Arrangements for the annual planning process

Report: 7
Date: 19 September 2000
By: Clerk and Treasurer

Summary

This paper proposes joint MPA/MPS working and oversight arrangements for producing the policing, performance and efficiency plans required for 2001/02.

A. Supporting information

Introduction

1. Members will be aware of the Authority’s responsibility to prepare a Policing Plan, a Best Value Performance Plan and an Efficiency Plan for 2001/02. The three plans need to consider a wide range of drivers including:

• legal imperatives eg inclusion of Ministerial Priorities, targets required for specific BVPI’s;
• key strategies and initiatives eg Government’s Crime Reduction Strategy, Mayoral priorities;
• performance and financial information eg against targets set in the Policing and Performance Plan 2000/01;
• other management information eg Public Attitude Survey, consultation with Londoners and others;
• the budget set for the MPA and the resources available within the MPS.

2. A new planning process has had to be developed to reflect the role of the MPA, the GLA and the Mayor. An overview of the process, together with a description of MPA and MPS responsibilities, was endorsed by the FPBV Committee at its meeting on 20 July 2000 (Report 5). The Committee saw the Authority’s role to include ‘Leading on the production of the Policing and Performance Plan 2001/02 through joint working with the MPS’.

3. Joint working arrangements are proposed below to deliver and oversee the work required prior to draft products being considered by the FPBV Committee or, as appropriate, by the full Authority.

Proposals for product delivery

4. It is considered there are two main options for delivering products.

• Option 1 is based on a MPA / MPS working group developing plans and delivering products in line with those plans.
• Option 2 is based on MPS staff (as agents) developing plans and delivering products for approval by the MPA (as client).

5. Option 2 (agent/client working) has the advantage of clearly distinguishing between MPA and MPS roles. However, dialogue with the MPA would tend to occur only when a draft plan / product was delivered rather than in the initial stages of drafting. Option 1 (working group) tends to blur the MPA and MPS agent/client relationship. However, dialogue between staff would occur much earlier in the drafting process and this would help minimise the risk of expectations not being met.

6. It is considered that Option 1 (working group) is more flexible and, as such, is better suited to the prevailing circumstances. Planning relationships are still developing and there is a need to meet a tight planning timetable. Effective joint working arrangements could be achieved by a group of upto six MPA / MPS managers as described at Appendix A. The remit of this working group would be to:

• Develop the detailed timetable of responsibilities for delivering products;
• Manage and monitor the delivery of products in line with the agreed timetable;
• Revise plans / products in response to problems, feedback or new requirements.

Proposals for oversight

7. The proposed working group is, ultimately, delivering products on behalf of the MPA (as the owner of the policing, performance and efficiency plan). However, it is considered that a body other than the full Authority should oversee the planning process up to the point at which draft plans can be submitted to Members.

8. The FPBV Committee could, theoretically, take on this role but formal reporting arrangements are not considered flexible enough to manage the process. In any event, the majority of issues likely to be considered by any ‘oversight panel’ ought to be capable of resolution by MPA officers and MPS managers.

9. It is proposed that a MPA/MPS panel should be constituted to oversee the production of plans for 2001/02. The panel would approve the timetable for delivery, monitor progress and approve products for consideration by the FPBV Committee. As such, the panel should consist of MPA and MPS executive managers responsible for each area of planning (ie service planning and resource planning).

10. However, and without prejudice to the FPBV Committee’s formal role, there would be significant benefits in Member involvement during the development of products rather than waiting until draft products are presented. In this way Members could be given greater reassurance that, within the constraints acting on the planning process, Members’ requirements had been met.

11. It is proposed, therefore, that the Chair of the FPBV Committee (with the lead responsibility for planning) attends and chairs the oversight panel. The Chair would also be able to advise whether or not specific issues should be considered either by the Planning Sub-group, FPBV Committee or full Authority.

12. On this basis, and in line with previous decisions made by Members, the membership of the oversight panel is proposed as follows:

• Chair of FPBV Committee;
• Clerk and Treasurer;
• Deputy Commissioner and Director of Resources.

13. The panel would be able to direct resources within either the MPA or MPS to help deliver necessary products. This issue is likely to require careful consideration since the planning demands acting on the MPA and MPS are significantly greater this year in comparison to those acting on the MPC and MPS in previous years.

14. Subject to the view of the oversight panel, the key stages for delivery of the required 2001/02 plans are regarded as:

• Consultation, audit and analysis to deliver facts on what must be done plus partners’ views on what could and should be done;
• Consultation process to reflect the views of the Consultation, Diversity and Outreach Committee
• Consideration by Members prior to deciding an initial set of objectives, priorities and targets (and method of delivery) plus a programme of best value reviews for Years 2 to 5;
• Consideration by Members of their initial requirements against the best estimate of budget and resource availability (revising proposals if necessary);
• Seek feedback on proposals and amend as necessary;
• Prepare draft plans for publication;
• Seek feedback on draft plans and amend as necessary;
• Prepare final plans and publish.

B. Recommendations

1. Members endorse the joint working arrangements proposed at paragraph 6; and
2. Members endorse the oversight arrangements proposed at paragraph 12.

C. Financial implications

There are no direct financial implications.

D. Review arrangements

Interim products will be subject to review by the proposed oversight panel. Draft and final versions of 2001/02 plans will be presented to Members in due course. Arrangements for planning will change in 2001 to take forward the best value review of consultation.

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 officers listed below or to the Clerk to the Police Authority at the address indicated on the agenda.

None.

F. Contact details

The authors of this report are Derrick Norton and Colin Balkman.

For information contact:

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

Appendix A: Proposed membership of working group

Managers/officers from the MPA and MPS will be needed to cover a range of planning responsibilities as shown below.

Remit and product

Role of MPA officers

The role of MPA officers within annual and medium-term planning processes is seen to include representing Members’ interests with respect to:

• The actual process of planning (to time, budget and quality);
• Objectives, priorities and targets within draft and final plans (related either to service delivery, organisational development or financial performance).

In practice this role within planning would mean:

1. Advising Members and managing engagement with Members;
2. Advising and supporting Members on engagement with the Mayor and GLA;
3. Helping to develop the Authority’s annual and medium-term planning processes;
4. Monitoring progress and the quality of products arising from the planning process;
5. Undertaking tasks in line with any officer responsibilities defined and agreed at (c).

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback