Update on policing plan 2004/05 - supplementary report

Report: 10a supplementary report
Date: 11 December 2003
By: Commissioner

Summary

The report provides an update on the 2004/05 policing plan following the observations of Planning Panel on 4 December.

A. Recommendations

That

1. Members note the revised timetable for the annual planning process with key events and products
2. Members note the MPS response to observations made by members at the Planning Panel

B. Supporting information

Process and timetable for the 2004/05 annual plan

1. Following discussion at the Planning Panel on establishing the most appropriate and realistic timetable in developing the Policing and Performance Plan for 2004/05, the MPS has produced a revised timeline at Appendix 1. This revised schedule takes account of the MPS Management Board planning day on 6 January and an additional meeting of the Planning Panel set for 8 January to discuss the outcomes of the planning day.

2. The products and outcomes of the Planning Panel will then be taken forward to the Co-ordination and Policing meeting on 23 January; this will give an opportunity for other members not so closely involved with the planning process to consider the proposed MPS corporate objectives and associated measures before they are presented to the full Authority on 29 January.

3. During this period the MPS Corporate Planning and Performance Groups will be helping business groups to develop the most meaningful measures for each corporate objective to ensure that they are robust, meet the scope of the objective and that there are appropriate systems in place to capture the relevant information. Once the measures are approved by the Authority the MPS intends to propose a target for each measure to the PPRC on 12 February and the recommendations from that committee will be taken to the full Authority on 26 February.

Outcomes from the Planning Panel

4. At the Planning Panel on 4 December the MPS circulated two tables for members to consider. The first set out a suggested approach for presenting the corporate (priority) objectives in support of the high level priorities, and the identification of key business group objectives where additional management focus was being placed, but which were not proposed as priority objectives.

5. This process of differentiated objective setting is seen as a major step towards improved business planning in the MPS and is in line with the wish to reduce the number of corporate objectives. A definition for a priority objective, a business group key objective and a sustained delivery objective is attached at Appendix 2.

6. The second table entitled ‘building the future of the organisation’ set out the major change programmes taking place across the Service. This is intended to reflect where significant resource and management effort is being invested in areas where the business benefits may be more long term, or where there are enabling activities taking place that support the delivery of the operational objectives.

7. Members raised a number of issues about the selection and hierarchical presentation of the objectives such as the inclusion of business and economic crime. The MPS Management Board intends to use the planning day on 6 January to discuss further the composition of the priority and business group objectives and the rationale behind their selection. The provisional set of priority objectives as shown to Planning Panel has, therefore, been reproduced at Appendix 3. Further work is currently underway within the operational business groups on the scope and consistency of business group objectives.

8. Management Board will also be debating the contributions of those business groups which will be assisting the business group with lead responsibility for the delivery of each priority objective and major change programme. This will form a core part of the delivery strategy as required under the National Intelligence Model (NIM) and is a further step towards more integrated business planning.

9. The MPS recognises the requirement to move towards PPAF measures and targets where they are appropriate that enable national comparisons to be made and represent a more cohesive approach in areas where there are significant developments such as criminal justice. This work is being led by Corporate Performance Group in tandem with Territorial Policing and the other operational business groups. It will also take account of how to represent public satisfaction targets such as accessibility to policing services and the link with the reassurance priority.

10. The MPS also recognises the flaws in using judicial disposals as a measure of performance and would prefer, where possible, to move towards more appropriate measures such as offences brought to justice. There are difficulties with this measure, such as time lags between offence taking place and offence brought to justice and the history of this data actually available. The MPS will be in contact with Ruth Goodwin from the justice gap action team to ask whether the information which the MPA/MPS wishes to monitor can be made available.

C. Equality and diversity implications

There are no direct equality and diversity issues in this paper but they are likely to be featured in the supplementary paper referred to in paragraph 3.

D. Financial implications

The financial implications arising from this paper surround the links to the corporate budgetary allocation process.

E. Background papers

None.

F. Contact details

Report author: Michael Debens, MPS Corporate Planning Group, MPS.

For more information contact:

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

Appendix 2

Proposed Definitions for 2004/05 Objectives

• Priority objectives – those few which most directly help us to achieve each of the agreed MPS corporate priorities (i.e. terrorism, reassurance and serious & organised crime). These priority objectives will receive significant corporate focus in the coming year and the associated targets will reflect this
• Key Business Group objectives – those which will receive significant focus in the coming year by the lead business group responsible for delivering against the objective. These objectives will feature in operational and support business group plans alongside the priority objectives and will, in many cases, attract associated measures and targets
• Sustaining Delivery objectives – those which will have a lesser level of ambition in the coming year, reflecting a desire to moderately improve or in some cases sustain this performance

*The hierarchical approach to objective setting is suggested as part of the transition to business planning in the MPS. It helps to incorporate all key activities undertaken across the Service, rather than just the ‘chosen few’ high level objectives that have been a feature of past annual plans.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback