropolitan Police Service

Comments were put forward on the first two priorities, transforming community engagement and working with the MPS to achieve cultural change.

Transforming communities
Unlike any of the other priorities this one doesn’t talk of working with the MPS. It is suggested that when a publishing a comprehensive strategy (action 1), this might recognise that it is a joint strategy with the MPS. The MPS is also concerned that the use of the word ‘transform’ fails to recognise that there is a lot of innovative and excellent community engagement work being carried out by the MPS, and therefore use of this may mislead Londoners.

Working with the MPS to achieve cultural change…
A number of points were raised here:

• Concerns about the phraseology of the priority (see priority 2)
• Key action one – the MPS would like to see this extended to see emphasis on internal cultural issues (see 2a)
• Key action 5 refers to workforce modernisation; it is not clear whether the completion dates are realistic (see 2d).

Greater London Authority

The GLA thanked the MPA for providing them with an opportunity to comment on our strategy. They submitted a comprehensive response, the key points are summarised below. They would like to see greater alignment with the GLA’s budget and business plan and feel it would be helpful if the introduction to the document set out the relationship between the MPA and the GLA.

They would like to see more in the introduction about what powers we have and how we use them. They also feel it would be helpful to have a section outlining the committee structure and how these are used to hold the MPS to account. They also feel that there should be a lead committee for this corporate strategy, so it is clear how MPA members are responsible for the strategy. (see main report)

In relation to the priorities and action points raised by the strategy. They endorse the priorities selected but have some specific comment, outlined below.

Transforming community engagement…

• It is not clear why this only focuses on local policing.
• The action point on CDRPs seems limited. It is not clear how the MPA intends to influence and transform community engagement by CDRPs.

Work with the MPS to achieved cultural change throughout the service…

• Do we intend to focus explicitly on black and minority ethnic communities? (wording has changed, see priority 2)
• This priority doesn’t distinguish sufficiently between the internal cultural change required to make the MPS a progressive and supportive employer which reflects the diversity of London or the cultural change needed to the way the MPS delivers its services to meet the needs of that diverse population (see 2a)
• There is nothing about achieving cultural change within the MPA itself (although this is probably better placed under priority 5). (see 5g)
• The action on enhancing recruitment from all communities receives strong endorsement from the GLA, but they are concerned that if action is not taken immediately, we will not be in a position to influence the profile of the organisation within the current planned period of growth to 35,000 officers
• It was not clear what was meant under the last priority action. [6] (see 2e)

Driving the MPS to make most efficient and cost conscious…

• Securing additional funding doesn’t necessarily fit here. The GLA would like to see a separate action elsewhere on securing funding for growth, acknowledging the importance of joint working with the GLA.
• This priority should include reference to the MPS redirection review and the overall objective of securing more resources for front-line policing. Also missing is the implementation of the new resource allocation formula with widespread support. (see 3a, 3g, 3h)
• What is the relationship with the E&E work and the proposed reviews of resource allocation and overtime? The performance measure for this action should include monitoring the implementation of the E&E recommendations (will be picked up in 3a, 3g, 3j)
• The C3i governance action could be expanded to include effective governance of all major change programme (see 3d)
• A scrutiny of how the MPS deploys resources across the organisation would be welcome (if this is what is meant by the action point). (3j)

Hold the Commissioner rigorously to account…

• This priority should cross-reference to the policing plan priorities, the strategic goals in ‘Towards a safer city’ and the budget deliverables which are set as part of the budget agreement process between the MPA/MPS and the GLA, in order to give some clarity on what the Commissioner will be held to account for. (this is considered as day to day rather than additional activity and is included in authority business plans)
• The first action should be bolder, aiming for full synchronisation by March 2005. (see 4a)
• The GLA would have expected an objective on improving performance management within the MPS, including establishing meaningful high level indicators for policing in London which demonstrate what difference the MPS is making to Londoners’ lives. (see 4b)

Deliver a more efficient MPA…

• Action 3 needs to be that the link between the strategy and the budget is for the current (04/05) and the forthcoming (05/06) budget (see 5c)
• Action 5 should be the local government equality standards (see 5f)
• GLA budget and equality processes should be considered under this heading (where not specifically referenced, this is considered as day to day activity and is included in authority business plans).

Association of London Government

ALG are broadly welcoming of the strategy and have invited us to discuss it at a regular member level meeting between the MPA and the ALG.

They welcome the move to a clearer strategic framework and the commitment to an annual review in order to respond to emerging issues.

They also welcome the commitment to transforming community engagement and would emphasise the importance of involving elected members as community leaders and utilising existing representative structures, such as area forums where they exist.

British Transport Police

BTP welcomed the opportunity to comment, fully support MPA priorities and look forward to working with us to achieve them.

Greater London Magistrates Courts Authority

GLMCA welcomed the opportunity to comment. The GLMCA recognises that it has to be a high level document but could be developed to include encouraging links with other criminal justice agencies, e.g. through LCJB. (see 5d)

Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary

HMCIC welcomed the opportunity to comment. The five priorities of the strategy support the civil renewal and police agenda, and Sir Keith welcomes the focus on governance and organisational health. He feels however, that the strategy could be developed on the contribution to the police reform programme and the issues raised through the Green Paper “Building Safer Communities”. (see 4e).

London Chamber of Commerce

LCC support the priorities outlined in the strategy, they will also support the MPA’s efforts to deliver greater resources for London’s police forces. They would welcome an explicit commitment to the issue of crime against business, and highlight some of the work they are doing in this area.

Metropolitan Police Federation

The Federation welcomed the opportunity to comment.

Transport for London

TfL generally support the proposals, but suggest that the importance of a safe and secure transport system in London should not be underestimated.

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

LBB&D broadly support the strategy and look forward to its implementation.

London borough of Enfield

Enfield’s CRDP agree in principle to the five identified priorities. They made a number of comments:

• MPA involvement in CDRPs is important as its opportunity to influence at a pan-London level, however this need to be seen in the context of the influence and requirements of the Home Office and Government Office for London (GOL).
• The CDRP would welcome some clarity on the role of the link Member
• No account seems to have been taken of the London and local CJBs. (see 5d)

London Borough of Hackney

LBH and its ‘Safer Communities Partnership’ endorses the strategy and its priorities. It is particularly keen to see a continuation of the work being done to encourage community engagement.

Haringey Community and Police Consultative Group

HCPCG were grateful for the opportunity to comment on our strategy. They endorsed most of the action points but made comments on areas they felt could be improved

• Action point four under priority 1 – this should also include securing ‘challenge’ funds to assist groups with the development and implementation of consultation projects and local initiatives (will be covered under 1d)
• Action point 5 under priority 1 – extend to include promotion of the link member role amongst partners and establish effective communications systems for link members to engage with key partners
• Action point 1 under priority 2 – extend to include consider strengthening MPS monitoring of staff progress and performance so that instant recognition of potential senor black and ethnic minority officers is made possible
• Action point 2 under priority 2 - extend to include the analysis statistics on the use of stop and search to identify trends and eliminate bad practice. (covered under 2a)
• Action point 6 under priority 3 - extend to include the principle that the efficient use of resources on specific operations should not result in the loss of funds but will be channelled elsewhere of equal importance in the borough
• Action point 8 under priority 5 – extend to include review the role of the community engagement team in relation to improving support, communication and relationships with external partners including the voluntary sector. (covered under 1a)

London Borough of Havering PCCG

LBH PCCG broadly supports the strategy. However, they believe the Resource Allocation Formula for outer London boroughs such as Havering should be updated to reflect some of the challenges they face, e.g. vibrant town centres and large night-time economies.

London Borough of Hillingdon on behalf of the Hillingdon Community Safety and Drugs Strategic Partnership.

This was a comprehensive response.

• In setting out our role as an independent statutory body we don’t set out how this role provides accountability to the people of London or adds value to the work of the MPS. (covering page changed)
• There is no mention of our statutory membership of CDRPs or our role in developing and implementing local community safety strategies. Furthermore how will this strategy link with new community safety strategies, coming on stream next April.
• There is no mention of the need to engage PCTs in the delivery of these community safety strategies.
• We commit ourselves to securing more responsive policing at a local level which LBHCSDSP support but they feel there is insufficient recognition of need for local partnership working to achieve this aim
• There is no mention of the strategic role we could fulfil in working with London-wide and national organisations. (see 5d)
• Should we be giving equal weight to all priorities? LBHCSDSP would suggest not.
• The performance measures are about internal processes. They would be more useful if they related to public feedback and measures of efficiency.

London Borough of Hillingdon PCCG

The PCCG welcomed the opportunity to comment on our strategy, and welcomes the strategy as an opportunity to spell out for the benefit of all the overall aims and objectives of the MPA. They made a number of points, most of them reflected in the borough’s CDRP response above. Some further points raised include:

• Whilst the strategy outlines the MPA’s role in overseeing and monitoring the service, there are few references to actually working with the service
• It is not clear how ‘transformed community engagement’ will be achieved or the whether there will be any implications for Consultative Groups
• It is not clear how the proposed priorities will assist in achieving the five strategic goals. It is important to achieve a balance between financial efficiency and practical performance and this is recognised to an extent in the plan. However it is not clear how the specified priorities will assist the MPS in combating crime.

London Borough of Kingston CPCG

Again, an extensive response. In general:

• It would benefit from some plain English and less jargon (the response includes examples) (parts of the strategy and action plan have been reworded as a response to this – details can be supplied)
• It does not present itself as a cohesive plan
• It is not clear that the strategy has been fully costed.

In more detail:

• Some concerns about whether all minority groups are considered in priority 2 (wording of 2 has changed to address this)
• The points on the role of the link member need to be developed further (this will be covered in team plans)
• Some comments/suggestion about the most appropriate way to develop options for funding consultation (action plan pg 2) (these have been passed to the community engagement team)
• The CPCG supports the commitment to secure additional funding
• Linking pay and performance needs to including linking pay to appropriate strategic objectives (see 4e)
• Some concern about the ability to meet ‘themed agendas’ in the context of the routine and the urgent (with respect to the annual work plan for each committee).

London Borough of Newham Community and Police Forum

Welcomed the opportunity to comment but their next meeting takes place on 16/9/04 and therefore missed the deadline date.

London Borough of Richmond

The strategy could be strengthened by having more of a focus on outcomes.

London Borough of Tower Hamlets PCCG

The group has no specific comments except to note that some aspects of the action plan may potentially impact on the PCCG. It is hoped that any impact will not be adverse, in particular that funding levels are maintained to ensure the full range of actives can be delivered.

London Borough of Wandsworth

LBW’s response was framed around the 5 priorities and their action plans:

• Priority 1 – it is of concern that after two rounds of negotiations with PCGs, that this will happen again, furthermore the uncertainty over continued funding is detracting effort away from key challenges. The arrangement with the MPA link Member/officer works well and it is hoped that in the next round of crime audits (2007) this can be exploited.
• Priority 2 – it is a concern that the action plan doesn’t include key issues such as the age/experience profile of the service in terms of having appropriately experienced officers available for front line policing.
• Priority 3 – the strategy does not take a view beyond the MPS being the sole provider of all policing functions and LBW are disappointed that there is no reference to the partnerships between LAs and the police, particularly in the context of the LGA arguing the case for LAs to have access to funding either to purchase PCSOs or extend warden schemes. It is hoped that the MPA will adopt a more outward looking and inclusive approach.
• Priority 4 – it is disappointing to see that the pressing issue of the police estate is not recognised as a priority, particularly at a time of expansion, which can only add to the operation difficulties facing BCU commanders.
• Priority 5 – LBW welcome the transparency provided by the move to annual work plans. The measures to strength corporate management systems are also welcomed.

Generally, the Council would wish the Authority to focus it efforts on operation efficiency, effectiveness and value for money.

South Westminster PCCG

• A glossary of acronyms would be useful
• The performance measure for the action on securing extra funding for London will not give an indication of success, additionally it is misleading as it suggests that the MPA will have an enhanced share, thus leaving less for the MPS
• Using satisfaction of the chair as a performance measure is subjective, and not supported by any objective evidence.
• It is not clear what is meant by ‘develop effective arrangements’ in the context of the action point about developing a performance related pay frameworks for senior police staff and officers.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback