Initial views on MPA priorities 2001/02

Report: 9
Date: 17 October 2000
By: Commissioner

Summary

This paper summarises the information currently available relevant to the selection of priorities for 2001/02. It seeks the initial views of the MPA on the emerging priorities. These views will be developed further by the oversight panel.

A. Supporting information

Introduction

1. Members will be aware of the Authority's responsibility to decide the Corporate priorities for the MPS. Once this decision has been made, further work can be undertaken to develop suitable target levels of improvement and agree what macro resource changes need making to achieve the priorities.

2. The decision on priorities requires consideration of a wide range of drivers, including government imperatives (e.g. Ministerial Priorities), key strategies and initiatives (e.g. the Mayoral priorities), performance and financial information and other management information (e.g. the results of consultation). At this stage, not all the relevant information is available, but the initial view of members is sought on what the priorities should be for 2001/02. These views can then be confirmed - or modified as necessary - in the light of full data. The initial views will be used to develop more detailed ideal objectives and targets, which can be assessed against resources to judge their viability.

3. Further discussion concerning what the 2001/02 priorities should be will take place at the seminar on 18 October, which will be attended by some MPA members. The discussion will be informed by the views of the FPBV Committee expressed today. The oversight panel set up to oversee production of plans for 2001/02 will then be able to progress detailed work on priorities.

4. The paragraphs below examine the current data available for each of the Corporate priority drivers.

Government imperatives

5. Ministerial priorities Although formal guidance is awaited (expected November), it is understood that the Ministerial Priorities are unlikely to change from the two set in 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.

Best Value Performance Indicators

6. The Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPIs) that may be set in 2001/02 are currently undergoing consultation. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) has proposed that some are deleted, some amended and some new ones added to the existing list shown in Annex A. The PSPM Committee considered the MPA/MPS response to the DETR proposals on 10 October and tthe BVPIs themselves will not be finalised until the end of November (earliest date). The MPA/MPS will be expected to monitor performance against the BVPIs. New cross cutting community safety BVPIs with direct relevance to the police are shown at the end of Annex A.

7. Crime reduction targets Under section 5 of the Local Government Act 1999, the government required every force to set five year crime reduction targets for BVPIs 126, 127 and 128 i.e. those relating to domestic burglary, robbery (street crime for the MPS) and vehicle crime.

Key strategies and initiatives

8. Mission and vision: Modernisation of the MPS Programmes of work are being developed to progress attainment of the MPS's Mission and Vision. These are likely to be:

• People and Leadership
• Diversity
• Information management
• C3i (Command, control, communications and Information) and PSRCS (police service radio communications)
• Public relations and internal communication
• Partnership and policing style
• Modernisation of finance and related functions
• Best value
• Reducing bureaucracy

9. Mayoral priorities In his guidance notes on draft budget submissions 2001/02, the Mayor stated that the crime priorities for the Police Authority should be:

• Reductions in street crime
• Anti-social behaviour
• Racist and homophobic crime
• Drugs-related offences and
• Implementation of the Stephen Lawrence Report.

10. Other Police Authority policy priorities cited in the above document were:

• Increase police numbers: increase police officer numbers and those engaged on front line crime fighting services
• Recruitment of Londoners: recruit more Londoners and make workforce more representative of the gender and ethnic mix of London
• Police housing: support initiatives to provide more low cost homes for police officers, including re-examination of disposal of housing property
• Community safety: place increased emphasis on community safety, including domestic violence, community safety needs of older people and the gay and lesbian community
• Traffic enforcement: support transport improvements including bus lane enforcement
• Continue anti-corruption and ethical strategy
• PCCGs: ensure that they are adequately supported and funded.

Crime & disorder strategies

11. These were developed in each Borough for implementation starting in April 1999. The subject areas of the objectives, coupled with their prevalence in both inner/semi-inner and outer Boroughs, are shown in Annex B.

Performance information

12. A commentary on MPS performance against key targets was considered by the PSPM Committee on 10 October (agenda item 8). Annex A - taken from the paper - tabulates the 2000/01 performance data to the end of August 2000. Based on the performance year to date, the table indicates which end of year targets are likely and unlikely to be met.

13. A paper on the results from customer satisfaction surveys was also considered at the PSPM Committee on 10 October (agenda item 5). The key points relevant to the setting of corporate priorities are:

• The charter standards for satisfaction are only being achieved in one out of the five BVPIs (See BVPIs 123a,b,c,d,e in Annex A):
• When victims of crime, Asian people have the poorest impression of police on this occasion (17%), with black people, and those who refused to give their ethnicity, on 16%. 12% of white people had a poor impression of police on this occasion.
• The table below indicates an underlying reduction in customer satisfaction in answer to the question "What is your overall impression of police on this occasion?" The figures shown are the percentages responding good or very good. It is perhaps not surprising that increasing demand and decreasing resources have led to a reduction in customer satisfaction.

Consultation

Public attitude survey

14. The headline results from the Public Attitude Survey conducted during August and September 2000 will be available by mid-October. Prior to the results of the 2000 survey becoming available, 1,000 one-to-one interviews were carried out in three London Boroughs during June and July. The opportunity was taken to explore respondent's views on priorities. Annex C ranks seven priorities according to their importance as areas to address.

External consultation

15. One form of external consultation conducted by the MPS was at a local BOCU level. A letter was sent to each BOCU, asking them to gather the views of local residents, partners, businesses and community groups. This year, three key questions were asked:

1. What should the MPS do to make London safer?
2. What should the MPS do more of?
3. What should the MPS do less of?

The replies received are summarised in Annex D. Naturally, a divergence of views was expressed, reflecting the variety of people consulted and their local circumstances. Annex D also summarises the feedback received in particular priority areas. A summary of the key issues that emerged from discussions at the meeting of the PCCG Chairs Forum on 11 September 2000 is also shown in Annex D.

Internal consultation

16. An MPS staff survey was undertaken and represents a type of internal consultation. The issues raised will inform development of the Corporate strategy. A separate form of internal consultation was conducted in September 2000. Management Board considered a set of so called planning parameters, which were used to form the basis of possible MPS priorities. These priorities were circulated to BOCU/OCU Commanders and Branch/Department heads, asking for their feedback. Consideration of the responses will take place at the MPS Seminar on 18 October, when group sessions will be used to consider "What should the MPS priorities for 2001/02 be?" Feedback from this seminar will be given to the FPBV Committee at its next meeting on 21 November. However, the responses already received indicate that:

• there is support for drugs becoming a priority, recognising that they are the biggest factor in causing crime, degeneration of the environment and community discomfort. Tackling drugs would enable BOCU Commanders to improve performance in volume crimes such as burglary
• there is resistance to accepting traffic enforcement as a priority, believing it to be an area that should increasingly be driven by local authorities and the GLA.

Existing corporate priorities

17. To place the issues raised from the various drivers into context, the priorities for 2000/01 are shown below:

Ministerial Priority
To reduce local problems of crime and disorder in partnership with local authorities, other local agencies and the public.

MPS supporting objectives

1. To improve MPS performance in homicide investigations.
2. To reduce the incidence of burglary.
3. To stem the increase in street crime.
4. To reduce the incidence of vehicle crime.
5. To re-inforce existing effective measures and introduce new strategies to reduce offending by young persons.

Ministerial priority
To increase trust and confidence in policing amongst minority ethnic communities

MPS supporting objectives

1. To extend the monitoring of standards of service provided by community safety units to victims of domestic violence and homophobic crime.
2. To create a police service which is more closely representative of the community it serves.
3. To develop a more effective use of stop and search by:
   • Completing the piloting of recommendation 61 of the Macpherson report,
   • Integrating the outcomes with lessons learnt from piloting new approaches to the use of stop and search tactics.
4. To accelerate the roll out of community and race relations training across the MPS. Performance against each of the existing priorities is shown in Annex A.

Analysis

18. The annexes attached to this paper contain a wealth of data pertinent to the selection of the MPA's Corporate priorities. Not all of the relevant information is yet available (e.g. confirmed Ministerial Priorities for 2001/02), but a significant amount of it is. The initial view of the MPA is now sought on what the priorities for 2001/02 should be.

19. The matrix in Annex E provides an overview of the data. It illustrates for each priority identified from the various sources to date whether or not it is supported by the range of drivers considered.

Issues raised

20. Annex E lists a large number of potential priorities that have already been identified. It is clearly impractical to designate every issue raised as a ‘priority’. To do so would prevent focus on a limited number of key issues. The question for debate is "How many corporate priorities should the MPA set?" Feedback from BOCU Commanders has indicated that the nine set in 2000/01 was too many - it limits the opportunities boroughs have to deal with local concerns. The performance data shown in Annex A suggests that several of the targets set for 2000/01 priorities will not be met, perhaps also as a result of having too many.

21. The Crime and Disorder strategies were developed in each Borough in 1998 for implementation starting in 1999, and are hence based on the results of consultation performed two years ago. Consequently, they are not necessarily consistent with the consultation performed more recently. [Consider e.g. autocrime, which features in more than half of the Crime and Disorder strategies, and yet recent consultation suggests that it is becoming of less importance to the public]. How much emphasis should be placed on the content of Crime and Disorder strategies?

22. There are sometimes tensions between the 'top down' Corporate priorities set and the 'bottom up' priorities which are the subject of local Crime and Disorder strategies. For example, 'anti-social behaviour' is the subject of the same number of Crime and Disorder strategies in outer London Boroughs as drugs.

23. Annex E illustrates the conflicting requirements arising from the various priority drivers. An example of this situation is traffic.

Emerging priorities

24. Annex E suggests that - if a maximum of six priorities are set - they should be:

• Diversity
• Street crime
• Recruitment
• Drugs
• Burglary
• Autocrime

Annex E can be used to stimulate further debate, as it identifies the compromises that need to be made between the various drivers of the corporate planning process. Members may wish to consider what issues they think should be added or removed from the above list, and why. It should be emphasised that just because an issue is not designated a priority does not mean that it is not important. As an example, 'homicide' does not appear in the six priorities above, but nevertheless plays a key role in making London safe and is an activity that the MPS devotes a significant amount of resources to.

B. Recommendations

1. Members provide initial feedback on the priorities emerging from the consultation, audit and analysis undertaken to date.
2. The initial feedback is used to develop objectives, priorities and targets which will be confirmed in the light of complete information, once it is available.
3. The oversight panel set up to oversee the production of plans for 2001/02 progresses detailed work on priorities, objectives and targets, prior to making a recommendation back to members of both the Finance, Planning and Best Value Committee and, ultimately, the full Authority.

C. Financial implications

The initial views expressed on priorities will influence the final decision made. This ultimate decision will have a significant effect on the placement of resources within the MPS. However, it is too early in the planning process for these financial implications to be quantified. They will be considered when the final decision is taken.

D. Review arrangements

The views expressed will be considered by the oversight panel and used to inform a further analysis of priorities, once full data are available. Its conclusions will be presented to the Finance, Planning and Best Value Committee in November and the full Authority meeting in December.

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.

None.

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

NB: Annex A and E are available from MPA Secretariat

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback