Business and financial planning 2008/09

Report: 9
Date: 13 December 2007
By: the Director of Strategy on behalf of the Commissioner

Summary

This report provides an overview of the 2008-09 performance framework for the MPS, including draft targets and indicators, the impact on the MPS planning cycle and current MPS activity. The report considers the following:

• Provides members with an update on the Government’s new performance framework, namely 2008/09 Public Service Agreements (PSAs), Assessments of Policing and Community Safety (APACS), the National Set of performance indicators and, in more detail, Local Area Agreements (LAAs) ·
• Demonstrates to members how Government performance assessments, agreements and indicators relate to each other, and how they relate to MPS strategy and performance processes, notably Critical Performance Areas (CPAs) and MPS-wide objectives
• Outlines proposed changes to the MPS planning and target setting cycle for 2008-09, and implications for the cycle for 2009-10 and beyond
• Provides members with an overview of the financial and legal implications for the MPA/MPS arising from LAA processes, and discusses other tactical and operational implications
• Informs Members of progress and the next steps identified to support this work; and
• Updates members on any developments from the joint PPRC/Finance committee on 19 November 2007.

A. Recommendation

That

1. members consider the implications of the Government’s new performance framework on the MPA/MPS, particularly around LAAs;

2. consider the draft CPAs for 2008-09;

3. note the joint work of TP, Finance and Planning to develop an integrated planning and performance process that aligns with Government’s new performance framework; and

4. the MPA/MPS continue to review and develop the business planning process.

B. Supporting information

Government’s new performance framework

1. The Government’s 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) for the period 2008-11 has outlined 30 new Public Service Agreements (PSAs), encapsulating the Government’s objectives for public service delivery and how progress on meeting these will be measured. The PSAs for 2008-09 to 2010-11 much more clearly demonstrate a partnership endeavour at national and local level, under 4 headings:

• Sustainable growth and prosperity (PSAs 1-7)
• Fairness and opportunity for all (8-17)
• Stronger communities and a better quality of life (18-26)
• A more secure, fair and environmentally sustainable world (27-30)

2. Each PSA is underpinned by a single Delivery Agreement, including national outcome-focused performance indicators, shared across contributing departments, and by a Service Transformation Agreement that sets out the Government’s citizen-focused commitment. PSA’s link to the wider performance landscape, for policing, through APACS and LAAs.

3. The core PSAs for the MPA/MPS are number 23 (Make communities safer), 24 (Criminal Justice System), 25 (Alcohol and Drugs) and 26 (Terrorism), although elements of other PSAs are directly relevant to partnership working. Detail on core PSAs and analysis from the National Community Safety Plan (NCSP) and Policing Priorities is in Appendix 1 (detail in supporting pack).

4. The 2007 CSR process has instigated a new single National Indicator Set to support the new performance framework for local government outlined in the white paper ‘Strong and Prosperous Communities’, specifically covering government’s priorities for delivery by local government and partners.

5. These 198 national indicators (NI) flow from priorities identified in the PSAs and departmental strategic objectives (DSOs), and will be the only indicators on which central government will set targets for local government. They are mainly outcomes, with output or process measures used only when essential, and include ‘convergence’ measures (group performance comparators) and citizen satisfaction and perspective measures.

6. The national indicators have been published in the document ‘The New Performance Framework for Local Authorities & Local Authority Partnerships’ (October 2007). The current public consultation, in the document ‘Handbook of Definitions’, around proposed detailed definition and issues related to the indicator set is open until 21 December 2007. The indicators will be implemented from 1 April 2008. The national outcome and indicator set, including relationship to PSAs, is shown in Appendix 2 (in supporting pack).

7. A number of indicators on, for example, community safety appear both in the national indicator set and the APACS set, and are again in public consultation. In addition, Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs) will agree with central Government (through GO) up to 35 designated targets from the national indicator set for their area as part of their LAA.

8. Assessments of Policing and Community Safety (APACS) is the new performance framework designed to assess key services delivered by the police, working alone or in partnership, from national and local perspectives. APACS has been designed to align with the new PSAs, the new Crime Strategy and associated strategies including alcohol, drugs, re-offending and criminal justice. The broad objective is to continue to reduce crime and allow local delivery partners flexibility to identify and respond to local priorities.

9. Most components in the framework are performance indicators that reflect national and local priorities and professional judgements, and complement the national indicator set for local authorities. There are two types of performance indicator – Headline performance indicators (SPIs) and Diagnostic indicators (KDIs). All 55 proposed APACs indicators shown are SPIs, 29 of which link directly to PSAs and 24 to the national indicator set (18 of these in both).

10. All components are allocated to one of five domains – Promoting Safety (6 SPIs), Tackling Crime (14), Serious Crime and Protection (13), Confidence and Satisfaction (12), and Organisational Management (10). APACS is in Technical (and Strategic) consultation, through ‘APACS Performance and Diagnostic Indicators for 2008/09’ (November 2007) until 11 January (15 February) 2008, and will be implemented from 1 April 2008.

11. Publication of final APACS components has been delayed to mid December 2007. Appendix 3 outlines proposed APACS indicators, links to PSAs and links to the national indicator set for Local Government.

12. Local Area Agreements will form the nucleus of the new local performance framework. They are the mechanism by which local government performance targets are set through Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs) and Government Offices (GO), with priority setting through Central Government. LSPs are non-statutory, multi-agency partnerships that bring together, at a local level, different parts of the public, private, community and voluntary sectors. Individual LSPs are structured according to local needs.

13. Up to 35 local targets, plus 17 statutory DfES educational attainment and ‘early years’ targets, will be selected from the 198 national indicator set and negotiated between local partners (through LSPs) and central Government (through GO). Each LAA will have at its heart a set of local improvement targets, with priorities varying based on local needs. None are mandatory.

14. 95 of the 198 national indicators are existing measures, providing baselines for negotiating LAAs, 39 are new indicators based on existing data sources, allowing some baseline comparison. However, 64 are completely new measures, with no baselines to inform the negotiation of LAA targets. Draft NIs are outlined in Appendix 4 (sp). LAAs must be signed off by June 2008.

15. LAA targets will no longer be tied to funding streams, but will be supported by Revenue Support Grants (RSG) where possible, by a new non-ringfenced general Area Based Grant (ABG), and by Specific Grants where absolutely necessary. £5+ billion of specific grants will be moved into non-ringfenced RSG and ABGs from specific grants, and allocated on a three-year basis.

16. The Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA) will replace the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) and other assessments from 1 April 2009, as part of the new local performance framework. CAAs will focus on outcomes delivered by local authorities working alone or in partnership, on citizens’ experiences and perspectives, and on local areas.

17. The CAA represents a fundamentally different approach to assessment, which is area based, risk focused and more forward looking than current assessments. A key component will be annual publication of performance against the national indicator set, both at LAA selection level and across the national set. In this respect, APACS indicators will also feed the CAA process.

18. The alignment of PSAs, the National Indicator Set, APACS, LAAs and CAAs is demonstrated in Appendix 5 (sp).

MPS Planning and Performance Framework

19. The MPS’s planning and performance framework has been developed from that presented to the MPA on 13 February 2006 to align more closely target setting and performance monitoring processes with Government’s new performance framework and to extend evidence-based rigour to target selection and performance monitoring.

20. A process has been agreed for the MPS’ performance challenge for 2008/09, which was approved by the MPA and sent to the Home Office in October 2007. It is recognised that APACS and LAAs are not the only drivers of our targets and performance; and that a consolidated picture of LAAs across 32 BOCUs will not equate to the total of the MPS’s work.

21. The current planning process feeds environmental, stakeholder, financial, performance and other information streams into the Corporate Strategic Assessment (CSA), from which strategic MPS-wide objectives are developed in line with PSAs, and the financial envelope is mapped. MPS-wide objectives and related PSAs for 2008/09 are shown in Appendix 6 (sp).

22. Proposed Critical performance Areas (CPAs) are developed from this scanning and intelligence process, in line with MPS-wide objectives. In order to contain the number of targets, criteria have been set for the 2008-09 cycle:

1. CPAs will be aligned to delivery of the MPS-wide objectives
2. Performance analysis suggests that a focus on a specific measure for each CPA leads to significantly better outcomes for that CPA
3. An APACS statutory performance indicator (SPI) will be selected, where possible, as the CPA and used to monitor delivery of the strategy
4. CPA service delivery should be of importance to Londoners, as highlighted in the Public Consultation report

23. The proposed draft 2008-09 CPAs, and APACS indicators to which they are aligned, are presented for members consideration in Appendix 7.

24. These CPAs, the financial envelope and the Mayor’s guidance are fed to Business Groups (BG) to develop Business Group Business Plans (BGBP), including efficiencies and savings. These plans, together with the Environment and Sustainability return, are submitted to the MPA for scrutiny.

25. 8. The National Community Safety Plan (NCSP) and Policing Priorities, published in December, feeds into the process concurrently with the local government funding settlement (grant settlement). The PSAs that support delivery of community safety are already in the public domain, but partnership implications and policing priorities are new. The core PSAs, policing priorities and performance management processes set out in the revised 2008-09 NCSP (6 December 2007) are shown in Appendix 8 (sp).

26. The NCSP 2008-11 is pivotal for members of all local partnerships with a role in delivering community safety, particularly for crime and disorder reduction partnerships, but also LSPs and local criminal justice boards (LCJB). The NCSP has been amended from the 2006-09 plan to clearly aligne with the crime strategy and PSAs, but does not represent a radical shift in direction. There is some shift in emphasis, for example:

• a stronger focus on more serious violence
• greater flexibility for local partners to deliver local priorities
• a specific outcome to increase community confidence
• the need to reflect the increased threat to communities posed by violent extremists.

27. These final critical inputs trigger the target setting process. In order to ensure a consistency of approach at the corporate and local level, certain principles have been agreed:

1. Target setting will be locally driven, that is BOCU led with Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) partners, with the corporate target being the aggregate of BOCU targets unless compelling evidence suggests:
   • Performance analysis at the corporate level demonstrates a need to improve overall organisational performance
   • A target has been agreed by Management Board and the MPA in relation to a particular strategy, such as protective services
   • A target has been imposed by an external stakeholder.
2. Where an indicator is used that is both in a PSA and in the national set but not selected in the Local Area Agreements (LAAs) 35 indicator set, Territorial Policing (TP) will determine minimum standards required.

28. Targets will be negotiated in partnership with, and approved by, the MPA.

29. CPA targets feed into the ongoing business group planning process, with each BG considering corporate targets, BG priorities and business support needs to develop a set of operational and enabling sub-objectives, a delivery plan and performance measures.

30. Certain Business Group Senior Management Team (SMT) forums monitor performance against CPA and enabling objectives and, where set, against PSA and APACS indicators. Strategic leads may have specific responsibility for key business areas, such as volume crime, or for a cross-cutting theme such as productivity.

31. Major change programmes are selected as Met Modernisation Programmes (MMP) each year with prioritised funding and corporate oversight of progress. Business leads monitor the performance in their business area and may set key measures to be included in business group and local monitoring.

32. 11. CPA targets are cascaded through TPHQ to Borough Occupational Command Units (BOCU) and sub-units, and feed the variable target setting (VTS) process that aggregates BOCU targets to the corporate target. TPHQ also accommodates PSA and APACS indicators through their target setting.

33. Performance against these and other relevant business areas are monitored by TP SMTs through the TP Scorecard. The proposed TP Scorecard for 2008-09 is shown in Appendix 9 (sp). Team level and role specific reports are monitored locally, and PDR objectives are aligned to CPAs.

34. Key dates regarding development of MPS performance measures and targets for 2008/09 are:

• 13 December – CPAs presented to PPRC for comment
• January 2008 – TP’s variable target setting process undertaken
• 5 February 2008 – Agreement by Management Board to targets following TP’s variable target setting process
• 14 February 2008 – Proposed targets to PPRC for approval
• 28 February 2008 – MPA Full Authority consideration of draft Policing London Business Plan, including proposed targets
• 4 March 2008 – Final agreement by Management Board to CPAs and targets
• 31 March 2008 – Policing London Business Plan published.

35. Performance reports and analysis against the TP scorecard, CPA targets, corporate targets and, most recently through CPAU, APACS indicators, is monitored by performance directorate and reported to Performance Board. Performance board also considers:

• Performance in key areas of business which support delivery of CPAs
• High risk areas and emerging issues such as performance exceptions
• Results of internal and external inspections, audit and benchmarking.

36. Actions from Performance Board are dealt with in several ways:

• Directly by Business Groups and OCUs through line management and their own performance units.
• By the Corporate Tasking Meeting, which ensures that cross-business group resources are tasked in line with current priorities as defined in the corporate control strategy (CPAs and emerging issues as the year progresses). This is supported by the Coordinating and Tasking Offices (CATOs) for TP, CO, SCD and SO.
• By links with other strategic committees and business leads such as Investment Board for major investment decisions.

37. A clear benefit of the proposed CPA indicators is that they allow performance board to monitor delivery of MPS-wide objectives, certain PSA and APACS (and associated national set) indicators, and local delivery targets.

38. On a broader level, the borough families that the Home Office use to compare BOCUs against their peers, and the national MSF family that relates MPS performance against APACS indicators through iQuanta, are under review. Within this environment, the MPS must proceed with target setting.

39. The grant settlement (announced 6 December 2007) and finalised MPS budget (due February 2008) complete the cycle, allowing publication of the MPA/MPS Policing Plan to meet statutory obligations for 31 March 2008. The current MPS planning dependencies map covering this process is presented in Appendix 10 (sp).

40. The LAA process sits largely outside this performance framework, with Borough and unit Commanders negotiating priorities and setting targets, through LSPs and GO, directly, a process most closely resembling the current CDRP negotiations. TPHQ monitor Commanders local CDRP negotiations and targets, but these are not integral to corporate performance monitoring.

LAAs – Operational implications

41. Partnerships, Government Offices and Central Government have previously already negotiated LAAs throughout England. The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) has been working with stakeholders and with 17 local partnerships that have ‘dry run’ the negotiation of priorities to deliver operational guidelines for negotiations.

42. Concurrently, TPHQ have been consulting with borough commanders through BOCU visits and Link meetings to develop an understanding of LAAs, a framework for engagement, and assessment of local priorities and APACS/national set indicators to inform local negotiation through LSPs.

43. The first stage at local level is to establish priorities. LAA partners, through the LSP, will agree a long-term local Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS) based on community consultation. LAAs are later developed from SCS objectives and translated into improvement targets. Local feedback suggests that it is crucial to establish the local priority envelope first, and later underpin this with national set indicators, rather than the reverse.

44. TP unit commanders are currently engaged in establishing priorities, with response through BOCU commanders due in December 2007. Initial feedback suggests that strong relationships with local authority members, a clear understanding of the local environment and evidence-based partnership negotiation are key factors.

45. LAAs have historically been divided into 4 thematic ‘blocks’ to which funding streams were tied. Whilst these four (amended) themes remain as a guide, funding will no longer be restricted within the themes. The themes are:

• Children & Young People
• Safer & Stronger Communities
• Healthier Communities and Older People
• Economic Development and the Environment

46. Bexley BOCU partnership strategy map based on these four thematic blocks is presented in Appendix 11. Although the CDRP is the key partner in the Safer and Stronger Communities theme, and will sit under the LAA umbrella, it is critical that borough commanders negotiate priorities across themes both to capture potential funding and engage partners to meet shared targets.

47. Government departments have been working for some time with GO and their regional and local partners to share their own priorities for each area. Partnership implications outlined by the Home Office its National Community Safety Plan and Policing Priorities are shown in Appendix 12 (sp). This will be an important input to LAA negotiations, alongside LSP priorities in the SCS.

48. Government Office, representing Central Government in the regions, has a brief to lead negotiations with local authorities and partners in the LAA. Borough commanders report that GO officers are working in boroughs now to shape the process. GoL, acting as ‘critical friends’ have commissioned research which has fed a Whitehall brief for each London borough that analyses the local environment and public service delivery, and outlines their key priorities This appears to be a core shaping tool, supported by evidence.

49. The following diagram illustrates how priorities developed from the negotiation between central government, represented by the Government Office, and the local authority and partners about the delivery of the Sustainable Community Strategy on the one hand, and national priorities as expressed by the new national indicator set on the other, feed into the development of the LAA.

50. The dry run work with local authorities and partners indicate that there are three key elements to successful negotiations:

• Local authorities and partners have clear criteria for developing the priorities for the LAA set out in the SCS.
• GO and central government departments agree criteria for getting the right balance of national priorities, as related in the new national indicator set.
• Local, regional and national discussions are brought together into a shared evidence base, a ‘story of place’, as the starting point for the negotiation of priorities. There will be on-going dialogue until agreement on a set of priorities for the LAA is reached.

51. When priorities have been agreed, these are translated into a set of targets for the LAA, using indicators from the 198 national indicator set, and set for a three year trajectory period with a target for each year. Only those indicators selected for the (up to) 35 LAAs will have designated targets attached for which Government will expect a quantified level of improvement.

52. Where priorities are not covered in these LAAs, local partners may set additional local targets, but these will not carry government reporting requirements. However, they are not seen as ‘second tier’ targets – named partners have the same statutory duty for these as for designated targets.

53. It should be noted that LSPs are not the ultimate decision-maker – all target-setting and consequential financial, commissioning or contractual commitments, must be formalised by the relevant local authority, and/or the LSP partner authority with, for example, policing or health.

54. The GO Regional Director is responsible recommending that Ministers sign up to each individual LAA, and will task GOs to resolve any sticking points before making their recommendation, including meetings with the local authority, relevant partners and particular central government departments. In some cases more intensive case-conferencing may be needed.

55. There is a clear strategic challenge in ensuring sustainable alignment between local policing priorities set at neighbourhood level, partnership targets set in LAAs, and corporate requirements facing the MPS in policing London. To mitigate these risks, it is crucial that planning, performance and target setting processes are bottom up and top down.

56. Implications around GoLs processes, feeding government priorities down the line into the local priorities and target setting process, and ratifying LAAs coming up the line to government, require some consideration.

57. The role of the MPA/MPS in communicating priorities that feed LAA negotiations, members active participation at borough and LSP level, and potential challenge to local priorities and to LAA targets coming up the line may also require consideration.

LAAs – Performance measurement

58. Local authorities and LSP partners have a statutory duty to work towards local delivery of targets that they have negotiated, with robust delivery plans and arrangements for managing performance. Evidence about the effectiveness of arrangements will be considered by the inspectorates in making judgements as part of the Comprehensive Area Assessment.

59. From April 2009, the new CAA will replace existing performance assessments. The inspectorates are currently consulting jointly on the CAA framework, and on the Use of Resources judgements (one of four key CAA components) until February 2008. From January 2008, they will be consulting on methodologies for the other CAA components and for reporting on joint assessments. CAA guidance will be released in early 2009.

60. Other inspection activity will be triggered primarily by the CAA with inspectorates’ co-ordinating activity, following discussions with GOs and local partners. The Audit Commission will gatekeep inspections affecting local authorities, other inspectorates will gatekeep for organisations in their sector. Partners will continue to be inspected through their own sectoral regimes (such as APACS) - this will be aligned with the CAA where it covers any partnership activity with local authorities.

61. At national level, Government Offices will co-ordinate performance monitoring of national priorities and will work with performance management bodies that have responsibilities to local partners. Central Government will monitor progress towards meeting national priorities using the reported data for all 198 national indicators, regardless of which indicators are agreed for designated (35) LAA targets. Government is currently trialing a national reporting system.

62. GOs will track progress towards delivery of the designated (35) LAA targets against the trajectories agreed with local partnerships. If performance slips, the GO will initiate discussions to understand problems and actions being taken, and may initiate further action or ultimately intervention. For other national indicators, national monitoring will be lighter touch, but Government will monitor significant lags in performance.

63. The annual review of LAAs is due to take place each autumn/winter. The prime focus will be on:

• The robustness of plans for managing progress towards delivery of LAA targets and progress on initial milestones;
• The need for any additional capacity-building or improvement support;
• Changes to local priorities that may lead to renegotiation of LAA targets
• Confirming and reviewing designated (35) LAA targets set against the 64 indicators for which there was no baseline at the time of negotiation.

64. Performance improvement support and advice will be led by councils, with Government and the LGA supporting through the National Improvement and Efficiency Strategy (NIES). Support will often be at local or regional level through Regional Improvement and Efficiency Partnerships (RIEPs), but central government departments may have more capacity and resources.

65. Beyond this Improvement Notices, available from 2008/09, will be issued by the appropriate Secretary of State to address significant or persistent poor performance. The Local Services Intervention Panel (April 2008), an advisory group with expertise in cross-cutting partnership delivery, will offer practical advice and recommendations to the appropriate Secretary of States where statutory action is being considered in relation to a partnership issue.

LAAs – Financial framework

66. A critical factor in considering which priorities and targets to include in LAAs is how partners will resource delivery. Partners may choose, in negotiation, to pool or share their mainstream resources. Otherwise, draft statutory guidance with the Local Government & Public Involvement in Health Act (LGPIH) 2007 emphasises cooperation, including possible shared commissioning across different public service providers.

67. Government has increased local authorities’ flexibility over the use of their mainstream resources by moving (at least) £5 billion into non-ring fenced general grants over the 2007 CSR period (2008-11) - over £4 billion into the new Area Based Grant (ABG) and nearly £1 billion into the Revenue Support Grant (RSG). This exact determination will clarify when settlement information is distributed (December 2007).

68. From April 2008, all general grants (RSG and ABG) will be allocated on a three year basis to maximise stability and certainty. All non-ringfenced capital grant will fall under the Single Capital Pot (SCP). The Local Government White Paper has set out the new approach to allocating funding:

• Initially through non- ringfenced general grant, providing funding for core services. The main item of general grant is formula grant, composed of Revenue Support Grant (RSG) and national non-domestic rates, distributed amongst authorities according to formulae.
• Second, through non-ringfenced Area Based Grant (ABG), a general grant providing additional revenue funding to areas. Area Based Grant is allocated according to specific policy criteria rather than general formulae.
• Lastly, through ringfenced or non-ringfenced specific grants. Appropriate only in circumstances where specific grants cannot be included within RSG or ABG, such as where funding allocations are uncertain (grants which are demand-led, bid-based or performance based) or where funding continues to be ring-fenced to direct resources to specific purposes.

69. Local authorities are free to use the totality of their non-ringfenced funding as required to support the delivery of local, regional and national priorities in their areas, including the achievement of LAA targets, as illustrated in Chart 1 (see Appendix)

70. Government has announced, in the 2007 CSR, that certain specific grants will be moved into Revenue Support Grant and Area Based Grant - Appendix 13.

71. The total amount of Area Based Grant for 2008-11 will be the sum of these specific grants contributed by Departments. ABG allocations at local authority level have been announced in the provisional local government finance settlement, and additional funding streams may be included, for example where Departments contribute funding to address new policy concerns.

72. Annual grant determinations will be made, under the Local Government Act 2003 (s31), by a Minister of Communities and Local Government on behalf of all Departments contributing funding to ABG, and in line with allocations agreed by departments. This has been announced with the provisional local government finance settlement. ABG will be paid monthly to local authorities through Communities and Local Government’s LOGASnet system.

73. ABG is a revenue grant and will not include capital funding. The Single Capital Pot (SCP) does include non-ringfenced capital funding to support costs of borrowing that is Supported Capital Expenditure (Revenue) and Supported Capital Expenditure (Capital). Government Departments will continue, as now, to be responsible for the payment of capital grants, including those that form part of the Single Capital Pot.

74. The Audit commission will assess value for money and efficiency through Use of Resources judgements in the CAA. As non-ringfenced grant, there are no restrictions on authorities rights to carry forward ABG.

75. Performance Reward Grant (PRG) has provided a powerful incentive in strengthening and supporting previous partnership arrangements. To ensure that the new partnership approach to LAAs is embedded, with local partners working together to deliver crosscutting improvement targets, the 2007 CSR announced a (third round of) reward grant.

76. Partners may apply for the PRG when they can provide evidence of achievement of targets set for meeting an LAA (the grant is based on a working assumption that a proportion of targets will be met).

77. Implications suggest that, although the 2008-09 general grant and ABG non-ringfenced pot is adequately funded, the overall financial landscape for policing and other public services remains flat. Government funding transferred from specific grant, and that previously allocated as non-ringfenced, has funded public services over the past years.

78. The 2007 local government funding settlement has increased revenue largely in line with inflation, with notable exceptions, and re-allocated funding to priority areas. The funding settlement may increase pressures on local authorities, and amongst new LSP partners, to use resources more efficiently and share responsibilities to meet targets.

79. The non-specific income received by BOCUs in the 2006-07 fiscal year should be more than compensated for in LSP negotiations for RSG and ABG resources. Initial indications from BOCU commanders is that they are negotiating LAAs primarily in the ‘Building Safer and Stronger Communities’ block from a service, rather than funding, stance, and identifying partnership opportunities across the three other blocks with some success.

LAAs - Legal implications

80. On 30 October 2007, the Local Government Public Involvement in Health (LGPIH) Bill gained Royal Assent. The provisions of Part 5, Chapter 1 and Part 7 of the Act relate to the new statutory framework for Local Area Agreements (LAA), Joint Strategic Needs Assessments (JSAs) and the new best value regime, which includes a new duty to involve. The preparation of sustainable community strategies (SCS), under section 4 of the Local Government Act 2000, is also covered. The guidance only applies to England.

81. Appendix 14 outlines the key implications of the statutory guidance.

Ongoing review

82. There is an ongoing review of MPS planning and performance processes, both to more closely align the process with the government’s performance framework and to provide clarity of focus.

83. This includes addressing the CSA process, the current misalignment, particularly in timing, of key MPS processes and those in the external framework, and review of the business group business planning process and cycle.

84. Update on PPRC/Finance 19 November 2007 – The draft Policing Plan has been submitted to the Mayor. The consensus of opinion suggests that this is a much improved product.

C. Race and equality impact

Equalities Impact Assessments may be required.

D. Financial implications

The 2007 local government funding settlement has had no significant impact on MPS specific grants. Other financial implications are under analysis.

E. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

Local Government & Public Involvement in Health Act 2007.

E. Background papers

• Creating Strong, Safe and Prosperous Communities Statutory Guidance: Draft for Consultation, 20 November 2007, Department for Communities and Local Government
• Negotiating Local Area Agreements, 18 September 2007, Department for Communities and Local Government
• Development of the New LAA framework, Operational Guidance 19 November 2007, Department for Communities and Local Government
• Local Area Agreements Road Show Report, April 2007, Department for Communities and Local Government
• Response to the Local Area Agreements Road Shows Report, 27 July 2007, Department for Communities and Local Government
• An Introduction to the Local Performance Framework - Delivering Better Outcomes for Local People, November 2007, Department for Communities and Local Government
• LAA Dry-run negotiations, Final Report: Headline Messages, September 2007 Department for Communities and Local Government
• The New Performance Framework for Local Authorities and Local Authority Partnerships: Single Set of National Indicators, October 2007, Department for Communities and Local Government
• National Evaluation of Local Strategic Partnerships: Formative Evaluation and Action Research programme 2002-2005, Executive Summary to Final Report, January 2006, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister / Department for Transport
• National Indicators for Local Authorities and Local Authority Partnership: Handbook of definitions – Draft for Consultation, November 2007, Department for Communities and Local Government
• Planning Together: Local Strategic Partnerships and Spatial Planning – a practical guide, January 2007, Department for Communities and Local Government
• Delivering Safer Communities: A guide to effective partnership working, September 2007, Home Office
• Public Service Agreements 1-30, 9 October 2007, HM Treasury
• A New Performance Framework for Crime, Drugs and Policing – Assessment of Policing and Community Safety (APACS), June 2007, Home Office - Police and Crime Standards Directorate
• APACS – Assessment of Policing and Community Safety, Home Office - Police and Crime Standards Directorate
• APACS and Local Area Agreements, Home Office - Police and Crime Standards Directorate
• Proposed Performance Indicators, 24 September 2007, APACS Steering Group
• APACS Update, 13 November 2007, MPS Performance Board
• National Community Safety Plan, December 2007, Home Office
• Cutting Crime, July 2007, Home Office

F. Contact details

Report author: Paul Clarke, Strategy (SM&PD)

For more information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback