APPENDIX 2
LETTER TO THE CLERK OF THE COMMITTEE AND
A SUPPLEMENTARY MEMORANDUM FROM THE HOME OFFICE (PAC 97-98/238)
Joint Performance Management-Public Accounts
Committee
On 2 February the Director of Public Prosecutions
appeared before the Public Accounts Committee in response to the
NAO report on the Crown Prosecution Service. At that time the
Committee sought further information on three issues:
- the improvement in performance at
the JPM pilot site in Preston;
- data on the best performing police
areas;
- future targets for improvement.
Subsequently, the Director of the Public Prosecutions
wrote to you suggesting that as HM Inspectorate of Constabulary
now collects the Joint Performance Management (JPM) Data, it would
be more appropriate for us to respond to your enquiries. This
letter sets out the extent of our involvement and provides the
latest information we have available.
Preston Pilot Site
The Inspectorate were not originally involved
in the monitoring of data from any of the JPM pilot sites. Our
involvement in the data collection exercise began on the 1st of
April 1997 with the collection of the quarterly returns for 1997.
Some of the questions asked of the DPP relate to that earlier
period. As such, we have no direct data to present from this stage
of the exercise but instead forward for your information the data
provided to us by the CPS and for which they assume responsibility.
Data from the Preston pilot site has in the
past been used as an example of good practice as it showed incremental
improvements in both timeliness and quality over the period July
1995 to December 1996. Since we have been collecting the JPM data
from forces, the improvements seen in Preston have not been reproduced
by Lancashire Constabulary as a whole. In fact the data for March
1997 shows a noticeable drop in performance which in the case
of timeliness has been improved again since then (see Table 1
and for full details, Table 2 at Annex A to this letter.)
There are two reasons for this downturn in performance.
In January 1997, Lancashire Constabulary extended JPM from the
two pilot divisions across the whole force, encompassing a further
4 divisions. In addition, there was internal organisational change
with criminal justice issues devolved from headquarters to operational
divisions.
At present, Lancashire Constabulary is in the
process of being inspected and I am informed that the JPM systems
will feature in that process.
Forces' Response to JPM
As there were sensitivities around the CPS continuing
to supply local police performance information for the purposes
of national aggregation and target setting, the Inspectorate of
Constabulary was asked to take on the national quarterly data
collection exercise. This was to continue for eighteen months
to monitor the roll-out period. Thereafter, summary information
would be requested only on an annual basis as part of our detailed
statistical return.
The data for three quarters of 1997 has now
been collected and analysed and the final quarter October to December
1997 is currently being collated-all but 5 or 6 returns have arrived.
In the third quarter July to September 1997:
- 26 forces were able to provide complete
figures;
- 13 forces have said that they will
not be able to supply this data until 1998; and
- 4 forces should be able to provide
data for quarter 4 1997.
In each quarter since the introduction of this
initiative there has been an increase in the number of forces
that have been able to provide the data, although some have presented
it with health warnings about the accuracy or have provided a
data only on a sampling basis. Given the incompleteness of the
data series and the comparatively short collection period, it
would be unwise to reach firm conclusions or seek to establish
definitive trends in performance. It will be some time before
a sufficient database has been established to enable meaningful
trends in performance to be identified. The following analysis
is therefore presented on an indicative basis.
The ability to provide data must be considered
against a background of the agreement for phased introduction
of JPM both within and across forces and the need in many instances
for forces to update data collection systems to meet new requirements.
That is not without cost to forces and must be planned accordingly.
Table 3 (Annex A) shows the improvement in the
number of forces able to provide the data. In addition to the
numbers in Q2 and Q3, Leicestershire can also provide data but
had stopped monitoring Abbreviated files as a result of an agreement
reached between the force and the local CPS branch. They have
been asked to continue monitoring all files for the time being
and have supplied full data for the fourth quarter of 1997. It
has been estimated that by the first quarter of 1998 almost all
forces will be able to provide the JPM data. From the incoming
returns for the last quarter of 1997, it appears that 30 forces
will have submitted returns.
There is a growing enthusiasm in forces about
this scheme and the Inspectorate has received frequent enquiries
and requests from forces for information about the national picture
in order that they can compare themselves with others. Contact
names within forces have been circulated so that discussion about
methods of improving performance can be facilitated between JPM
managers around the country.
Improvements Over Time
Of the forces now providing the data only thirteen
have done so since the start of the national exercise. Clearly,
this limits the scope for comparisons of improvements in performance
over time (Table 4, Annex A). When examining the data it is important
to be aware that in small forces seemingly large changes in performance
can relate to very small numbers of files, for example, the City
of London Police and may therefore not be statistically significant.
Also, some changes may relate to refinements in the data collection
process as the forces get used to the system and iron out problems.
Forces show wide variation in performance both
in terms of timeliness of submission and file quality. Over the
three quarters of 1997 analysed so far, Bedfordshire, Lancashire,
the Metropolitan Policeand Nottinghamshire have
shown notable improvements in the percentage of files that are
within the Pre-Trial Issues time limits. The remainder have maintained
their performance albeit Gwent at a much lower level than the
rest. Derbyshire has shown a steady improvement in files
classed as fully satisfactory as has the City of London.
The remainder of forces maintained their performance in terms
of file quality.
Best Performers
Overall, the range of JPM performance is wide.
In the third quarter of 1997 the percentage of files within PTI
limits ranged from 20.8% (Gwent) to 85.7% (Surrey)
averaging 62% and the percentage of files that are fully satisfactory
ranged from 75.6% (Norfolk) to 35.7% (West Yorkshire)
averaging 52.3%-Figures 1 and 2 (Annex A). The great differences
can be explained to some extent by discrepancies in recording
practices, for example, Gwent and some other forces do not include
fast-tracked cases whereas other forces count them as successful
against both quality and timeliness targets. The former approach
has the effect of suppressing performance. Variation in practice
has been addressed through the revision of operational guidelines.
The wider the range in performance, the more difficult it is to
set meaningful national targets.
In terms of all round performance in the third
quarter, City of London, Cleveland, Cambridgeshire, Gloucestershire,
Norfolk and Northumbria and to a lesser extent Warwickshire,
were well above average for both timeliness and quality in the
third quarter of 1997 and could be said to rank amongst the better
performers.
Target Setting
Although it is not for the Inspectorate to set
targets for the Service in this area of policing, we would be
involved in monitoring force performance against any targets recommended
by the Home Office/CPS. As I recall, at the outset of JPM emphasis
was placed on using JPM data to inform deliberations within the
local police-CPS liaison groups with the aim of setting local
targets for improvement based on local circumstances and imperatives.
This was seen very much as a locally based initiative. Any proposal
to set national targets might change the basis of JPM and would
therefore require different factors to be considered. Before any
force could be judged against nationally set targets it is vital
that the base data collected is both an accurate reflection of
force activity and consistently recorded between forces such that
comparisons are meaningful.
At present, not all forces are able to provide
the JPM data and there are known to be some anomalies in the way
forces apply the counting rules. Although new operational guidelines
have been circulated it is highly likely that further anomalies
will be identified as the initiative gains momentum and greater
experience is gained in collecting data. The setting of targets
should be based on what realistically forces are likely to achieve.
Until forces have consolidated the JPM process and in the absence
of a sufficiently robust data series it would be less easy to
set meaningful national targets.
As you may know, JPM issues are overseen by
the Trials Issues Group (TIG), chaired by the Lord Chancellor's
Department, on which all interested parties are represented. TIG
is supported by a JPM working group chaired by the Home Office.
Ultimately the setting of national targets would properly be a
matter for that forum.
If you require any further information I would
be very happy to assist.
Martin Lee
HMIC/Performance Monitoring Unit
| 
