Policing and performance plan 2002/03

Report: 6
Date: 19 July 2001
By: Clerk

Summary

This paper sets out a process for identifying and agreeing provisional MPA priorities for 2002/03 in a timescale compatible with that required by the Mayor for submission of the proposed budget. (The paper had to be submitted late based on the need to reflect the outcome of a meeting with the Mayor on 11 July 2001.)

A. Recommendations

1. That the thirty-one issues listed as 'objectives' in the current policing and performance plan are used as the starting point for selecting MPA priorities for 2002/03 (see list at Appendix 2).
2. That an 'assessment form' and 'decision log' is used by the MPS and MPA to select priorities for 2002/03 and to record decision-making (see example at Appendix 3).
3. That all members are asked to provide an initial view on priorities for 2002/03 by way of a questionnaire (circulated to ensure results are available by mid-August together with similar feedback from community and police consultative groups).
4. That the planning sub-group meets in late August to consider the provisional priorities proposed by the MPS prior to formal consideration by FPBV Committee (on 4 October) and full Authority (on 25 October).
5. That members confirm priorities for 2002/03 following a review which includes an impact assessment of Ministerial priorities (expected to be published in November).

B. Supporting information

Background

1. It is a joint MPA/MPS aspiration that the 2002/03 planning process moves towards full integration of the budget and priority setting cycles. To this end, FPBV Committee on 19 June 2001 agreed:

• a set of principles to underpin the planning process which included the introduction of bespoke targets for boroughs and an agreed need to reduce the overall number of priorities [1] (see Appendix 1);
• that provisional priorities should be identified prior to the budget submission to the Mayor on 26 October 2001;
• that provisional priorities should be reviewed and confirmed once Ministerial priorities have been published (estimated date is November 2001);
• to undertake as much consultation as possible and to reflect the views of borough commanders in setting corporate priorities (in order to facilitate delivery of local crime and disorder strategies).

2. There is also an intention for the chair and deputy chairs of FPBV Committee to scrutinise MPS budget bids during September. The results of this exercise will be reported to FPBV Committee on 4 October 2001 and, subsequently, to the full Authority on 25 October 2001.

3. Given the need to integrate the processes to prepare a budget and to set priorities it follows that a view on emerging priorities, by the end of August, would help inform the scrutiny process. In any event, a view on provisional priorities would be needed to inform FPBV Committee decisions on 4 October.

4. These deadlines are considerably earlier than those used in previous years and means that decisions on emerging and/or provisional priorities will have to be made before all relevant information is available. This is regarded as an acceptable approach provided decisions are provisional and subject to review when most/all of the relevant information is available (probably in November once Ministerial priorities are known).

5. A process which reflects the deadlines for 2001/02 is described below. The process has been discussed with District Audit with a view to clarifying whether or not it conflicts with the requirements of the Police Act 1996. It is considered that, whilst the process does not conflict, it should be regarded as an interim approach pending development of an annual planning/budgeting process more suited to the emerging requirements of the MPA, [2] GLA and Mayor.

Proposed interim process

6. The starting point for selecting priorities for 2002/03 should be the objectives [3] as described in the current policing and performance plan (see Appendix 2). These were developed after a significant degree of consultation and analysis much of which is still valid.

7. Even so, the case for retaining, changing or removing an existing priority (or adding a new one) needs to be clear and agreed. This can be achieved by, for each proposed priority, using an 'assessment form' that would summarise the reasons why it should or should not be a priority for 2002/03 using a common set of criteria (eg: overlap with local crime and disorder strategies).

8. An example assessment form, together with suggested criteria, see Appendix 3. In line with the agreed planning principles see Appendix 1 the form would also serve as a 'decision log' to help ensure a clear audit trail. For each criterion, the most up-to-date information should be used in making an assessment and this may mean having to use historical information obtained during preparation of the policing and performance plan 2001/02.

9. In practice, an initial assessment and recommendation first needs to be made by the MPS since the MPA is legally obliged to consider a plan drafted by the Commissioner and to consult him before setting priorities/objectives. In any event, members will naturally wish to understand the view of MPS senior officers prior to endorsing either a provisional or final priority.

10. In addition, it is considered that an initial view from all members on priorities for 2002/03 should be obtained by mid-August at the latest. This can be achieved by circulating (with minor amendments) a questionnaire recently sent to community and police consultative groups (CPCGs). The questionnaire, supported by background material, would ask members to:

• indicate their degree of agreement to rolling forward current priorities as listed - see Appendix 2;
• state their 'top five' and 'bottom five' priorities from those listed - see Appendix 2;
• indicate if other priorities not listed see Appendix 2 should be selected for 2002/03 and the reason why.

Timing of assessments

11. An early MPS view on proposed priorities would be useful background material to the scrutiny process in September. MPS officers will need to form a view in August which, given the lack of all relevant information, would necessarily lead to gaps in the assessment but this is preferable to having no assessment at all.

12. MPS recommendations on provisional priorities could be forwarded to the scrutiny panel direct but there would be merit in MPA members undertaking an initial review of the proposed priorities.

13. Therefore, it is considered that the planning sub-group [4] should (if possible) meet in late August to review the provisional priorities proposed by the MPS before use during the scrutiny process. Use of the planning sub-group would provide an opportunity for more detailed consideration of proposed priorities than would be achievable in a formal Committee meeting.

14. Finally, if thought necessary, the MPS and/or planning sub-group could consider 'ranking' the provisional priorities in order to develop a view on relative importance. The need to rank priorities may depend on the overall number of priorities proposed by the MPS. Any ranking process would need to consider the relative importance of the (draft) criteria listed see Appendix 3 and could, for example, give greater weight to those priorities which featured in most or all local crime and disorder strategies.

C. Financial implications

There are no direct financial implications.

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.

For information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback