You are in:

Warning: This is archived material and may be out of date. The Metropolitan Police Authority has been replaced by the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime (MOPC).

See the MOPC website for further information.

Policing priorities 2002/03

Report: 5
Date: 4 October 2001
By: Commissioner

Summary

The paper proposes MPA policing priorities for 2002/03. This year's planning timetable has prevented full identification of objectives in advance of the committee meeting. The objectives will be developed at an MPS seminar on 4 October for consideration at the budget workshop recently arranged for 9 October 2001.

A. Recommendations

1. Members endorse the 2002/03 priorities proposed by MPS Management Board.

2. Members note the progress made towards the development of objectives for 2002/03 and that the MPS will propose objectives for consideration at the budget workshop on 9 October.

B. Supporting information

Background

1. The Police Act 1996 requires the Commissioner to prepare a draft annual policing plan for consideration by members. This report summarises the work undertaken to develop policing priorities for 2002/03 and presents the MPS's proposals. The views expressed by Finance Planning and Best Value (FPBV) Committee will be incorporated into a revised draft of priorities and objectives for consideration at the budget workshop on 9 October and full Authority on 25 October.

2. Given the requirement to integrate the processes to prepare a budget and to set priorities, it is recognised that a view on priorities is needed to inform the budgetary decisions made by FPBV today (4 October). However, the deadline for budget submission is before all of the priority information is available. (The key missing pieces are the Ministerial Priorities, expected November). The priorities will therefore have to be reviewed once all of the relevant data are available. The decisions made should hence be regarded as provisional until then. This approach has been agreed with District Audit as being acceptable.

Priority development process

3. An objective assessment form (Appendix 1) was constructed for each of the 33 existing objectives and 6 potential new ones. These forms detailed such issues as: performance data, views of BOCUs/OCUs, results of public consultation and emerging issues raised through environmental scanning. [A set of the completed forms is available from the MPA Secretariat, if required].

4. In proposing 2002/03 priorities, management board (building on meetings with senior managers and reflecting views expressed by FPBV committee) adopted the following principles:

  • There should be a small number of priorities, objectives and targets. This will allow the MPS to focus on the key issues of concern.
  • The existing (2001/02) objectives should form the basis for selection of those for 2002/03. Further ones to be included only if there are compelling reasons to do so.
  • Internal developmental objectives should not be included since there should be an emphasis on those issues of direct relevance to the public. Overall, such objectives will be better placed in the longer-term corporate strategy, rather than the annual plan.
  • Sustained activities (such as investigating homicide) should not be included. The MPS performs many 'business as usual' activities and just because they are not priorities does not mean that the activity will be discontinued. It was felt that a prologue to the annual plan could explain this to readers.
  • Terrorism should be a 2002/03 priority, as the atrocities in America on 11 September have increased the risk of attacks on London. The current world prominence of terrorism means that an increased MPS focus is required.

5. The planning panel chaired by Graham Tope met on two occasions during the development process (on 30 August and 17 September) to share their views with the MPS on the emerging priorities. The following definitions were agreed by the panel and used to guide the development of priorities, objectives and targets:

  • Designating a service as a priority means that it is an issue singled out to receive additional managerial focus, work-effort and/or resources to bring about a change and/or improvement.
  • Each issue selected as a priority will have at least one objective describing how the priority is to be addressed (i.e. what will actually be done in practice). For example, the objective "To reduce gun related violent crime" could be regarded as one of the ways in which the priority "To make London's streets safer by tackling street and violent crime" is actually delivered. Each objective will be SMART (i.e. specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-based).
  • A target is the intended degree of change expected for each objective within the 2002/03 financial year.

Priority proposals

6. Following due consideration of all the relevant information available, MPS management board propose the priority areas shown in Table 1. The management board member with overall responsibility for delivery of each will be assigned following development of the priorities into supporting objectives at the seminar meeting on 4 October.

7. In deciding the wording of the priority proposals, management board considered a number of options (shown in Appendix 2).

Table 1 - 2002/03 priority areas proposed by MPS management board

Priority area Emerging priority proposals Supporting objectives
Youth offending Work in partnership to reduce the number of crimes committed by youths [To be confirmed at management board seminar on 4 October]
Drugs supply Disrupt London’s drugs markets [To be confirmed at management board seminar on 4 October]
Uniform presence Enhance our visible patrol service for London’s communities [To be confirmed at management oard seminar on 4 October]
Vulnerable victims Improve the policing response to vulnerable victims [To be confirmed at management board seminar on 4 October]
Street violence Make London's streets safer by tackling street and violent crime [To be confirmed at management board seminar on 4 October]
Combating terrorism Increase the security of the capital against terrorism [To be confirmed at management board seminar on 4 October]

8. As Table 1 indicates, the SMART objectives supporting the priorities will be developed at the seminar on 4 October. Nevertheless, management board has expressed some preliminary views (shown in Appendix 3). Appendix 4 summarises the key reasons for the continuation (or otherwise) of the 2001/02 objectives into those proposed for 2002/03. However, as the assessment form in Appendix 1 illustrates this is a multi-faceted decision involving the consideration of many competing demands.

Target setting

9. Following agreement on priorities and supporting objectives, work will continue to develop appropriate performance indicators, base line data (including trend analysis) and targets for each. This may ultimately influence the final wording of the objectives. For example, if analysis indicates that a 2002/03 reduction in street crime is unrealistic, then the objective may be "To restrict the rise in street crime to (say) 10%". The political ramifications of setting realistic targets for objectives will need to be considered before each are finalised. There will also be a need to address the implications of implementation of the proposed national crime reporting standards.

10. The process of setting bespoke targets for BOCUs is being piloted in the MPS in 2002/03 on key crime targets, prior to being implemented fully in 2003/04. Boroughs will be set different targets against certain objectives, based upon their differing pressures (local performance, content of local crime and disorder strategy, etc). At this stage, a number of options are being considered.

C. Financial implications

At this stage in the development of 2002/03 objectives, the budget implications cannot be determined.

D. Background Papers

E. Contact details

Report author: Sarah Hedgcock, MPS Corporate Development Group 020 7230 4035

For information contact:

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

Appendix 1: Objective assessment form

Proposed objective: e.g. 1. To reduce street crime

Criteria

Assessment
a) Ministerial priorities

[Not available at time of construction of assessment forms - expected November]

b) Members’ views

 initial views via questionnaire

c) Mayoral priorities

 from Mayor’s annual report

d) Corporate strategy

 emerging

e) Performance

 for year to date

f) Local C&D strategies

 via collation of audit or strategy (as available)

g) External consultation

 results from customer satisfaction surveys, preliminary results from Public Attitude Survey, e-consultation

h) Internal consultation

 amongst BOCUs/OCUs and via unit's completion of EFQM action plans

i) Audits / inspections

 where issues relevant to pan-London priorities

j) Environmental scanning

 where issues relevant to pan-London priorities

k) MPS corporate review

 if issues relevant to pan-London priorities

l) Budget/demand pressures

 where known

Appendix 2: Recommended options for wording of MPS priorities 2002/03

The options identified in the landscape sheets that follow in this appendix reflect the variety of ways in which the selected priority can be described:

  • There is a requirement for wording of the priority to be simple, understandable and realistic.
  • It must be sufficiently generic to allow a range of objectives to be implemented which ensure a measure of success.
  • The wording aims to eschew adjectives which may not be realistic - ‘to reduce’, ‘to increase’, etc.

The options paper illustrates some of the advantages and disadvantages of each priority wording. Shown in bold below is the recommended option (with reasoning) that was proposed to Management Board by members of the Corporate Development Group.

Youth offending

  • Work in partnership to reduce the number of crimes committed by youths
    • Partnership is the only way forward. It is not simply about repeat offenders (last year’s statement) but about all youth offending per se.
    • Identification of ‘criminal careers’ raises status of their activity and is open to criticism/comment.
    • Option allows considerable variability and initiative from BOCUs with their C & D strategy to produce successful outcomes

Drugs

  • Tackle drug related crime which affects London's communities
    • The other options include action which may not be possible to sustain - viz. Reduce, increase, disrupt.
    • Sufficiently broad to encompass a range of policing activity
    • Incorporates a partnership approach by linking to ‘London’s communities’
    • As per view of consultation, encompasses all drug types, not just Class A.
    • As above, allows BOCUs freedom to deliver according to problem

Uniform presence

  • Enhance our visible patrol service for London’s communities
    • The option of increasing time or availability will very difficult to measure.
    • This option is generic enough to incorporate a number of options
    • Links to Boroughs and communities - their particular needs
    • Directly linked to drugs priority and street crime

Vulnerable victims

  • Improve the policing response to vulnerable victims
    • Open ended commitment - a desirable goal
    • The areas identified represent risk to MPS - all still require focus of MPS to ‘get it right’
    • Glidewell report will focus on improvements further learning for many agencies.

Street violence

  • Make London's streets safer by tackling street and violent crime
    • Statement encompasses two key aspects of fear amongst Londoners’
    • Incorporates the ‘Safer streets’ initiatives within its title
    • Avoids use of ‘reduce’ ‘increase’ etc
    • Purposely broad to allow a range of objectives to be included - from top down and at BOCU level.

Suggested options for wording around priorities. This will set the direction for the wording of the supporting objectives and Performance Indicators. 

NB. PIs will be set for the supporting objectives, not for the priorities themselves.

Youth offending

The emerging issues concern young offenders and their disproportionate impact on volume crime. Reactive initiatives alone are insufficient and prevention strategies are equally important.

Suggested options for wording of priority Advantages Disadvantages
1) Work in partnership to reduce the number of crimes committed by youths
Recommended option - adopted		 Emphasises that the MPS alone cannot reduce crime 'Youth crime' is the aspect of youth offending that the public want us to tackle Wording may appeal to our C & D partners Outcome relatively easy to measure (although national crime recording standards may skew the results) Use of 'partnership' reduces the MPS's accountability to influence the result.
2) Work in partnership to reduce repeat offending by young people Emphasises that the MPS alone cannot reduce repeat offending Places the emphasis on PYOs. [As above]
3) Work in partnership to divert young people from criminal careers (No doubt) very appealing to the media Very difficult (impossible?) to measure
4) Deal effectively with young people committing crime Is a priority that the MPS can influence directly 'Process' indicators (e.g. PYO time from arrest to charge) are relatively easy to measure - systems already in place to do so Emphasis on dealing with young offenders rather than prevention of youth crime in the first place is not supported by consultation: 53% of respondents to e-consultation listed 'process young offenders quickly' as one of their bottom 5 priorities for the MPS

Drugs supply

A criminal activity and concern identified by all stakeholders. As with youth offending, the strategy must deal with both the criminality (the supply and use of drugs) together with initiatives tackling the rehabilitation of users.

Suggested options for wording of priority Advantages Disadvantages
1) Reduce street drugs supply Links directly to intention of priority (i.e. drugs supply) Difficult to separate 'street drugs' supply from all drugs supply - 'Reduce drugs supply' would be better alternative wording for priority
2) Tackle drug related crime which affects London's communities
Recommended option		 Would resonate with Londoners/C & D partners. Incorporates Operation Trident and Operation Crackdown Difficult to measure 'drug related crime' vs. all crime
3) Reduce damage to London's communities caused by drug dealing Existing priority - would show continuity Would resonate with Londoners/C & D partners Direct measurement of the priority itself i.e. damage to communities could be via public safety survey information from the Public Attitude Survey. Only yearly data available - no interim information to track progress
4) Increase the quantity of drug seizures Specific and easy to measure (although data on seizure is of poor quality and out of date - needs considerable development) Wording does not capture overall intent - does not (necessarily) lead to reduced drug use or crime. May just mean there are more drugs on the street to be seized.
5) Disrupt London’s drugs markets
Option adopted		 Links directly to intention of priority (i.e. drugs supply) Not solely an MPS issue - other players include National Criminal Intelligence Service, Customs & Excise - measuring effect of MPS activity vs. other agencies would be impossible/meaningless Significant proportion of activity to make meaningful inroads into this priority would have to take place abroad, less relevant to MPS boroughs.

Uniform presence

This issue reflects both Government and public concern. Increased visibility through uniform patrolling provides reassurance and enables greater opportunities for community problem solving. It further enhances the strategy relating to drugs and street crime.

Suggested options for wording of priority Advantages Disadvantages
1) Increase the amount of time a uniformed officer spends on the streets Would impact directly on public's desire to see 'More bobbies on the beat' Base line measurement problematic - do we know the amount of time a uniformed officer currently spends on the streets?
2) Increase the availability of uniformed officers on London's streets Relatively easy to measure (e.g. number in uniform posts) 'Availability' does not necessarily result in actual presence on the streets. Wording of priority may allow blurring of the key issue
3) Enhance our visible patrol service for London’s communities
Recommended option - adopted		 Wording captures the 'feel good factor' about patrolling/uniform presence
4) Direct uniform response to deal with Community problems Emphasises outcome of uniform presence, rather than being an end in its own right Bringing two aspects of policing into priority (uniform presence and problem solving) will make progress more difficult to track.

Vulnerable victims 

These hard to reach groups merit particular attention, people either reluctant or unable to report offending upon themselves - victims of racial crime, children, rape victims and those within an environment of domestic violence.

Suggested options for wording of priority Advantages Disadvantages
1) Reduce the number of vulnerable victims Measurement relatively easy (e.g. number of victims of domestic violence incidents, etc). However, under reporting skews results. Encouraging people to report incidents will cause numbers to increase in the short term (as per racist incidents). Could be unachievable Could be unachievable (see opposite)
2) Increase the satisfaction of vulnerable victims with the service received from the MPS Is an issue that the MPS can impact on directly Difficult to measure satisfaction levels for victims of domestic violence, child abuse
3) Improve the policing response to vulnerable victims
Recommended option - adopted		 An issue that the MPS can impact on directly
4) Reduce repeat offences against vulnerable victims Measurement difficult

Street violence

A core activity of policing which focuses directly on the ‘safer streets’ vision. Tackling street crime, preventing the possession and use of guns and knives and reducing the risk of assault and other violence.

Suggested options for wording of priority Advantages Disadvantages
1) Make London's streets safer by tackling street and violent crime
Recommended option - adopted		 Embraces a large number of issues of concern to the public Some violent crime does not happen on the streets and not all street crime is violent crime. Strict definitions of what is/is not included is needed, otherwise the actual numbers may look very high
2) Make London's streets safer by tackling street crime Very specific
3) Make London safer by tackling violent crime on the street Would exclude street crime that is not violent

Appendix 3: Policing priorities identified following management board (SMT) meetings

Note: The items shown in bold are the priorities proposed by management board. The supporting objectives have yet to be fully determined and will be developed further and confirmed at the seminar on 4 October.

The supporting statement for each priority identifies the areas of activity which will be the focus of the objectives.

Youth offending

The emerging issues concern young offenders and their disproportionate impact on volume crime. Reactive initiatives alone are insufficient and prevention strategies are equally important.

Drugs supply

A criminal activity and concern identified by all stakeholders. As with youth offending, the strategy must deal with both the criminality (the supply and use of drugs), together with initiatives tackling the rehabilitation of users.

Uniform presence

This issue reflects both Government and public concern. Increased visibility through uniform patrolling provides reassurance and enables greater opportunities for community problem solving. It further enhances the strategy relating to drugs and street crime and anti-terrorism measures.

Vulnerable victims

These hard to reach groups merit particular attention, people either reluctant or unable to report offending upon themselves - victims of racial crime, children, rape victims, those within an environment of domestic violence and victims of homophobic crime.

Street violence

A core activity of policing which focuses directly on the ‘safer streets’ vision. Tackling street crime, preventing the possession and use of guns and knives and reducing the risk of assault and other violence.

Combating terrorism

This priority has emerged following the recent terrorist attacks in the USA. There is a significantly increased risk to London from terrorist activity which must be viewed in the long term. The priority aims to increase reassurance to the public (which supplements the Uniform visibility priority), develop further initiatives to disrupt and deter terrorism and provide a post-incident investigative strategy which will ensure successful prosecutions.

Appendix 4: 2001/02 objectives - summary of reasons for their continuation (or otherwise) into proposals for 2002/03

Note: SMART objectives for 2002/03 are in the process of being developed. It is possible that these objectives may be expressed differently to those for 2001/02. Thus, whilst Management Board proposed that 'Street crime' is a 2002/03 objective, it may not be 'To reduce street crime'. Hence, in the table below, a "Yes" indicates that the underlying subject will be continued into 2002/03, but not necessarily the objective itself.

2001/02 service delivery priority 1
Making London’s streets safer

To be continued? Key reason

1. To reduce street crime

Yes

Stakeholder priority Performance significantly below target

2. To reduce gun related violent crime

Yes

  

3. To reduce violent crime in which offensive weapons or bladed instruments are involved

Yes

  

4. Anti-social behaviour (objectives and targets set locally in each borough)

Yes [as part of Community problem solving]

Emerging issue from Crime and Disorder audits

5. To work with partners to reduce the proportion of youths who offend a second time

Yes [as part of 'youth offending - prevention']

Stakeholder priority

6. To process young offenders quickly

Yes

Stakeholder priority

7. To ensure stop and search power is exercised appropriately and effectively

No

  

2001/02 service delivery priority 2
Keeping burglars out of London’s homes and businesses

To be continued? Key reason

8. To reduce burglary

No

Performance satisfactory Significant reduction in concern from public

2001/02 service delivery priority 3
Reducing damage to London’s communities caused by drug dealing

To be continued? Key reason

9. To reduce class A drugs supply

Yes

Stakeholder priority

10. To increase the number of people referred to specialist drug treatment service from arrest referral schemes

Yes

  

2001/02 service delivery priority 4
Protecting Londoners from hate crime

To be continued? Key reason

11. To investigate racist incidents and racist crimes to the satisfaction of victims

Yes

Stakeholder priority

12. To investigate homophobic crimes to the satisfaction of victims

Yes

  

13. To investigate domestic violence to the satisfaction of victims

Yes

  

14. To improve victim care and investigation in cases of rape

Yes

  

15. To increase the judicial disposal rate for child sex abuse

Yes

  

16. To run child abuse prevention initiatives in partnership with other agencies

No

e-consultation does not support continuation

2001/02 service delivery sustained activities

To be continued? Key reason

17. To respond promptly to emergencies

No

Sustained activities not to be included in 2002/03 plan

18. To investigate homicide effectively

No

[As above]

19. To work with other organisations to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured in road collisions

No

[As above]

20. To prevent, deter, disrupt and detect terrorist offences

Yes

World events have increased focus needed on terrorism

21. To reduce autocrime

No

Sustained activities not to be included in 2002/03 plan

2001/02 developmental priority 1
Communicating and consulting better with Londoners and each other

To be continued? Key reason

22. To improve internal and external communication

No

Developmental objectives not to be included in 2002/03 plan

2001/02 developmental priority 2
Making the Met great to work for

To be continued? Key reason

23. To respond to the staff survey

No

Developmental objectives not to be included in 2002/03 plan

24. To reduce the number of working days lost through sickness

No

[As above]

25. To achieve the planned establishment of the MPS

No

[As above]

26. To increase the strength of visible ethnic minorities and females in the police

No

[As above]

27. To deliver community and race relations training to police and front line civil staff

No

[As above]

28. To reduce unnecessary bureaucracy

No

[As above]

2001/02 developmental sustained activities

To be continued? Key reason

29. To improve professional standards across the MPS by continuing the development of proactive prevention and detection initiatives

No

Sustained activities not to be included in 2002/03 plan

30. To mainstream the best value regime to secure continuous improvement

No

[As above]

31. To modernise information management

No

[As above]

32. To modernise financial management

No

[As above]

33. To modernise personnel management

No

[As above]

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback