Process for preparing the policing and performance plan 2002/3

Report: 7
Date: 19 June 2001
By: Commissioner

Summary

This paper summarises lessons learned from the planning process used to prepare the 2001/02 policing and performance plan. The paper also proposes overarching principles and a process for preparing the 2002/03 plan.

A. Recommendations

1. Members note the lessons learned as described see Appendix 1.
2. Members consider and endorse the planning principles see Appendix 2.
3. Members consider and endorse the summary timetable see Appendix 3 for preparing the policing and performance plan 2002/03.
4. Members consider and endorse the remit and membership of a re-constituted planning sub-group see Appendix 4 including a request for additional representation from the Consultation, Diversity and Outreach Committee.

B. Supporting information

1. The previous planning cycle culminated in the publication of the Authority's policing and performance plan 2001/02. A summary of the plan, co-published with other partners in the GLA family, will be distributed to 2.7 million households in June/July.

2. MPA and MPS officers met on 1 May to conduct a debrief on the planning process and learn lessons for the future (summary of outcome see Appendix 1). The Committee agreed in April that a report on the debrief should be considered at its June meeting.

3. Appendix 1 describes the main issues identified by the debrief. A number of issues do not require detailed consideration by members and are included for information only. The debrief concluded that, given the difficulties in establishing and progressing a new MPA/MPS planning process, a reasonable product had been delivered but more work was needed to:

• improve the links between different elements of the planning and budgeting regime (and clarify the relationship between local and corporate priorities);
• ensure that annual corporate priorities, objectives, measures and targets were agreed sooner to assist MPS managers in developing annual local plans;
• clarify roles and relationships within and between the MPA and MPS.

4. Issues of particular relevance to members are described below. The issues have been used to develop a set of overarching principles for the planning process which members are asked to consider and approve (see Appendix 2). The principles and/or process may need to be revised in response to the external audit of the policing and performance plan conducted by District Audit.

Integration of planning and budgeting processes

5. The need to integrate the annual process to set priorities/objectives with the process to prepare the budget/allocate resources (and to integrate both processes with the corporate strategy and medium-term financial strategy) is critical to the overall management of the MPS. MPA and MPS officers are working to achieve this integration but there are still a number of major 'unknowns'.

6. Members will be aware that work is ongoing to develop a corporate and medium-term financial strategy. A corporate strategy needs to be available in September 2001 if it is to influence plans and budgets for 2002/03.

7. During 2001/02 local crime and disorder partnerships will be preparing the next set of three-year strategies such that most audits (each including a consultative element) ought to be completed by September 2001. This should give a good indication of local objectives and targets to feed into the MPA/MPS planning process but it is likely boroughs in London will be at different stages of agreement with their partners.

8. The overall emphasis to be given to local strategies at a corporate level is subject to discussion as part of the development of the corporate strategy. Notwithstanding the outcome of this discussion there is a clear need to integrate local crime and disorder strategies with corporate priorities and objectives. It is intended that borough commanders will provide early input at workshop in June and will be invited to the management board seminar in October.

9. Overall, there may be a need to bring decisions forward (compared to last year) to align with the budget timetable currently proposed by the Mayor. A separate paper by the Treasurer on current proposals is contained on the agenda for this meeting.

Number of corporate priorities and objectives

10. The Authority's policing and performance plan for 2001/02 includes:

• four service delivery priorities (with sixteen supporting objectives and thirty performance indicators);
• two developmental priorities (with five supporting objectives and fourteen performance indicators); plus
• ten areas of sustained activity (with six supporting objectives and twelve performance indicators).

11. Members may wish to consider reducing the number of priorities, objectives and targets for 2002/03. This would allow greater focus and facilitate member engagement in considering more detailed plans and in monitoring subsequent performance. However, agreeing a smaller set of priorities etc may be problematic due to the number of competing demands.

12. If a reduction in the effective number of priorities is seen as desirable then it is considered that the term 'sustained activity' should not be used. In practice the term has come to mean a 'second-order priority' and such use can mask issues intended to be 'first-order priorities'. If the concept of a 'second order priority' is to be used then more work will be needed to define what it means in practice (especially with respect to any demands made for additional resources).

13. Any move to limit the number of priorities, objectives, indicators and targets will need to be carefully explained to managers. There is a tendency for an issue not described as a priority in the corporate plan to be mistakenly regarded as 'unimportant'. In any event, it would be useful to develop clear definitions of the terms used within the annual planning process and circulate them as soon as possible.

Timetable for decisions

14. A summary of the proposed planning process, including points of engagement with members, has been prepared by the MPS see Appendix 3. The timetable makes a number of assumptions when particular information will be available (eg: publication of Ministerial Priorities) and, as such, is subject to change. At this stage it is intended that members will be engaged at the following key points:*

*Member engagement with respect to the budget cycle is subject to a separate paper. Subject to the views of members on both papers a common overview will be prepared.

• to agree overall process, timetable and principles (this paper);
• to provide initial views on priorities and objectives (workshop in July);
• to co-agree a corporate strategy (MPA and MPS meetings in September);
• to provide feedback on draft priorities, objectives and targets proposed by the MPS (workshop in October);
• to decide programme of best value reviews for 2002/03 – 2004/05 (November);
• to confirm priorities, objectives and targets (December);
• to agree efficiency plan (January 2002);
• to agree final policing and performance plan 2002/03 (February 2003).

15. The timetable as it stands would mean that final decisions on priorities, objectives, measures and targets would be made in December 2001. This will assist MPS managers prepare local business plans which reflect the annual corporate plan (and which include bespoke targets agreed corporately).

Clarity of roles and decision-making

16. Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur has recently been given the lead for corporate planning in the MPS and is revising management arrangements. Decisions made during the planning process need to be recorded and justified, especially in relation to desired priorities, objectives, measures and targets. This record will be useful if there is a need, later in the process, to re-consider matters. It is intended to supplement the record of decisions by a paper describing the results of each method of consultation as well as the areas of similarity/difference arising from consultation.

17. The process to prepare the 2001/02 plan was monitored by members of FPBV Committee (the 'oversight panel' chaired by Graham Tope). The panel met on 16 May to consider lessons learned from the debrief and concluded that its role had been useful. The number of members was thought to be appropriate given that key decisions were referred to other committees and/or the full Authority.

18. However, the panel thought that its name should change from 'Oversight Panel' to 'Planning sub-group'. The Chair of the Consultation, Diversity and Outreach Committee later requested increased CDO representation given overlaps between planning and consultation.

19. A revised membership and remit see Appendix 4. The panel recognised that the role of other committees could be clearer, especially in relation to decision-making about components in the plan, and work to develop these roles is ongoing.

C. Financial implications

The financial implications for some of the preferred methods of consultation outlined see Appendix 1 (Note 3) remain to be assessed. Formal approval will be sought if the overall estimated expenditure is significantly greater than that incurred in previous years.

D. Background papers

• MPA Policing and Performance Plan 2001/02

E. Contact details

The author of this report is Derrick Norton, MPA Best Value Manager and Sarah Hedgcock, MPS.

For information contact:

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

Appendices

• Appendix 3: Summary of Planning Process is available from the MPA.
• Appendix 3 (Annex A): Overview of planning process is available from the MPA.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback