Police Performance Assessment Framework (PPAF) & Baseline Assessment 2005/6

Report: 12
Date: 9 November 2006
By: Chief Executive and Clerk

Summary

This report outlines the key issues arising out of the Baseline Assessment and highlights the 2005/06 results of the Police Performance Assessment Framework (PPAF) report issued on 24th October 2006.

A. Recommendation

That

1. members consider the issues arising from the Baseline Assessment and PPAF results for 2005/06 and identifies any areas where it wishes the MPS to pay particular attention to improvement; and
2. consider how they wish to be informed of the progress being made by the MPS on the issues identified by both assessments.

B. Supporting information

Introduction

1. The aggregated results of PPAF and the Baseline assessment were reported on last month as a single judgement for the second time.

2. PPAF is intended to be an effective and fair way of measuring and comparing strategic performance in policing across the full range of policing responsibilities.

3. Forces and BOCUs performance is compared on a ‘most similar’ basis. Each force is placed in a group of its ‘most similar forces’ as determined by demographic, socio-economic and geographical factors strongly correlated with levels of recorded. Many BOCUs most similar groups are dominated by other London boroughs and so should allow BOCUs to identify weaknesses and to share good practice across the MPS. The assessments are based on quantitative data.

4. Baseline assessment is the process used by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) to assess the performance of the MPS during 2005/06. It has involved an assessment of performance against agreed standards and known good practice. Each area of policing activity is awarded a grade – poor, fair, good and excellent – and most areas are awarded a ‘direction of travel’ – improved, stable or deteriorated. It is a diagnostic assessment aimed at generating a tailored programme of inspection for each police service.

5. The assessments are derived from qualitative and quantitative data including two-week on-site inspection that took place earlier this year.

Summary of findings

PPAF

6. PPAF compares the MPS with West Midlands, Greater Manchester, Merseyside and West Yorkshire. It must be remembered that the difference between the MPS and all other forces is such that no other force compares itself with the MPS.

7. There are a number of reasons for this that relate to the unique nature of London including:

• The national and international responsibilities of the MPS
• The large amount of tourism within London
• London being the centre of national government and the diplomatic service
• The rich diversity of the resident population of London
• The daily change in the London population caused by commuting.

It is important to ensure that this is taken into account when looking at the data.

8. Each force is assessed in seven key performance areas: Reducing Crime; Investigating Crime; Promoting Safety; Providing Assistance; Citizen Focus; Resource Use and Local Policing. The seven areas are the same as used for the assessments in 2004/05, although some components within each performance area may be different from last year. Each of the seven key performance areas is assessed for performance and direction.

9. For the first part of the assessment, forces delivering better performance than their peers are graded as either ‘excellent’ or ‘good’, forces delivering performance similar to their peers are graded ‘fair’ and forces delivering performance worse than their peers are graded ‘poor’. The second assessment is made on direction by comparing the performance achieved by a force with that achieved by the same force in the previous year (i.e. 2005/06 compared with 2004/05).

10. Forces performing much better than previously are graded as ‘improved’, forces performing much the same are graded as ‘stable’ and forces performing much worse than previously are graded as ‘deteriorated’.

11. Each headline grade is an aggregate of other component grades. As such, a force with an excellent grade in a performance area will have many strengths, but may also have some areas of relative weakness. Likewise, a force with a poor grade may have some areas of relative strength. Since assessments cover the period 1 April 2005 – 31 March 2006, they are not necessarily indicative of current performance.

Performance table

Performance summary

12. There are no areas of poor performance. There were three in 2004/2005 – Citizen Focus, Investigating Crime (which had the performance grade capped at poor due to lack of compliance with the National Standard for Crime Recording) and Promoting Safety (which had performance capped at poor due to a relatively low performance in a priority component).

13. In six of the seven key performance areas, the MPS were assessed as improving. The MPS has made a significant improvement in the grades that were achieved in 2004-05. Local Policing scored the highest achieving a score of ‘Excellent’ and ‘Improved.’

14. Other areas of improvement include Investigating Crime improving from ‘Poor’ to ‘Good, Promoting Safety and Citizen Focus improving from ‘Poor’ to ‘Fair’. The direction of travel for all three areas has ‘Improved’ from ‘Stable.’

15. Feedback from the Home Office is mainly quantitative in contrast to the qualitative feedback received around the Baseline Assessments.

Baseline assessment

16. Overall, performance is mixed but improving (although it should be noted that it is not always possible to compare performance year on year as the assessment frameworks in some areas have become more sophisticated).

17. There are no areas of poor performance (there were two in 2005 – reducing volume crime and investigating volume crime)

18. Performance is FAIR in the following areas:

• fairness and equality in service delivery
• customer service and accessibility
• volume crime reduction
• volume crime investigation
• criminal justice processes
• protecting vulnerable people
• contact management
• managing financial and physical resources

19. Performance is GOOD in the following areas:

• neighbourhood policing and problem solving
• professional standards
• improving forensic performance
• reducing anti-social behaviour
• providing specialist operational support
• human resource management
• training, development and organisational learning
• race and diversity
• information management
• NIM
• leadership
• performance management and continuous improvement.

20. Performance is EXCELLENT in the following areas:

• managing critical incidents and major crime
• investigating serious and major crime
• strategic roads policing

21. Positively, HMIC has judged that the MPS is IMPROVING 17 out of the 21 areas assessed. The remaining areas were judged as stable.

22. It is particularly positive that reducing and investigating volume crime are no longer considered ‘poor’, as this is most Londoners’ experience of crime and there are clearly consequences for the user experience. However, it is disappointing that the following areas have remained as ‘Fair’:

• fairness and equality in service delivery
• customer service and accessibility
• protecting vulnerable people

(although in all three cases the inspectors recognise improvements have been achieved).

23. The inspection raises no concerns with regard to the relationship between the MPA and the MPS.

24. The report recognises that where there are weaknesses in performance, action is being taken to address it. There is particular reference to the modernising met programmes.

25. The following paragraphs are the Inspector’s summary of performance in the key areas

1. Citizen focus (Domain A)

26. Whilst improvements have been delivered in this area, the assessment has identified a number of weaknesses that remain a concern.

Fairness and equality in service delivery – Fair/Improved

27. There is clear leadership from the commissioner and the deputy commissioner and the systems and processes in place are robust. However, satisfaction of victims of race hate crime, whilst improved, remains comparatively low and there is a need to improve the consistency of the quality of service across all boroughs. The inspectors also note that there is a need to engage more effectively with minority communities to build community support for proactive policing operations.

Neighbourhood policing and problem-solving – Good/improved

28. The inspectors are very positive about the strides being made by the MPS in delivering effective neighbourhood policing and highlight the commitment it receives and the governance structures in place. They note that there are a number of areas for improvement, particularly around developing effective and consistent performance management, many of which have now been addressed.

Customer service and accessibility – Fair/Improved

29. A number of strengths are highlighted including the prominence this area is given through the establishment of the Citizen Focus Programme Board and the efforts being made to embed the Quality of Service Commitment into key organisational processes and practices. They also note that improvement in satisfaction figures. Third Party Recording and accessibility remain a concern.

Professional standards – Good

30. This was inspected separately. The report was published in Jan 06 and the findings have been communicated to Members.

2. Reducing crime

Volume crime reduction – Fair/Improved

31. This is one of the success stories of this inspection as this area was graded as poor last year. NCRS compliance is partly responsible for this (the cap has been removed) but a number of other factors are cited including the establishment of the Violent Crime Directorate, clarity about performance accountabilities, the focus on problem solving and effective working relationships with the London boroughs. Overall, crime levels remain a concern and the MPS remains at or near the bottom of the comparator group on most crimes.

3. Investigating crime

Managing critical incidents and major crime – Excellent/stable

32. The MPS has robust systems and processes in place for dealing with critical incidents and major crime supported by an established and effective network of IAGs. Intelligence assets are a strength and all major crime issues are considered within the force strategic assessment and problem profiles are produced on organised crime within communities and threat levels are actively assessed. Regional tasking requires further development, as does the use of MAPPA to monitor Trident nominals. There is limited inter-operability between significant intelligence databases.

Tackling serious and organised criminality – Excellent/Improved

33. The MPS has a clear focus on serious and organised criminality and a high level of experience and expertise in relation to deterring, disrupting and dismantling serious and organised crime networks. This is evident in the success of SCD in disrupting networks during 2005/06 (target 50, achieved 61). There are well documented plans and priorities and there are good relationships between SCD and other parts of the MPS and their strategic assessments contribute to the SOCA UK assessment. The Proceeds of Crime Act is being used extensive to support disruption. There are some identified areas for improvement including ensuring the analytical capability for serious and organised crime is monitored as the flow of community intelligence from safer neighbourhoods increases, improving the sophistication in the impact measurement of disruption and addressing intelligence gaps.

Volume crime investigation – Fair/Improved

34. As with volume crime reduction, there has been significant movement in this area, with an increase in score from Poor to Fair. There is a clear chief officer structure with clear accountability for volume crime investigation. There are a number of strategies in place to manage volume crime e.g. hate crime, domestic violence and vehicle crime and the target setting process is rigorous. There is effective performance management including AC/DAC visits and the CCSM meetings. Tasking and co-ordination in place and NIM processes are being cascaded. Investigative skills on boroughs are being improved and there are good partnership arrangements in place. Performance, whilst improving in most areas, remains comparatively poor against most similar forces.

Improving forensic performance – Good/Improved

35. The MPS is an acknowledged leader in forensic identification capability and is contribution to national development and other policy and strategy at the national level. There is an identified chief officer lead for forensics and there is a cross directorate forensics steering group composed of ACPO officers from the relevant directorates. The Forensics Directorate is currently being restructured with a focus on customer focus and a professional development manager has been appointed to improve forensic awareness amongst operational staff. Training is also being reviewed. The inspectors identified a number of concerns including the inconsistent use of Livescan. They also noted that some of directorate’s accommodation is no longer fit for purpose.

Criminal justice processes – Fair/Improved

36. The criminal justice strategy is clearly laid out and the Chair of the London Criminal Justice Board is the ACTP. The lead for criminal justice processes is also an ACPO officer. Targets are set in partnership with the LCJB and borough CJU and custody managers are held accountable for performance on their borough. Performance against targets is generally good but there are concerns about the compliance to targets for updating PNC. Investment in the PPO scheme to prevent reoffending by prolific offenders has been significant. The custody estate meets the required health and safety standards and the establishment of the custody directorate has led to improvements. The youth justice strategy requires review and there is scope to improve the support to YOTs.

4. Promoting safety

Reducing anti-social behaviour – Good/Improved

37. The MPS has developed a robust approach to ASB, which is led through the safer neighbourhood programmes. There is appropriate engagement with partners and the MPS is influential in the national debate about how to address ASB. The range of measures that the MPS has developed to tackle ASB require an impact assessment and there is scope to extend the community strategy to become focus on London as well as local areas.

Protecting vulnerable people – Fair/Improved

38. There are comprehensive arrangements in place to protect vulnerable people but there is scope to provide a more coherent approach and to improve consistency across the boroughs. Performance in some areas e.g. DV is comparatively weak.

5. Providing assistance

Contact management – Fair/Improved

39. There is a clear contact centre strategy and a detailed central communications command strategy focused on meeting future demand and establishing appropriate infrastructure. There is clear performance management and facilities are in place to meet diverse Londoners needs. Communication within the OCU is good and quality assurance processes are in place. Performance against call handling targets is comparatively poor and key performance targets were missed during 2005/06. Whilst standard operating procedures are in place, compliance is variable. The simultaneous roll out of C3i and safer neighbourhoods has put significant pressure on some boroughs. There is a need to review the support infrastructure to improve duty and resource planning.

Providing specialist operational support – Good/Improved

40. The MPS has appropriate specialist operational support in place, in the main provided by CO. The inspectors have identified a number of areas for improvement.

Strategic roads policing – Excellent/Stable

41. The MPS has adopted the ACPO roads policing strategy and the traffic OCU priorities are linked to the MPS corporate strategy. There is a robust performance management process in place and performance in most areas is improving. Whilst the Dept of Transport targets to reduce road deaths and serious injuries has been met early the numbers are rising which is a concern. Appropriate partnerships are in place with key stakeholders. There is a network of family liaison officers in place who are deployed in all fatal collisions and some ‘life-changing’ collisions. Use of ANPR is well developed but there is scope to improve further and there are opportunities to increase the seizure rate of vehicles driving by uninsured or unlicensed drivers.

6. Resource use

Human resource management – Good/Improved

42. The inspectors identify a number of strengths in HR management including a clear strategy and performance management. HR headline scoreboard is discussed monthly by the HR board and is widely published across the organisation. Recruitment is targeted to improve the diversity profile of the organisation and in a leadership programme has been developed. All HR policies are regularly reviewed updated and evaluated and all policies are available through the intranet. Occupational health and sickness levels are falling. Workforce modernisation initiatives would benefit from an overarching strategy to ensure that all benefits are realises and there is scope to improve the approach to work-life balance.

Training, development and organisational learning– Good/Improved

43. The inspectors note a number of improvements against recommendations made in the 2005 baseline inspection including the relocation of the director of training and development away from Hendon to remove the perception that the role is focused on training delivered from Hendon. There is a more systematic approach to the quality assurance of the training function and all business groups have a training manager working at a strategic level. Delivery against the training plan is measured systematically and there is active involvement in national and regional learning. There is scope to develop more extensive partnerships and to establish BOCU satisfaction with the training delivered to their staff.

Race and diversity – Good/Improved

44. There is clear leadership at the top of the organisation to diversity within the MPS. The diversity board, chaired by the Deputy Commissioner has been streamlined to become more strategic and the RES action plan is subject to rigorous monitoring. There is a race and diversity strategy in place with clear lines of responsibility. Performance management to support the delivery of the strategy is extensive. IAGs have been established and specialist expertise is available across the organisation, co-ordinated by the directorate of diversity and citizen focus. All B/OCUs have nominated diversity contacts. The number of ETs is falling. There are a number of areas for improvement including improving the recruitment and retention of under-represented groups and developing a single overarching performance framework in relation to race and diversity.

Managing financial and physical resources – Fair/Stable

45. (This section incorporates the findings of the Audit Commission use of resources assessment). A number of strengths have been identified including the delivery of a balanced budget in 2005/06, a robust finance system, effective local financial support for budget holders and good centralised transactional processes. Transport and property services are showing some improvement and the control framework has improved in some areas. However, they identified a number of weaknesses including high management overheads (based on Home Office activity based costing), the need to professionalise finance staff across the organisation and improve internal financial controls in a number of areas. Overtime reduction targets have not been achieved. They also criticised financial projections for 2007/08, but it should be noted that the MPA and the MPS reject this criticism, suggesting that the Inspectorate have not recognised the budget scrutiny process which aims to address the budget gap.

Information management – Good/Stable

46. The Director of Information is a member of management board, which allows an enhanced platform to influence strategic decision making within the organisation. An overarching information strategy is in place with a number of sub strategies under pinning it. An information steering group is in place, which supports investment board. Effective performance management and project management are in place and accountability is maintained through the director of information. Suggested areas for improvement include testing fallback provisions for critical applications and the need for a consistent approach to the provision of continuity services.

National intelligence model – Good/Improved

47. Strengths include the appointment of a director of intelligence and the intelligence steering group. A strategic assessment is completed at all levels and is subject to regular review. NIM is well established and key managerial and operational roles are established. Career pathways are being established for intelligence professionals and a principal analyst is actively promoting good practice and quality assurance. However, intelligence is compartmentalised and regional tasking has not been firmly established. There is limited inter-operability between key systems and BOCUs experience difficulty when tackling cross border criminality.

7. Leadership and direction

Leadership – Good

48. The inspectors believe that the Commissioner and other leaders have faced unparalleled scrutiny through accountability to the Home Office, the MPA, the Mayor of London, key partners such as GOL and through the concentration of national and local media while dealing with a proliferation of leaks concerning the activities of the MPS. There had been praise for the Commissioner and the MPS following the tragic incidents on 7 July 2005, but also waves of criticism in the media later that month after the tragic shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, and criticism about the role of the police in controversial issues. While addressing these issues, it is essential that the MPS has consistent and effective representation in the media. Throughout this difficult period, the Commissioner and the MPS have enjoyed strong support from successive Home Secretaries, the Mayor of London and many members of the MPA. ACPO and the Superintendents Association have also expressed their support for the MPS leadership and, while the MPS Police Federation has generally good relations, there has been occasional criticism. However, the perception of leadership in the MPS has been adversely affected at all levels by specific reports of dissension in the MPS management board. This has also complicated the task of driving forward important change initiatives such as the development of a Metropolitan intelligence bureau.

49. They found a number of strengths including the focus placed on initiatives such as Safer Neighbourhoods, Citizen Focus, Met Modernisation, Leadership and Together. The process for cascading the corporate strategy is robust and management board is becoming more strategic and focused. They were concerned that the reports of dissension at management board has affected the perception of staff as has some uncertainty around the modernisation programme.

Performance management and continuous improvement – Good/Improved

50. Performance management has strengthened by the establishment of a single performance directorate. Performance is focused around PPAF and there is effective working between the MPA and the MPS. There is a clear focus on accountability and responsibility and processes are in place to ensure continuous improvement and to address poor performance. There is still a need for a cohesive performance management framework and there is scope to improve the relationship between finance and performance.

Good practice

51. The inspectors have highlighted three areas of good practice:

• Met Modernisation
• The Commissioner’s video messages to staff
• Central Communications OCU (Metcall)

C. Race and equality impact

1. Race, diversity and equality are considered in detail in the baseline assessment. The report recognises the work done by the MPS to date, but identifies that there is more to be done, for example:

2. Satisfaction of victims of race hate crime has improved but still needs improvement. There is a need to engage more effectively with minority communities to build community support for proactive policing operations. Third part recording and accessibility also needs additional work.

3. There are comprehensive arrangements in place to protect vulnerable people but there is scope to provide a more coherent approach and to improve consistency across the boroughs. Performance in some areas e.g. DV is comparatively weak.

4. There is clear leadership at the top of the organisation to diversity within the MPS. There is a race and diversity strategy in place with clear lines of responsibility. Performance management to support the delivery of the strategy is extensive. However there are a number of areas for improvement including improving the recruitment and retention of under-represented groups and developing a single overarching performance framework in relation to race and diversity.

D. Financial implications

The report raises a number of areas of concern that will need to be addressed. The MPS is currently developing an action plan to respond to these issues. This will need to include an assessment of the financial impact of implementing recommendations.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author: Siobhan Coldwell, Head of Scrutiny and Review, and Jane Owen, Head of Planning & Performance, MPA

For more information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback