Review of the Resource Allocation Formula (RAF) 2005/06

Report: 4
Date: 17 November 2003
By: Commissioner

Summary

This report is intended to set out:

1. terms of reference for the review of Resource Allocation Formula( RAF);
2. the results of the preliminary consultation;
3. a proposed consultation strategy for the review;
4. selection criteria for participants in the review; and
5. key activities taking place over the next two months.

A. Recommendation

That

1. approval be given to the terms of reference for the review of RAF as given at Appendix 1 to the report;
2. note the results of the preliminary consultation as given at Appendix 2 to the report;
3. agree the consultation strategy for the review as given at Appendix 3 to the report;
4. agree the criteria for selecting participants for the formula development workshops (Appendix 4); and
5. note the timeline of activities taking place in preparation for the development workshops (Appendix 5).

B. Supporting information

1. This committee acts as the project board for the review of the formula and the MPS will continue to report progress and seek agreement to proposals as appropriate. The purpose of this paper is to bring members up to date with developments on the review since the formula was last discussed by this committee on 19 September. At that meeting members agreed the overall timeframe for the review and the key milestones and opportunities for consultation. Members broadly agreed the scope of the review and noted the potential risk areas that might hamper a successful outcome.

Terms of reference

2. The MPS has taken account of members’ comments and expectations about what should be covered by the review and what might not be appropriate for the remit of this BOCU focused project. Accordingly, the MPS proposes the terms of reference as attached at Appendix 1 to be approved by this committee. It is intended that these are circulated to the agreed list of stakeholders together with the results of the preliminary consultation.

3. The list of issues included under the terms of reference is by no means exhaustive and is intended to illustrate a broad range of topics that have already been identified by members, the MPS or through the preliminary consultation. Many of these issues will be expanded during the course of the formula development workshops and will be added to by others emerging from the iterative consultation process.

Consultation

4. Attached at Appendix 2 are the results of the preliminary consultation exercise of identified external and MPS stakeholders carried out in August and September. This shows a reasonably representative cross section of stakeholder groups, with healthy levels of returns from local authorities and BOCU commanders. There were only five boroughs that were not represented (Brent, Hammersmith & Fulham, Islington, Lewisham and Merton).

5. The results have been broken down by borough, stakeholder group and by issue to give an indication of the spread across London and the strength of feeling about certain issues. It can be seen that the issues can be categorised under either formula development (e.g. how to deal with late night disorder, geographical size of borough) or the application of the formula results (e.g. inclusion of budgets). The questionnaire results will be circulated to stakeholders shortly (see para 2), and those who indicated a desire for more involvement will be asked if they wish to participate in the development workshops.

6. The MPS has developed a consultation strategy (Appendix 3) that underpins the timeframe previously approved by this project board in September. The strategy provides more detail about what we are trying to achieve and how we intend to make the consultation more effective through increased participation and greater opportunity to influence the review.

Formula development

7. The next key stage of the review is the preparation of the development workshops; this will form the backbone of the project. It is imperative that potential participants for these workshops are identified in order to achieve an appropriate representation across boroughs and interested stakeholder groups. At Appendix 4 is a proposed set of selection criteria that should help to achieve this representation and gain maximum engagement from the participants.

Next steps

8. Attached at Appendix 5 is a timeline that sets out the key activities that need to take place before the workshops begin in January 2004. As well as those activities already outlined, this will also include the preparation of research and briefing material and the engagement of an independent statistician to validate emerging research and datastreams. This will help to guide those working on the development of the new formula and minimise the risk of incorrect statistical assumptions.

C. Equality and diversity implications

There are no direct equality or diversity issues arising from this report, although the MPS recognises the staffing implications if the review recommends the application of the formula beyond solely police officers.

D. Financial implications

The financial implications of this project relate both to the direct cost to the budget estimated at 100k, primarily falling in financial year 2004/05, and the transfer of resources between borough OCUs.

E. Background papers

• COP Committee 19 September 2003

F. Contact details

Report author: Michael Debens, Corporate Planning Group & Angela Emery, Internal Consultancy Group, MPS.

For more information contact:

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

Appendix 1

Summary of RAF Review Scope

Purpose

This reference document has been compiled to enable MPA members to see at a glance those issues that will be considered as part of this review and, just as importantly, those that are outside the scope of the review.

The review can be broken down into two key areas: the development of the formula and the application of the formula results. The elements that will be considered for inclusion in the formula have been informed by the preliminary consultation process recently carried out. These will be progressed primarily through a series of workshops attended by MPS staff and a range of external stakeholders who have expressed a wish to be actively involved.

Summary of elements to be considered under formula development (not exhaustive)

• New and emerging data sources available to a borough level
• Demographic and environmental changes
• Resilience issues eg ‘opening the shop’
• Appropriate structure and weightings within the model
• Issues raised by respondents during the preliminary consultation process eg size of borough, late night town centre disorder

Summary of areas to be considered under application of results

• How to apply the results of the review and retain the spirit of ‘no losers’
• The inclusion of police officers, police staff, PCSOs and other locally controlled budget lines (consistent with scope and controls applied within the devolution programme)
• The relationship with community based units as currently defined under the MPS Step Change programme
• The parameters for the application of Commissioner’s Judgement
• The development of a communication strategy to inform stakeholders of emerging results (see Appendix 3)

Corporate Governance

The COP Committee will act as the Project Board for this review, taking key decisions and commissioning reports as required, in order to steer the review to time, budget and quality of outputs.

Outside the terms of this review

• Resources allocated to Territorial Policing Business Group as a proportion of the rest of the MPS
• Allocation of resources to BOCUs as a proportion of that allocated to Territorial Policing as a whole (e.g. Territorial Support Group, dogs etc. are resourced separately through the TP Business Group)
• Allocation of resources to specialist units (e.g. murder teams work on borough but are resourced from Specialist Crime Business Group)
• Allocation of capital expenditure budgets

Appendix 2

RAF Preliminary Consultation: Summary of Results

Table 1 shows the stakeholders that have replied to the RAF Review 2005/06 preliminary consultation.

Table 1. Stakeholder replies received

Note:

Although 61 responses were received, 65 responses are shown in Table 2 because GLA members represent two boroughs.

A total of 27 boroughs were represented. There are 13 inner-London boroughs from which 18 responses were received (0 responses were received from 3 boroughs: Hammersmith & Fulham, Islington, Lewisham) and 19 outer-London from which 40 responses were received (0 responses were received from 2 boroughs: Brent and Merton). See Table 2 for details. As a result of this, the survey replies cannot be considered representative of the whole of the MPS. There were 6 replies where the borough was unstated.

The boroughs were defined as inner or outer according to the Home Office 2001 Census data (Office of National Statistics 2001).

Results

There was general agreement that the formula provides a sound structure to allocate police resources to boroughs.

The results from the preliminary consultation exercise are as follows. The numbers in brackets show the number of comments made – several comments may have been made in response to a single question.

Main themes:

• Recognition of geographical size or type of boroughs in addition to population (20);
• Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) and other police staff should be included (18)
• Resilience regarding ‘opening the shop’ (e.g. relationship with community-based units) (14);
• Need to recognise the impact of late-night town centre activity (14);
• Further examine resident and transient population (10);
• The model should take into consideration the effect of aid and abstractions (9);
• Take account of future planning (i.e. growth of Canary Wharf, Olympic bids, large local commercial developments etc.) (9);
• Need to acknowledge quality of life issues as affected by anti-social behaviour (7);
• Against the inclusion of PCSOs (5);
• Relationship of formula with ring-fenced ward-based units (4);

Other comments regarded:

• Revisiting need/demand/Capital City Allocation and Commissioner’s Judgement components;
• Specific crime such as counter-terrorism, drugs and gun crime;
• Policing issues such as policing inequality and the location of offence compared to the residence of the offender;
• Relationship of the formula to the operational policing measure (OPM);
• Relating RAF to good performance/not penalising success;
• Allocation of resources to boroughs in line with borough contributions from precept.

It was considered by the Project Team that many of the recurring themes tend to be pertinent to outer boroughs. See Table 3 for a graph of the main themes.#

Issues:

• Extending resources beyond BOCU, such as the split between TP and the rest of the MPS, or the inclusion of SO, SC etc. This issue was raised by the Mayor as well as a small number of other stakeholders (see Appendix 1) (5)
• The Mayor is keen to be considered a key stakeholder and wants to be kept informed of events. As such he has sent a comprehensive response to the preliminary consultation
• A number of external stakeholders were concerned about the frequency of consultation and the ability to influence the review.

Appendix 2, Table 2 and Table 3 are available as PDF documents (see supporting material)

Appendix 3

RAF Review 2005/06 – Consultation Strategy

Purpose

This strategy underpins the consultation timeframe that was approved by MPA members at the COP Committee on 19 September. It has been developed to demonstrate how the project team intends to consult with all the identified interested stakeholder groups over the course of the project. Some of the key issues covered by this strategy include:

• Timeliness of consultation opportunities
• Providing clarity over the aim and scope of the review
• Identifying those groups with an interest in the review
• Examining appropriate methods of communication to stakeholders
• Ability of stakeholders to influence the direction and outcomes of the review
• Clarity about formula development and application of results
• Access to the project team and management data
• Selection of stakeholders to participate in development workshops
• Reporting arrangements for COP Committee (acting as the project board)

The strategy will address constructive comments received during the last review and responses picked up as a result of the preliminary consultation questionnaire at the outset of the current review.

Opening up consultation

The MPS has recognised the need to address one of the key issues from the last review i.e. a sense of frustration felt by some stakeholders about a lack of understanding of the formula and its use, and their inability to shape the outcome. As a result the project team has adopted a much more structured and participative approach to consultation, including increased representation of stakeholders on the development of the new formula. The individuals and groups with an obvious interest in the review are shown at Table 1.

The public face of the project will be overseen by a delegated team member (consultation manager) who will have responsibility for meeting customer needs and ensuring that the consultation strategy is adhered to. This person will be available to discuss emerging issues from the review and will provide the focal point for consultation.

The consultation manager will be readily accessible to the MPA project board for regular updates and advice to members as required and key MPS staff as necessary.

The context of the consultation

There are a number of drivers around the improvement of the consultation process. We want to achieve:

• Better understanding of the issues
• Help and advice from stakeholders resulting in more informed debate
• Comments and suggestions on alternative options
• Greater buy-in from stakeholders on the process and the eventual result
• Better understanding of the constraints of the model and expectations about what it can deliver

Making consultation effective

In order to satisfy the differing needs and demands of stakeholders who may have either corporate or single borough interests we have set out some principles on making most effective use of our consultation opportunities:

• Inclusion - ensure that all stakeholders are frequently informed on review progress and have an opportunity to participate
• Clarity – ensure that communication is clear and uses plain language and information is presented in a straightforward format
• Responsive – ensure that views of stakeholders are given due consideration, revisions made as necessary and appropriate feedback provided
• Accessibility – examine the best ways for people to participate and make their views known
• Flexibility – ensure that the process is interactive and iterative to develop shared ownership and a credible product

The MPS will use a variety of consultation methods as appropriate at different stages of the project to maximise the effectiveness of consultation. These will include questionnaires, workshops, one-to-one meetings and possibly public meetings and formula development proposals. This is already under way with the preliminary questionnaires and is set out in more detail in the timeframe at Table 2.

At various stages during the project the consultation manager will check with contacts within stakeholder groups that the consultation is meeting the customer requirements (even if project developments and outputs will not satisfy all groups).

Planning and promoting consultation

The MPS will ‘flag up’ with stakeholder groups when a consultation ‘event’ is to take place in order to allow for appropriate time and planning for a considered response. Similarly, the project team will ensure that sufficient resources are set aside to deal with issues arising from the consultation and that there are appropriate and tailored responses.

The next key stage of the project will be to inform stakeholders of:

• the terms of reference for the project
• the analysis of the preliminary consultation phase (results from questionnaires)
• the arrangements for the development workshops (due to commence in January 2004)

The consultation manager will manage this process and will be a named point of contact on documentation being distributed from the team. The team will also develop a database of those stakeholders who have shown an interest in the project, which will be updated as and when required (this will be particularly relevant following political elections scheduled for June 2004).

Analysis of consultation

The project team will analyse responses from consultation and examine how they might be used to progress the aims of the project. This process will be managed by the consultation manager and, in most cases, will be passed to the relevant development workshop for necessary research and evaluation. The consultation manager will ensure that feedback is provided to the contributor.

Evaluating the process at the end of the review

The team will wish to consider how much the consultation contributed to the final outputs from the project and how satisfied stakeholders were with the level of engagement during the development of the new formula.

This evaluation will involve looking at methods used, quality of responses and inputs, whether a balanced view was taken over conflicting arguments and how the consultation helped to shape the final outcomes and results.

Table 1: Key Stakeholders

The following groups are considered to be key stakeholders of the RAF Review:

1. MPS Management Board
2. MPA members
3. London MPs
4. Members of the House of Lords
5. GLA members
6. Mayor’s office
7. London Borough Chief Executives
8. London Council Leaders
9. BOCU Commanders
10. Territorial Policing Command Team
11. Police Federation
12. Staff Associations
13. Community and Police Consultative Groups (CPCGs)
14. Association of London Government (ALG)
15. Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs)
16. Local Strategic Partnerships

Appendix 3, Table 2 is available as a PDF document (see supporting material)

Appendix 4

Selection criteria for formula development workshops

In line with the consultation strategy at Appendix 3 the MPS has developed the following proposals for selecting appropriate participants in the formula development workshops. In some cases they may not be achieved in full but represent our aspiration for fair and equitable representation.

• Respondents to preliminary questionnaire who indicated a desire to have further involvement
• All 32 boroughs have at least one representative involved in the workshops
• That no borough is significantly over or under represented
• A maximum of 12 participants at each workshop

As far as practicable we will also strive for the following:

• A balanced representation of stakeholder groups at the workshops
• A balance between inner and outer boroughs (includes geographical size etc.)
• At least two BOCU Commanders in each workshop
• A commitment from participants to attend workshops throughout the development period to ensure continuity of debate

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback