Review of performance information provided to MPA committees

Report: 7
Date: 13 March 2001
By: Clerk

Summary

A review of all of the performance information provided to MPA committees has been carried out by the MPA Senior Analyst. The review has taken into account the view of members, current performance information and the recommendations made at the awayday on 4 January 2001. Recommendations for performance information management are provided in this report.

A. Recommendations

1. That the lead committees for dealing with performance information topics are agreed as shown at Appendix 2.
2. That PSPM, HR and CDO receive a high level summary of performance information for those areas that they are responsible for on a bi-monthly basis, including commentary from the MPS and MPA officers.
3. That relevant management reports produced by the MPS are included as background papers to the summary reports.
4. That lead officers are assigned to each committee.
5. That topics of on-going high importance are subject to in-depth reports to committees.
6. That lead members are assigned to topics of high importance.
7. That member workshops are held for areas of emerging importance or where greater understanding is required.

B. Supporting information

1. Officers and members had previously identified the need for a review of the performance information provided to each of the MPA committees. The awayday in January further highlighted this need. On appointment of the Senior Analyst, a formal project was set up to carry out the review. The review was carried out by means of:

• an evaluation of information requirements for each committee using the terms of reference for committees and the current performance reports provided;
• a survey of members regarding information received and interviews with Chairs and Deputy Chairs of committees;
• discussion with MPS staff responsible for producing performance information;
• consideration of the recommendations made regarding the frequency and agendas for meetings at the awayday in January;
• consideration of the recommendations made by the Association of Police Authorities in a review of approaches authorities take to managing performance.

2. Survey forms were sent out to all members. Members were asked to complete a form for each of the committee meetings they attend, except the Audit Panel. Key MPA officers for each meeting were also asked to complete a questionnaire. A total of 59 questionnaires were sent out and 15 returned. In addition, interviews were carried out with the chairs and deputy chairs of committees where available. A summary of the interviews and results from the survey are shown at Appendix 1.

3. The MPA awayday also identified the following committee issues in relation to the provision of performance information:

• too much paper at meetings and reports too lengthy;
• the need for better presented reports with more visual aids;
• reports should include comments from MPA staff;
• the need for better ways of keeping all Members informed of the work of the various committees.

4. Information provision to MPA committees is still under development and is resource intensive for the MPS. The following principles were hence applied when making recommendations regarding the provision of performance information:

• existing MPS reports area used where available;
• information overload to be avoided;
• timely information;
• lead committees only to receive detailed information;
• all reports to be available to all members on request;
• detailed consideration of any topic to be open to all members;
• MPA officers to consider issues in depth and advise lead members and chairs of emerging trends and issues.

5. It is recommended that lead committees be identified for dealing with performance information by topic area, rather than by individual performance indicator, as in the table at Appendix 2. The lead committees concerned would be tasked to deal with all queries on areas raised by other committees or the full Authority.

6. To reduce the amount of information members generally have to deal with it is recommended that PSPM, HR and CDO receive a high level summary of performance information for those areas that they are responsible for on a bi-monthly basis. This will be accompanied by commentary from MPS and MPA staff highlighting emerging trends and exceptions from the normal. Summaries will be developed between the MPS and MPA officers to reflect the new policing plan and will begin in April 2001.

7. It is recommended that the MPS performance review committee (PRC) paper and the MPS human resource paper are provided to PSPM and HR committees respectively as background information to the summaries, rather than substantive items.

8. It is recommended that each committee has a lead MPA officer assigned, responsible for providing further commentary on performance data and for ensuring reports meet the needs of the committee. The lead officers are suggested as:

• PSPM: Senior Analyst Johanna Gillians
• FPBV: Best Value Manager Derrick Norton
• CDO: Senior Policy Advisor Julia Smith
• HR: Human Resources Manager Alan Johnson
• MPA: Head of Secretariat Simon Vile

9. It is recommended that topics be identified for more in-depth reporting at regular intervals throughout the year. The committees cannot look at every single area of police performance in-depth. However, certain areas have been identified that currently require more information than just summary performance information. These areas are those that require continued monitoring. Only the lead committee for each topic would receive the in-depth report. Suggested areas for reporting upon are shown below:

10. It is recommended that for each of the above areas one or two lead members be nominated from the lead committee. The lead MPA officer and the analysts can then have one point of contact when co-ordinating members to ensure that the MPS develops relevant reports and information.

11. In addition to these regular reports, it is recommended that for items of high importance workshops should be held to discuss the issues in greater depth. These areas would be either emerging issues or areas where members require a greater understanding before decisions can be made. The process for workshops is suggested as:

• a standing agenda item on each committee is whether a workshop is required after the next meeting and what the subject will be;
• the lead MPA officer will then co-ordinate with the lead member(s) and the MPS to provide information to members in advance on the subject;
• the lead member will chair the workshop;
• the lead officer will facilitate and take notes on the workshop;
• workshops will be held after the lead committee meeting for that subject;
• all interested members will be invited to attend the workshop;
• the lead member and officer will provide a report back to the lead committee and circulate notes and actions to all members attending the workshop;
• as the workshops will be a fact finding exercise rather than a decision making forum, they will not be held in public;
• workshops should be held from April 2001.

12. It is recommended that all performance reports be part of a MPA library. The library contents should be regularly updated to members and copies of all reports available on request.

13. It is recommended that a further review of information provision be carried out in 6 months time. This review should be preceded by an evaluation of the usefulness to, and use by, members of the information provided, set against the actual and opportunity costs to the MPS of its creation and provision. Information provision, particularly to FPBV, may change in the light of the motion to the London Assembly presented by Lord Toby Harris regarding the MPA's responsibilities for reviewing budgets and performance of the MPS, and the subsequent paper being written by the MPS in relation to this motion.

C. Financial implications

There are no direct financial implications.

D. Background papers

• Can you manage it? A review of the approaches police authorities take to managing performance, Association of Police Authorities
• Summary of MPA Awayday, 4 January 2001

E. Contact details

This author of this report is Johanna Gillians, Senior Analyst, MPA.

For information contact:

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

Appendix 1: Results of surveys and interviews with MPA members

Survey forms were sent out to all members. Members were asked to complete a form for each of the committee meetings they attend. Key MPA officers for each meeting were also asked to complete a questionnaire.

The audit panel receives little performance information; hence this committee was not considered as part of the review.

All Chairs and Deputies were invited to be interviewed regarding information provision to their committees. Interviews were carried with the following MPA members:

• Reshard Auladin, Deputy Chair, FPBV
• John Biggs, Deputy Chair, HR
• Nick Long, Deputy Chair, FPBV
• Richard Sumray, Chair, PSPM
• Graham Tope, Chair, FPBV
• Rachel Whittaker, Chair, HR

Professional Standards and Performance Monitoring committee (PSPM)

The main points from consultation on information provided to PSPM can be summarised as:

• there is a large amount of high-level information going to the committee currently, however, this is required at least in the short term to enable the monitoring of all performance areas;
• a higher-level summary of performance would be useful;
• the committee requires MPA analysts to provide briefing and interpretation of data in key areas or changes in performance that need attention;
• it is useful to have the same information as the management board, though this may be too much detail for some members to consider in the committee meeting;
• issues of the quality of performance data are increasing;
• workshops to consider areas of performance where more in-depth scrutiny is required would be useful;
• future work will be required to provide more performance information in the area of professional standards;
• borough information needs developing.

Human Resources committee (HR)

The main points from consultation on information provided to PSPM can be summarised as:

The detail of information required varies between members – some like to see fully detailed information and others would like a more summarised strategic version

• papers to HR are often submitted too late for consideration;
• briefing and interpretation on main performance issues is required from analysts;
• some questions asked at committee should be replied to by means of briefing notes to all members rather than discussion papers, to reduce the number of papers to the committee;
• the quality of information provided needs investigating;
• financial information is lacking;
• priorities for review need determining;
• Workshops would be useful for key areas of review.

Consultation, Diversity and Outreach committee (CDO)

The main points from consultation on information provided to CDO can be summarised as:

• CDO needs to develop the reporting of relevant performance indicators;
• the frequency and content of performance information is about right but quality varies;
• further debate is required on some key areas to understand all of the issues involved;
• further information is needed on stop and search data;
• there will be the need to develop further performance indicators for new areas such as CRR training;
• issues covered by CDO need to be focused on priority issues and those of public concern.

Finance, Planning and Best Value committee (FPBV)

The main points from consultation on information provided to FPBV can be summarised as:

• there is less of a need for performance information than other committees – information required is mainly financial;
• report production is now better – but all relevant information should be on the front page and an audit trail of document circulation shown;
• a library of reports should be kept for members who are interested in other committees' reports and other publications;
• analysts should have access to all raw material and should carrying out analysis. The main points should be included on the front page of performance reports;
• performance information is needed when setting the Policing Plan and Priorities;
• afurther review in 6 months time may be useful as committee develops its Best Value responsibilities.

Full MPA Authority

The detail of information required by members varies – but many would like to see less performance information:

• information provided is not always up to date;
• a higher level summary presentation of performance information is required;
• references to previous documents are needed;
• members should be told what information is available and how to access it;
• reports are not always focused enough;
• the quality of information provided varies;
• borough based information would be useful to members;
• recommendations don't always follow from the reports.\

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback