Borough performance report

Report: 7
Date: 12 June 2008
By: AC Territorial Policing on behalf of the Commissioner

Summary

This report outlines the new performance regime for 2008/09 and examines the relationship between performance regimes for the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs), Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs) and Local Area Agreements (LAAs). It also summarises borough performance for 2007/08, looks at the emerging picture for 2008/09 and examines trends over five years.

A. Recommendation

That members note the report.

B. Supporting information

Performance Regime 2008/09

1. The MPS performance regime for 2008/09 is guided by the new Assessment of Policing and Community Safety (APACS) framework developed by the Home Office, which includes Statutory Performance Indicators (SPIs) and is complemented by the introduction of a new set of Public Service Agreements (PSAs). These changes have brought about a shift in emphasis towards tackling the more serious types of offending which have a disproportionate effect on victims.

2. For practical purposes, the new offence categories have been grouped into tiers, with Tier 1 including the most serious offences (low volume, high impact), Tier 2 containing all serious acquisitive crime (residential burglary, robbery and vehicle crime) and all remaining crime being categorised as Tier 3.

3. The MPA & MPS Policing Strategy 2008 to 2011 and Policing Plan for 2008/09 sets out the corporate objectives and identifies critical performance areas (CPAs). The CPAs are shown in Appendix 1.

4. The planning process for 2008/09 has resulted in targets at both corporate and individual borough level. Territorial Policing (TP) will monitor performance against SPIs and CPAs at borough level in 2008/09, based on comparison with the previous year. However, as the Home Office has changed guidance on crime recording standards for certain offences, a like-for-like comparison with last year is not possible for all crime types. In these categories, 2008/09 crime figures will be monitored for trend, and as a baseline for future performance.

5. MPS and borough targets for 2008/09 are shown in Appendix 2.

Changes in Home Office definitions

6. One of the changes this year in the Home Office crime recording guidance was that certain crimes which might previously have been recorded as ABH (actual bodily harm) should now be recorded as GBH (grievous bodily harm). GBH is one of the crime types in the new “most serious violence” (MSV) category.

7. The impact of this change is that it is impossible to know precisely the number of crimes committed before 01 April 2008 which would have fallen into the new MSV category, without looking afresh at each and every ABH offence committed and deciding whether, under the new guidance, it would have been classified as GBH – clearly an impractical task, as it cannot be done simply by writing a software query. Thus it is impossible to compare “most serious violence” in this performance year with previous periods.

8. Changes were also made to gun crime and knife crime definitions. This is a complex area, which would require a separate paper for a full explanation of the changes and the implications for recording and counting, but the most significant change for gun crime is that CS and pepper spray no longer count as “guns”. For knife crime, the most significant changes are that burglary with a knife is no longer a “knife crime” and a broader range of instruments is now included in the definition (e.g. from machetes and crossbows at one end of the scale to pins and biros at the other). Additionally, extra guidance was included that stated a weapon need not necessarily be seen to be counted. The guidance states: “Where the victim is convinced of the presence of a knife, even if it is concealed, and there is evidence of the suspect’s intention to create this impression, then the incident counts”. This contradicts our previous understanding of knife and gun crime offences in that any weapon must been seen, presented or leave some physical evidence – not simply be ‘intimated’. A similar clarification was also published with revised gun crime guidance so this issue is also unresolved for firearms.

Performance in 2008/09 to date

9. Exception reporting based on current trends and comparison with last year in the period from February 2008 to April 2008. In line with the corporate report, three months data has been used where possible rather than basing commentary on just one month (April).

Good performance

(Figures in brackets are Feb-Apr last year v same period this year unless otherwise stated)

Gun Crime

Considerable reduction in Feb-April compared with the same period last year across both the MPS as a whole (697v 591) and on the twelve “hot spot” boroughs (421 v 337). There has been a steep downward trend in the MPS since last summer (e.g. 284 offences in July 2007, 161 offences in April 2008).

Knife Crime

Newham (236 v 152).

Robbery

Many boroughs, but particularly Camden (502 v 225), Haringey (565 v 319) and Tower Hamlets (444 v 268).

Residential Burglary

Camden, Ealing, Hillingdon, Lewisham, Croydon and Wandsworth (all with steep downward trend in weekly figures over the last three months).

Taking of Vehicle

Camden (256 v 153), Ealing (436 v 238), Lewisham (413 v 318).

Theft from Vehicle

Brent (682 v 573), Hillingdon (887 v 696), Ealing (1,094 v 800), Islington (unusually low weekly figures throughout April) and Lambeth (787 v 559).

Performance requiring improvement

Knife Crime

Bromley (49 v 32).

Residential Burglary

Bexley (296 v 374), Harrow (298 v 482).

Taking of Vehicle

Havering (weekly figures consistently above last year since early March).

Theft from Vehicle

Bexley (277 v 373), Greenwich (593 v 685).

MPS performance regime: relationship with CDRPS, LSPS and LAAS

10. The MPS uses performance-year-to-date (PYTD) methodology to benchmark borough performance referenced against reduction and detections targets derived by the variable target setting (VTS) process. This can on occasion show a different picture of performance compared with the Home Office iQuanta methodology, which solely looks at performance against peer groups and over a variety of timescales.

11. The mechanisms by which Borough commanders are held to account for performance within the MPS are well established and understood. Locally, Borough commanders are answerable through various means for police performance but are frequently also held responsible, on behalf of the LSP, for partnership performance on community safety. It is currently relatively common for Borough commanders to attend council scrutiny committees to answer for police and/or partnership performance in respect of community safety. Irrespective of any future legislative change, Borough commanders are already, albeit ‘voluntarily’, answering for their performance to local elected members.

12. The requirement to deliver on LAAs will almost certainly lead to the development of more effective and intrusive performance management arrangements locally. This move will be strengthened with the advent of the Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA) inspection process, particularly as local authorities place considerable importance on judgements that lead to comparative grading, Beacon status, etc. From an MPA/MPS perspective, assuming the appropriate LAAs have been selected for focus, this should be a positive move in terms of improving the focus of partnership resource and effort on community safety issues. It is not, however, without its implications for the MPA/MPS. For example, Borough commanders, many of whom chair CDRPs, will increasingly be accountable locally for performance in respect of delivery against community safety related LAAs; LSPs, which are mostly chaired by council leaders, and council scrutiny panels, will play an increasing role in that process.

13. LAAs increase the potential for local services to reflect local priorities, and for improved focus and activity across partnerships to deliver against those priorities. This year, the MPS has, through Borough commanders, successfully influenced the selection of LAAs in order to ensure ‘fit’ with the requirement to deliver corporately against APACS, and in relation to its MSF (Most Similar Force) performance. Indeed, at present Serious Violence (National Indicator 15) is one of the most frequently selected indicators in the Capital, demonstrating a clear commitment to tackling this important issue. Around 20 boroughs have selected this indicator in London, whereas across the other eight English regions, around 30 LAA areas in total have selected this target.

14. Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs) will be monitored on their performance against all 198 national indicators and not just the chosen (up to 35) LAAs, for which targets are set and additional resources aligned. BOCUs will be expected to contribute locally to the LAAs and other national indicators, as well as deliver services that relate to requirements beyond both the LAAs and the national indicators.

15. There is the potential for Borough commanders to experience increased difficulty in balancing their responsibility, and increasing accountability, for local delivery with the requirement to deliver on corporate MPS priorities that relate to the wider issues of policing London.

MPS Performance 2007/08

16. Borough performance in 2007/08 is shown in Appendix 3 (Reducing Crime) and Appendix 4 (Detecting Crime).

Crime Reduction (Exception reporting)

17. The MPS achieved all its crime reduction targets except for residential burglary, for which a -0.2% reduction (-96 offences) was recorded.

18. Robbery of personal property
All boroughs showed a reduction for robbery of personal property, with only one (Brent) missing its target. Seven boroughs recorded reductions of over 30%: -

Table 1: Robbery Performance (best performing boroughs)

19. Residential Burglary

Notable reductions: -
Barking & Dagenham (-28%, -340 offences)
Kensington & Chelsea (-22%, -299 offences)

Notable increases: -
Sutton (+24%, +155 offences)
Hillingdon (+20%, +376 offences)

20. Vehicle Crime (“theft/taking of” and “theft from”)

Notable reductions: -
Havering (-25%, -936 offences)
Ealing (-21%, -1,376 offences)

Notable increase: -
Greenwich (+28%, +1,027 offences)

21. Other BCS crime types
The number of offences fell in all the BCS crime categories. Significant variance for individual boroughs from MPS performance in particular categories: -

Notable reductions: -
Enfield BCS Assaults (-20%, -768 offences)
Camden Theft from Person (-42%, -1,650 offences)

Notable increases: -
Haringey Criminal Damage (+13%, +408 offences)
Newham BCS Assaults (+ 6%, +354 offences)

Crime Detection (exception reporting)

22. The MPS achieved its crime detection targets for total notifiable offences (TNO), rape, domestic violence, racist crime and homophobic crime. The robbery and burglary targets were not achieved.

23. Robbery (personal property)
Two boroughs recorded significantly higher sanction detection rates than the rest of the MPS: Haringey (34%) and Havering (33%). One borough (Bexley: 9%) recorded a rate lower than 10%.

24. Residential Burglary
Islington (28%) and Haringey (25%) recorded substantially higher rates then other boroughs. Six boroughs (Wandsworth, Brent, Greenwich, Lambeth, Enfield and Ealing) recorded rates below 10%.

25. Rape
Bexley achieved a 90% SD rate, compared with the next best (51%) at Haringey, although it should be noted that just a small change in the number of offences or SDs can bring about a marked change to percentage rates.

26. Domestic Violence
Havering (74%) and Bexley (68%) recorded notably higher rates than the rest of the MPS.

Long term (5 years) v short term (1 year) trends

Crime Reduction (exception reporting)

27. Appendices 6 and 7 show figures for each of the last five years by borough for robbery, residential burglary, vehicle crime, BCS assaults, BCS crime and total notifiable offences.

28. The overall picture for the MPS is that the crime figures for 2007/08 are down in all of these categories compared with 2003/04, although the trend has not been uniformly downwards (e.g. the number of robberies has risen and then fallen in the intervening years).

29. The picture for boroughs is varied across crime types, but the following are the most notable divergences from the overall MPS trends:

30. Robbery
Improvement (consistent reduction year-on-year): -
Hackney
Hammersmith & Fulham

31. The characteristics of these boroughs with sustained performance improvements include strong and effective leadership at SMT level, effective delivery of the initial investigation strategy for robbery and well embedded processes for bail management, investigation standards and EWMS (Electronic Warrant Management System). Both boroughs have ‘Inner-London’ status from the GLA that has resulted in additional partnership funding. Within the MPS Hackney in particular have received substantial central support to tackle robbery.

Deterioration: -
Brent: upward trend since 2003/04
Ealing: substantial reduction last year, but still above 2003/04
Enfield: reduction last year, but still above 2003/04
Greenwich: reduction last year, but still above 2003/04

32. Residential Burglary
Improvement (consistent reduction year-on-year): -
Hackney
Hounslow
Islington
Kensington & Chelsea

33. Hackney and Islington have received significant support from the centre in tackling this crime type. All except Hounslow have ‘Inner-London’ status, which has generated substantial partnership funding.

Deterioration (now above 2003/04): -
Barnet
Bexley
Greenwich
Hillingdon

34. Vehicle Crime
Only Sutton recorded more offences in 2007/8 than in 2003/4. Many boroughs show substantial reductions over the period (e.g. Islington, Hackney, Southwark). Eight boroughs recorded increases in 2007/8, some substantial (Greenwich and Newham), but all are still below 20003/4 levels.

35. Successful boroughs all have strong partnership arrangements that have proved effective at delivering sustained reductions in vehicle crime. Safe and secure car parks, crime prevention initiatives and CCTV have all proved useful methods of disrupting this type of crime.

36. BCS Assaults
In line with the other crime types, the overall picture is one of reduction over the long term. The exception is Lewisham, which recorded a reduction in 2007/8, but is still over the figure for 2003/04.

37. Croydon have been the best performing borough against this crime type. They have delivered a range of successful initiatives in tackling their nighttime economy. They also have an effective Case Progression Unit that focuses on these types of assault.

38. BCS Crime (see Appendix 5) and TNOs
All boroughs are recording healthy reductions over the longer term, with BCS reductions of over 30% at Hackney, Islington and Lambeth, and BCS reductions of over 20% on a majority of the other boroughs. Greenwich is the only notable exception to this picture, with very little reduction over the last five years and a small increase in 2007/08.

39. Hackney state that their success is due to a good management team that is co-located with an ethos of shared credit and a strong performance focus. Local authority funding has been an important factor in delivering longer-term reductions across a variety of crime types, i.e. funding of vehicles and equipment. They have closely followed the MPS strategies for tackling robbery and burglary and have used the CCSM (Crime Control Strategy Meeting) process to adopt good practice ideas.

Crime Detection (exception reporting)

40. Appendices 8 and 9 show figures for each of the last five years by borough for robbery, residential burglary, vehicle crime, BCS assaults, BCS crime and total notifiable offences.

41. The overall picture for the MPS is one of consistent year-on-year improvement in all these crime types, with only two exceptions:

• The residential burglary SD rate fell from 18.1% in 2006/07 to 14.3% in 2007/08. The conviction of several prolific burglars, one of whom admitted to over 2,600 burglary offences, contributed to the 18.1% figure achieved in 2006/07. No individual offending on a similarly exceptional scale was convicted in 2007/08.
• The vehicle crime SD rate fell slightly from 6.9% in 2005/06 to 6.7% in 2006/07.

42. Again, the picture for boroughs is varied across crime types, but the following are the most notable divergences from the overall MPS trends.

43. Robbery

Improvement (consistent and substantial improvement year-on-year): -
Bromley
Haringey
Havering

Deterioration:
Greenwich: down from 16.9% in 2003/04 to 10.4% in 2007/08

44. Residential Burglary

Improvement (consistent and substantial improvement year-on-year):
Croydon
Lewisham

Deterioration:
Brent: three years of striking improvement, but dropped down to 7.6% in 2007/08.
Wandsworth: 10% in 2003/04, 7.1% in 2007/08.

45. Vehicle Crime
Improvement
Harrow
Havering

46. BCS Assaults
The SD rate has improved greatly in recent years, reflecting the introduction of, and increasing use of, penalty notices for disorder when dealing with offences under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.

47. BCS Crime and TNO (see Appendix 9)

BCS and TNO SD rates have improved markedly across all boroughs since 2003/04. One of the strongest performers was Hackney, whose TNO SD rate went from 11.2% in 2003/04 to 29.6% in 2007/08, an improvement of 18.4%. Similarly, Redbridge’s TNO SD rate went from 10.7% in 2003/04 to 29% in 2007/08, an improvement of 18.3%.

48. These improvements can be attributed to strong and effective management processes, placement of key staff within the Crime Management Unit (CMU), combined with effective systems for the management of warrants and forensics.

C. Race and equality impact

1. There are no direct implications for equal opportunity or diversity arising from this work.

2. However, the MPS remains committed to making the whole of London safer and there is much in this report that shows the considerable and sustained reductions in crime made by the MPS and the steady improvements in sanction detections performance.

3. The TP Diversity Action Plan demonstrates TP’s commitment to providing an equitable service to the people of London.

D. Financial implications

There are no direct implications for finance or resources arising from this work.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author(s): Commander Paul Minton, MPS

For more information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback