Policing Performance Assessment Framework and Baseline Assessment 2004/05

ps/04/05
24 November 2005
MPA briefing paper

Author: Siobhan Coldwell, Head of Scrutiny and Review and Jane Owen, Head of Performance and Planning, MPA

This briefing paper has been prepared to inform members and staff. It is not a committee report and no decisions are required.

Introduction

This paper provides members with an explanation of the baseline assessment, including its purpose and methodology. It also outlines the PPAF framework.

Baseline assessment

What is it?

Baseline assessment is process used by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) to assess the performance of the MPS during 2004/05. It has involved an assessment of performance against agreed standards and known good practice. Each area of policing activity is awarded a grade – poor, fair, good and excellent – and most areas are awarded a ‘direction of travel’ – improved, stable or deteriorated. It is a diagnostic assessment aimed at generating a tailored programme of inspection for each police service. Where police forces score well, and can demonstrate that they have effective processes in place, they will be ‘rewarded’ with a ‘light touch’ inspection regime consisting of a validation of their self assessment and an HMI-led assessment of corporate governance and leadership

The assessments are derived from qualitative and quantitative data including two-week on-site inspection that took place earlier this year.

What does it cover?

A comprehensive table is attached at appendix 1 that outlines which areas are covered in detail. In brief, activity is reviewed in the PPAF domains of:

• Citizen focus
• Reducing crime
• Investigating crime
• Promoting safety and
• Providing assistance
• Resource use

Leadership and direction is also included although it is not a PPAF domain.

Professional standards, included in the citizen focus domain, has not been assessed this year as all forces are being subjected to a full assessment during autumn 2005.

How does it work?

As noted above, the assessments are derived using qualitative and quantitative information that was gathered during the Spring of 2005 and of the performance information for the year 2004/05. This included interviews with members and officers of the MPA.

Judgements are made by analysing this information against specific grading criteria that have been identified for each area (these have been published and can be made available to Members on request). The process was piloted last year and these gradings have been tightened for this year’s assessment in conjunction with ACPO and other expert practitioners. It is for this reason that it is possible to receive lower ‘delivery’ score and still be judged as ‘improving’. Where the grading frameworks and criteria have changed so significantly that comparison is not deemed possible, no ‘direction of travel’ grade has been awarded. This is the case for the two diversity frameworks (in citizen focus and resource use).

Where next with baseline?

As noted above, the assessment will be used to guide inspection activity over the next year. Given the mixed assessment of the MPS, it is unlikely that there will be any reduction in inspection activity. Discussions will take place over the next few months to finalise a programme.

Policing Performance Assessment Framework (PPAF)

PPAF is intended to be an effective and fair way of measuring and comparing strategic performance in policing across the full range of policing responsibilities. PPAF focuses on force and BCU.

Measures were initially devised by the Home Office with support from APA, ACPO, HMIC and MPS to cover a wide range of policing activities.

Data on the measures is passed to the Home office and is used to:

• monitor force / BCU performance over time;
• compare performance of similar forces / BCUs;
• assess the likelihood of meeting any target set for the measure.

Forces and BCUs performance is compared on a ‘most similar’ basis. Each force is placed in a group of its ‘most similar forces’ as determined by demographic, socio-economic and geographical factors strongly correlated with levels of recorded crime (e.g. percentage of young males 16-24).

The MPS is compared with West Midlands, Greater Manchester, Merseyside and West Yorkshire. It must be remembered that the difference between the MPS and all other forces is such that no other force compares itself with the MPS.

There are a number of reasons for this that relate to the unique nature of London including:

• The national and international responsibilities of the MPS
• The large amount of tourism within London
• London being the centre of national government and the diplomatic service
• The resident population of London is the most diverse in the world
• The daily change in the London population caused by commuting

It is important to ensure that this is taken into account when looking at the data.

National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS)

The MPS failed its most recent NCRS audit (carried out in late 2004). As a result of this the MPS was not given credit for some areas of improvement within PPAF and baseline assessment. The MPA has continued to emphasize that improvements must be made to data quality and an action plan has been developed to ensure that the next NCRS audit results will show improvement.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback