Dissemination of good practice – monitoring regime

Report: 06
Date: 11 April 2002
By: Commissioner

Summary

This report outlines the developments in the performance regime operating within Territorial Policing (TP). This regime is designed to identify good and poor performance and take appropriate action. This includes the dissemination of good practice. The performance monitoring role of the Professional Standards and Performance Monitoring Committee (PSPM) is an integral part of this performance regime.

A. Recommendation

That Members note the contents of this report.

B. Supporting information

1. The matter of the dissemination of good practice within the MPS was raised at the PSPM of 14 February 2002. Before good practice can be disseminated it must first be identified. This requires a performance regime which is robust in identifying differences and their reasons.

Performance measurement

2. The complexities of policing make the identification of good practice problematical. In order to link police activity to an identified positive or negative outcome, TPHQ is developing a performance management structure based upon the MPS Policing Model which will enable activity to be linked to outcome. This will include a measure of the resource investment in terms of staff and other resources into each of the key Policing Model elements and the return on that investment. This will enable comparisons to be made across BOCUs and therefore good practice identified. This has been lacking to date and as a result good practice has only been identified by specific initiatives or anecdote.

Performance regime:

3. There will be from April 2002 five levels of scrutiny within TP.

• Level 1 : Borough commanders
• Level 2 : Cluster commanders
• Level 3 :
• Level 4 : Performance Review Committee PRC
• Level 5 : Professional Standards and Performance Monitoring Committee

4. Level 1: Borough commanders receiving proforma reports based on policing model processes.

5. Level 2: Cluster commanders to identify top performers, coaster and poor performers from performance data using benchmarks.

• Fortnightly meeting of cluster commanders for best practice and exception reports.
• Tasking by DAC TP
• Product support from TP performance unit.

6. Level 3:

• 2 'coasting' boroughs scrutinised against processes and challenged by DAC 'TP' & Commander Crime, per month.
• 1 poor performing borough scrutinised against processes and challenged by AC TP with DAC 'TP' & commander crime, per month.

7. Level 4: Performance Review Committee

• TP overall performance & poor performers scrutinised by PRC based on exception reports.

8. Level 5: PSPM

• TP performance & BOCU performance scrutinised through exception reports and inspections.

9. The purpose of these scrutinies is to identify good and poor performance but more importantly the reasons for it. It is hoped that this will dynamically flush out good practice through 'what works' which can quickly be disseminated through the TP commanders at a fortnightly tasking meeting at TPHQ to drive through performance improving practices.

MPS inspection processes:

10. In addition to the TP performance regime, the various internal and HMIC inspections provide further opportunities to identify good practice. The MPS Inspectorate has been tasked by the Deputy Commissioner to look at providing a database of good practice for the MPS to utilise. The Inspectorate are due to report their findings to the Deputy Commissioner in mid-April.

C. Financial implications

No direct financial implications arise from this paper.

D. Background papers

None.

E. Contact details

Report authors: DAC Tim Godwin, MPS.

For information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback