Inspection rationale

Report: 8
Date: 11 December 2001
By: Commissioner

Summary

The MPS is committed to ensuring that it is a more open and transparent organisation. One of the methods chosen to ensure that this transparency continues, is the inspection process. This report outlines the reasoning and the rationale for why boroughs are being inspected. This rationale is the foundation for the introduction of the new MPS Local Inspection Programme and it is the Commissioner's aim that the MPS has a robust inspection framework, which ensures that all Operational and Support Command Units / Directorates are effective contributors to service delivery. This report is an extract of a larger report, entitled 'The Borough Beat – The Borough Operational Command Unit Inspection Handbook'.

A. Recommendations

That Members are asked to note the report.

B. Supporting information

1. There are thirty-two borough-based operational command units (BOCUs), sharing coterminous boundaries with the thirty-two London boroughs in the Metropolitan Police District (MPD) and no two are exactly alike. They vary in size from over 1,600 police officers and civil staff colleagues to a little under 400. What they do share are some key aims and objectives, specifically to:

• work towards meeting the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) priorities and objectives
• work with partner agencies to reduce crime in their area,
• provide public reassurance and confidence by:
  • listening, respecting and treating individuals and groups of individuals according to their need
  • providing a positive and responsive police service; including accessible services and buildings and approachable staff
  • showing that a commitment to equality and fairness means that everybody benefits
  • enhancing the morale and capabilities of all its staff

2. Police performance has been under scrutiny for many years, but recently there has been a shift of emphasis from Service-level outcomes to ask: how well are individual BOCUs doing? This is a logical progression given that policing is essentially a local service that reflects the individual needs of increasingly diverse communities. But BOCUs are not islands – they operate within a corporate framework of policy and support determined at New Scotland Yard.

3. The challenge to deliver improved performance in the context of rising demand and scarce resources is unlikely to abate in the short term. The Metropolitan Police Service and the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) will need to ensure that BOCUs continuously seek to improve their performance year after year. Indeed, the statutory regime of best value demands 'continuous improvement' and an array of sanctions exist if this is not delivered. The Government has recognised the need for extra resources in the fight against crime, and the 2000/2001 financial settlement is acknowledged to be the most generous the MPS has received for many years. More police officers, enhanced communications and information technology, better training and career development provision and ever more sophisticated forensic techniques should all enhance our effectiveness, and help to improve public confidence.

4. We know that performance between BOCUs operating in similar policing environments and with comparable resources vary to a degree that is at times remarkable (Table 1). The publication for the first time of national basic command unit's performance in early 2000 showed that burglaries per 1,000 households ranged from 2.6 to 89.5, while detections for that offence varied from 3% to 55%. Between apparently similar basic command units, burglary incidence can vary by a factor of 15, while detection rates vary by an average factor of just over five. The position in the MPS is that the burglary incidence can vary by a factor of 2, while detection rates vary by an average factor of just over six.

Table 1 - Burglary dwelling offences and detection rates across BOCU clusters [1]

MPS clusters:

1. Camden and Westminster
2. Brent, Ealing, Greenwich, Hackney, Haringey, Islington, Lambeth, Lewisham, Newham, Southwark and Tower Hamlets
3. Barnet, Croydon, Enfield, Hammersmith & Fulham, Harrow, Hillingdon, Hounslow, Kensington & Chelsea, Kingston Upon Thames, Merton, Redbridge, Richmond Upon Thames, Waltham Forest and Wandsworth
8. Barking & Dagenham, [1] Bexley, Bromley, Havering and Sutton

5. It is accepted that particular local factors affect the incidence of crime. For example, a concentration within a BOCU of late-night clubs and pubs brings with it public order and violent crime problems. Similarly, the ease or difficulty of detection is influenced by the environment: catching burglars in an area with a highly mobile population and an abundance of houses in multiple occupation is more difficult than in a village with one road in and out, where strangers are immediately noticed. But such local factors alone, cannot account fully for the performance gaps that clearly exist.

6. The question 'Why are some BOCUs more effective than others?' is a vital one for the MPS. Generalisations are easy. Once contextual factors are accounted for, differences can be attributed to a combination of good leadership, effective deployment, intelligence-based techniques, the right blend of expertise and experience, appropriate support from New Scotland Yard, successful crime and disorder reduction partnerships and so on. But such generalisations are of limited value to a BOCU commander looking to raise performance in a particular Borough. How, therefore, can BOCUs learn from each other? More importantly, how can the lessons of the most effective BOCUs be understood and communicated in order to help others raise their game? One route is an inspection of every BOCU in the MPS that:

• focuses on integrity, leadership, and performance;
• helps to identify strengths and areas for improvement based upon the methodology used in the Excellence Model in order to achieve continuous improvement across a range of processes and outcomes;
• allows BOCUs to promote a shared understanding of what constitutes success in terms of performance and impact on their local community;
• collates and disseminates good practice across the MPS;
• strengthens performance and learning cultures within BOCUs.

7. The Commissioner and Management Board have endorsed this approach, agreeing on a cycle of inspections. There are a number of processes and systems already in place that will aid in the examination of what contributes to success. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) has led the way in producing a methodology for their national five-year programme of basic command unit (BCU) inspections. They have published their methodology in Going Local – The BCU Inspection Handbook and our own inspection process is based largely upon this. BOCUs own self-assessments, whether in the form of Excellence Model reviews, internal self inspections or the monthly meetings with the Assistant Commissioner (Territorial Policing) (AC'TP') at which BOCU commanders are held to account for performance, all contain valuable insights that any inspection methodology must capture. What is needed to ensure continuous improvement in performance is to turn the generalisations set out in paragraph 6 into realistic actions and tactics that BOCUs can apply to their own particular circumstances. What works for one BOCU may not necessarily be transferable – what works for a number of BOCUs is more likely to have universal benefit. The development of the MPS Policing Model, with its focus on intelligence, feeding and being fed by key processes (Investigation; Diversion; Problem Solving; Targeting and Forensics) will provide a valuable framework for the evaluation of initiatives and the sharing of best practice.

8. For this reason, an agreed programme of BOCU inspections has far greater potential for impact than a thematic review of BOCU effectiveness that simply draws out principles of good practice. Such principles are valuable but often require considerable 'customisation' to local circumstances. Where a BOCU serves a large minority ethnic community, the inspection will address race and diversity issues with support from the Diversity Directorate and drawing upon available local information.

9. The aim is for an objective, insightful inspection using the best available comparative data, and deploying the skills of experienced ACPO and BOCU commanders to get beneath the surface of performance figures. Remote examination of performance information – however sophisticated – is a poor substitute for watching a BOCU at work and engaging with key staff. From October 2001 the inspection programme will generate examples of good practice that offer the best opportunity to date of understanding what makes an effective BOCU. Use of a consistent but flexible methodology will maximise the applicability of these findings. BOCUs and the MPS will use the inspection analysis, together with pointers of good practice, to formulate and implement an agreed corrective action plan to improve service delivery. The action plan will be a means by which immediate remedial action may be taken to address issues thereby reducing risks.

C. Financial implications

The expected cost for each inspection is approximately £12,000. This figure is based upon the costing of the inspection that has already taken place at Bromley and covers the daily staff cost of an ACPO officer, the daily cost of a Ch. Superintendent (or a senior civil staff member in place of an ACPO officer or Ch Superintendent), the daily staff cost of the Inspection Team and the Link Member's time.

There are no additional costs as inspections will be carried out by existing staff from within Inspectorate.

D. Background papers

• PSPM Report 13 of the 11 October 2001 meeting
• PSPM Paper - MPS Local Inspection Programme - Bromley BOCU Inspection

E. Contact details

Report authors: Chief Superintendent Peter Zieminski, MPS.

For information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback