Emerging priorities for 2001/02

Report: 8
Date: 21 November 2000
By: Commissioner

Summary

Further inputs to the decision on MPA priorities have been used to refine the initial proposals and develop a list of emerging priorities. It is recommended that the FPBV Committee reviews the further inputs received and provides feedback on the emerging priorities. This feedback can then be used as the basis for development of a set of SMART objectives (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Time-based), ahead of the outstanding inputs still awaited.

A. Supporting information

Background

1. The Finance, Planning and Best Value Committee considered a paper entitled ‘Initial views on MPA priorities 2001/02’ at its meeting on 17 October. The paper set out the information then available that was relevant to the selection of priorities and sought initial views. Since the meeting, further input into the priorities has been gained from a number of sources. This paper updates the FPBV Committee on the additional input received and seeks its feedback on the emerging priorities.

2. For clarity, the services provided by the MPS have been divided into those designated 'Priorities' and those labeled 'Sustained activities'. Just because a service is not designated a priority does not mean that the MPS will discontinue its delivery. An example of a sustained activity is homicide. Although it does not currently feature in the priorities proposed for 2001/02, clearly the MPS will still tackle homicide. Another example is vehicle crime where the current proposal is that the MPS will continue to work with partners towards Government targets. Designating service a priority means that resources will be focused on it in order to effect a significant improvement in performance.

Further input received

3. The principal forms of further input have been:

• A MPS staff seminar on 18 October, which was also attended by a number of MPA members. This seminar sought the views of senior police and civil staff about the 2001/02 priorities. A total of 17 corporate priorities were identified.
• A Management Board seminar on 19 October, which was attended by Lord Toby Harris. This reviewed the priorities proposed from the previous day to develop a more focused list.
• The first Oversight panel meeting held on 30 October, chaired by Lord Tope, as agreed by the FPBV Committee at its meeting on 19 September to progress preparation of the Policing and Performance Plan. The panel reviewed the emerging priorities to date and agreed that the Chair of the MPA should be asked to circulate the priorities to key London opinion formers for information.
• The results of internal consultation conducted amongst senior MPS staff, as summarised in Appendix A.
• The results of the Public Attitude Survey conducted amongst 3,868 residents of London during August and September. Appendix B tabulates responses to the question "What problems, or types of crime, would you most like to see the police tackle to improve life in this area?" It examines which of the responses are included in the emerging 2001/02 priorities and where there are gaps. The one significant crime type from the public's view not specifically included in the proposed priorities is car crime - "prevent car theft and theft from cars". These receive responses of the same order as muggings and vandalism/graffiti. A further non-included issue is police visibility, although this is a 'how', whereas the external priorities are currently presented as 'whats'.
• Confirmation of the Ministerial Priorities for 2001/02. 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

Emerging priorities

4. The input received from all of the above has been used to shape the emerging priorities shown below. If the Committee agrees, these will be circulated to key London opinion formers (e.g. London MPs, chairs of PCCGs, Chief Executives of London Boroughs) for information.

An additional internal priority considered by the Oversight panel was to develop 'the Met policing model'. However, this concept was considered too obscure to be circulated externally without significant accompanying explanation.

It is recognised that the proposed external priority ‘anti-social behaviour’ will need further definition. The current MPS thinking is that it should reflect local partnership priorities. If this is the case, work on measurement will be required to quantify progress against the priority at a corporate level.

Outstanding inputs

The remaining input that may yet affect the final decision on 2001/02 priorities is:

• The results of further (limited) consultation on the emerging priorities conducted amongst the public via e-consultation on the Internet.
• The views of the Mayor/GLA. When considering this issue at the Oversight panel, members considered that any emphasis on transport would be more appropriate in 2002/03, when the transport strategy comes fully into effect.
• The MPS’s final budget settlement.
• Home Office views. The intention is to discuss this list with the Home Secretary at a forthcoming meeting between the Home Office, Commissioner and Chair of the MPA.

B. Recommendations

1. That the Committee reviews the further inputs received to the decision on priorities and provides feedback on those emerging (as outlined in paragraph 4).
2. That this feedback is used as the basis for development of a set of SMART objectives (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Time-based), ahead of the outstanding inputs still awaited.
3. That the Chair of the MPA circulates the decisions made by this committee to key stakeholders before the full MPA meeting to be held in December.

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. The resources allocated will be constrained by the overall MPA budget.

D. Review arrangements

The decision taken on the emerging priorities will be reviewed on receipt of the outstanding inputs outlined above. It is expected that the Oversight panel meeting on 1 December will review the new data to guide development of the priorities and, hence, the draft plan. An update paper will be provided to the FPBV Committee at its next meeting on 19 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.

• Finance Planning and Best Value Committee paper 35 – Initial Views on MPA priorities 2001/02.

F. Contact details

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

For information contact:

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

Appendix A: Internal feedback on the proposed priorities 2001/02

Below is a summary of the feedback received on the proposed priorities 2001/02, as sent out for internal consultation following the Commissioner's briefing on 23/10/2000 to: (B)OCU Commanders and above, civil staff grade 6 and above and Management Board secretaries for information. Responses were received from 12 (B)OCU Commanders, 3 Commanders, 1 DAC and 3 senior civil staff members.

General comments

• The number of priorities has increased compared to 2000/01, not decreased - greater focus is needed. Questions were raised about the capacity of the organisation to deliver on all of the proposed priorities.
• The tension between 'top down' and 'bottom up' priorities was recognised - there is no explicit mention of Crime and Disorder strategies. The MPS objectives should reflect, as far as possible, local community needs.
• There is need for a narrow definition of anti-social behaviour to focus activity and avoid diluting the resources put to other objectives. Questions were raised as to whether anti-social behaviour would include youth crime.
• Concern was expressed that Diversity issues have not been stressed enough. Whilst the intention may be that they are central to all of our activities, the priorities as currently presented do not support this stance.
• There should be consistency in priorities from year to year to enable an impact to be made, particularly with regard to crime reduction.
• There should be some recognition that crime prevention has a role to play in our priorities.
• The intelligence-led nature of our business should be re-emphasised (e.g. by incorporating it under 'communicating').
• Police visibility was cited as an issue raised by local surveys that is not reflected in the priorities.
• A further gap identified was the transport agenda of the Mayor.

Appendix B: Responses to public attitude survey

Percentage responses to the question posed in the Public Attitude Survey "What problems, or types of crime, would you most like to see the police tackle to improve life in this area?"

[Base for 2000 survey: 3,868 respondents. The % responses to the questions asked in 1999 are included for comparison].

The analysis emphasises the need to define "anti-social behaviour", as this may – or may not – encompass several of the responses.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback